Pharyngula

Posted by: Cheezits | August 12, 2009 8:38 AM

I dont want to try to change your mind(because i know thats impossible) or anything...

Did ya catch that smug little comment? No preconceived bullshit here! Be nice, my ass.

Posted by: Thorn | August 12, 2009 8:41 AM

That's just unfair.

Posted by: R-Tam | August 12, 2009 8:42 AM

"nothing anyone says will change your mind on how you believe things work and about god...I dont want to try to change your mind(because i know thats impossible)"

Oh my, that girl is a prodify! Only 15 years old and already a master of the ancient Christian art of Projection.

Posted by: Robert Bruce Thompson | August 12, 2009 8:44 AM

Hi, Nikki

You're wrong about one thing. It's not impossible to change PZ's mind. He's a scientist, and no scientist ever accepts anything as absolutely proven or disproven. Like any scientist, PZ will change his mind if you present evidence to show im that he's wrong.

That's the difference between scientists and religious people. Scientists doubt everything and are actually happy to uncover evidence that proves them wrong about something. Religious people take their beliefs as absolutely true and reject any evidence to the contrary.

So, if you want to change PZ's mind, all you need to do is present evidence (real evidence, not arguments from authority) that he's wrong.

Posted by: Lauren Ipsum | August 12, 2009 8:45 AM

eh, I've actually met (online) a few of these who are genuine. Honestly, sweetly bewildered about why someone wouldn't perceive the universe the way they were taught. The conversation is pleasant but ultimately unproductive, because it generally finishes up as "Okay, well, if you were taught X and Y, I guess I understand why you think the way you do, but I respectfully disgree with you." It's the debating equivalent of running on a treadmill: a certan amount of exercise, doesn't get you anywhere.

Posted by: Edwin Hensley | August 12, 2009 8:47 AM

This is the approach we need to take with reasonable people. When I got the opportunity to speak at Christian Academy of Louisville, I took it. I believe that I planted seeds of doubt. It may be years later before these seeds bear fruit, but many of these high school students had never heard what I presented before. I can not link directly to my presentation at work due to proxy servers blocking meetup.com, but you can go to atheists.meetup.com/175, select the FILES tab, and search for Christian Academy of Louisville presentation. It is a power point presentation.

Posted by: Ramdic Hellbane | August 12, 2009 8:48 AM

This e-mail is so obviously a fake.

Posted by: Kel, OM | August 12, 2009 8:50 AM

The question I posed in post #9 is there for anyone btw. That includes you Vox Day.

Posted by: Dancaban | August 12, 2009 8:52 AM

You know we do change our minds or should I say revise them constantly. I was stunned last year by watching a tv program on epigenetics because up to then all I knew about inheritance was DNA/RNA. It was explained very well so in the space of about an hour my mind was changed - it was expanded.

Posted by: justinaquino | August 12, 2009 8:55 AM

This gives a new meaning to: "It takes a village..."

I was in Nikki's position once. In fact Opus Dei tried to train us to argue against Athiests, Protestants, and other religions... One of the arguments is anyone can misrepresent the bible to make it sound anyway they want it to... (strange huh?)

It would really be better for a face to face meet up where she brings her friends and an adult guardian, while these young people can ask the questions and see how transparent the other side is. The adult guardian on the meant time, will be there to protect and to dispute everything on the spot or in the car ride home.

Posted by: Eric | August 12, 2009 9:00 AM

I don't see why people consider this fake. It very well could be, but I don't see anything that makes it more likely to be fake than a genuine, honest, 15-year old girl who has been raised in a Christian environment and is truly curious why atheists believe what they do - I was in the same position once.

And if it is fake, what do you lose by treating it like it's real anyway?

Posted by: Dusty | August 12, 2009 9:01 AM

Reads like the letter to the New York Sun spawning the reply "Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Clause".
Troll

Posted by: flawedprefect | August 12, 2009 9:06 AM

Awesome. Nikki rocks for reaching out. I'd give her the benefit of the doubt, and assume she's genuine. I'd start by wearing a t-shirt saying "Haven't hugged a Christian? Here's your chance" Cos it worked for Cambridge (the atheist) on her visit to CM!

I am all for speaking to those who wish to reach out to us. Why scare folks off, peeps? Let's see if she posts, and see what she says.

Posted by: Stephen Wells | August 12, 2009 9:10 AM

Nikki; if you turn up: technically you're right that PZ's mind is unlikely to be changed by what you have to _say_. That's because in science we need, not only arguments, but also _evidence_.

Scientific claims about things like the age of the earth and about evolution are ultimately based on physical evidence. If you want anyone to believe in your god (and you can't start by assuming that there are any gods, or that there's only one God), you will need evidence.

Good luck.

Posted by: woodstein312 | August 12, 2009 9:13 AM

Hi Nikki,
I hope you're in for a lively (to say the least) discussion. Try to keep an open mind. And don't shy away from this crowd's wit and sarcasm. Just roll with the punches.

Who knows? Maybe we'll change your mind.

Posted by: Ray Ingles | August 12, 2009 9:14 AM

Nikki - I'll assume that you're a young-Earth creationist. Let me ask a couple questions you probably have not considered before:

1. According to the Bible, Noah took two of the 'unclean' animals and seven pairs of the 'clean' animals. How come the 'clean' animals don't show more genetic diversity than the unclean ones? (Cheetahs apparently went through a genetic 'pinch point' about 10,000 years ago, when they nearly went extinct. They are now so closely related that any cheetah can accept a skin graft from any other. How come all animals aren't like that?) How come humans don't show more genetic diversity than most animals? (They actually show less than other primates...)

2. If "Flood geology" is really a better theory, then it should make better predictions than standard geology does. How come no one's using it to find oil?

One more in my next comment.

Posted by: John Harshman | August 12, 2009 9:16 AM

This is the approach we need to take with reasonable people. When I got the opportunity to speak at Christian Academy of Louisville, I took it. I believe that I planted seeds of doubt. It may be years later before these seeds bear fruit, but many of these high school students had never heard what I presented before.

You may be right. Then again, here's a trip through the looking glass:

“Today I spoke to a group of atheists in the Special Effects Theater. The Special Effects Theater was filled to capacity, so some people were not able to attend the presentation. (About 40 people had to be turned away.) A few Christians attended the talk, but most of the attendees were not Christians [those with the SSA group were issued name tags by their organizer and so they were easily spotted]. I did a presentation on The Ultimate Proof of Creation which parallels my book with the same title. In this talk, I demonstrate that the Christian worldview must be true by showing that the alternative destroys the possibility of science and knowledge.

“Although there were a few people (perhaps 20 or so) that were softly but audibly mocking during the presentation, the rest of the audience was polite and attentive. I suspect that many of them had never heard such an argument before, and will hopefully consider the given information. I got the impression that they were really thinking about what was presented.

“After the presentation, I stayed in the lobby to answer questions. Since I had presented a very strong case that Christianity alone is rational and scientific (in a firm, but polite way), I was expecting that a lot of people would want to argue with me. But only a few of the secular students came to ask me questions (and none of the ones that were scoffing during the presentation, interestingly). Some of the students had very good follow-up questions. Two or three attempted a counter-argument, but none were able to successfully refute The Ultimate Proof of Creation. All of the people who spoke with me were polite and cordial.

“Let’s pray that the Lord uses what these students saw at the Creation Museum to soften hearts and bring many people to salvation.”—Dr. Lisle

That was from Ken Ham's report. I'm pretty sure Dr. Lisle was deluded if he thought anyone present had never heard his arguments, or if he thought he had unsettled anyone. Now of course you have reality on your side, and are perhaps more accustomed to seeing what's there rather than what you would like to be true. But still it should give one pause.

Posted by: Ray Ingles | August 12, 2009 9:16 AM

3. Books used to be copied by scribes, and (despite a lot of care) sometimes typos would be introduced. Later scribes, making copies of copies, would introduce other typos. It's possible to look at the existing copies and put them into a 'family tree'. "These copies have this typo, but not that one; this other group has yet another typo, though three of them have a newer typo as well, not seen elsewhere..." This is not controversial at all when dealing with books, including the Bible.

Now, this process of copy-with-modification naturally produces 'family trees', nested groups. When we look at life, we find such nested groups. No lizards with fur or nipples, no mammals with feathers, etc. Living things (at least, multicellular ones, see below) fit into a grouped hierarchy. This has been solidly recognized for over a thousand years, and systematized for centuries. It was one of the clues that led Darwin to propose evolution.

Today, more than a century later, we find another tree, one Darwin never suspected - that of DNA. This really is a 'text' being copied with rare typos. And, as expected, it also forms a family tree, a nested hierarchy. And, with very very few surprises, it's the same tree that was derived from looking at physical traits.

It didn't have to be that way. Even very critical genes for life - like that of cytochrome C - have a few neutral variations, minor mutations that don't affect its function. (Genetic sequences for cytochrome C differ by up to 60% across species.) Wheat engineered to use the mouse form of cytochrome C grows just fine. But we find a tree of mutations that fits evolution precisely, instead of some other tree. (Imagine if a tree derived from bookbinding technology - "this guy used this kind of glue, but this other bookbinder used a different glue..." - conflicted with a tree that was derived from typos in the text of the books. We'd know at least one tree and maybe both were wrong.)

The details of these trees are very specific and very, very numerous. There are billions of quadrillions of possible trees... and yet the two that we see (DNA and morphology) happen to very precisely match. This is either a staggering coincidence, or a Creator deliberately arranged it in a misleading manner, or... common ancestry is actually true.

(Single-celled organisms are much more 'promiscuous' in their reproduction and spread genes willy-nilly without respect for straightforward inheritance. With single-celled creatures, it looks more like a 'web' of life than a 'tree'. But even if the tree of life has tangled roots, it's still very definitely a tree when it comes to multicellular life.)

Posted by: Becca | August 12, 2009 9:20 AM

Is it a fake? Maybe, but I see no reason not to at least give it the benefit of the doubt.

So Nikki-
I am not a Christian because all there is backing up the religion is a book, an ancient piece of hearsay riddled with contradictions. It also seems to advocate genocide and rape, things I find past immoral- and then claims to have the moral high ground. Even when I was a Christian I was embarrassed by the book.I told myself that the parts with Jesus in them were better- but then I realized that while he wasn't a rapist, he still did things like condemn a fig tree because it was out of season, threaten people, tell people to abandon their families , etc...and these are things I can not in good conscience support.

I have no belief in a god because I really have not found evidence for one. Many will ask "How did the world start? Not just the plant or the universe or even the theoretical multi-verse; How is there something as opposed to nothing? Doesn't it require some outside force, something truly supernatural, a god?" Then how did god start? I don't know why theres something instead of nothing. There is insufficient data to form a hypothesis.

Feel free to ask specific questions.

Posted by: Alexandre | August 12, 2009 9:24 AM

The e-mail is weird...
Theists are generally careful to capitalize god, for instance.

Posted by: AJ Milne | August 12, 2009 9:26 AM

Shorter, re this now very standard 'I already know nothing will change your mind' gambit...

No, you don't know what. What you do clearly know, however, is that there's nothing you've actually got that I'm going to find particularly convincing.

(/Which poses the question: are you also now painfully aware it really shouldn't have been so convincing to you, either?)

Posted by: Franco | August 12, 2009 9:29 AM

And High-school graduates are generally careful to capitalize "Kentucky" and "I". Looks like Teenage Punctuation(TM) to me.

Posted by: Laurie | August 12, 2009 9:32 AM

I think this is a perfect forum for a curious 15 year old girl!

Posted by: Citizen Z | August 12, 2009 9:36 AM

I was a rather religious Christian when I was 15, and I'd bet there are quite a few others here who were also raised as Christians. So, yes, we can change our minds. Many of us already did.

Posted by: Richard Eis | August 12, 2009 9:40 AM

If she disappears after posting 2000 words...I will be very suspicious. ;)

Posted by: Callicles | August 12, 2009 9:42 AM

AdamK

Does one really need that much prior knowledge before commenting on this blog? I certainly don't demand that much from anybody who wishes for my conversation in ordinary life. And, even more, wouldn't one way for her to *start* acquiring knowledge - assuming she does not have it - of those subjects be for her to talk with those of us who do?

Posted by: E.V. | August 12, 2009 9:43 AM

Hmmm, there's something familiar about Nikki's missive...

My name is Nikki (T. Estes) ...
...i am asking you to give me a chance and have a conversation with me about god and creation. I dont want to try to change your mind(because i know thats impossible) or anything, i just want to try to understand atheists opinions. I know you are busy being a professor and such, but i would really appreciate a response.

It's amazing how Nikki and T. Estes have exactly the same ideas and naive writing style. (The uncapitalized "I" was a nice touch though)

Posted by: Alexandre | August 12, 2009 9:47 AM

While that is certainly possible, no one is usually worried that "I" or "Kentucky" will fell insulted for not being capitalized.

Posted by: marcia | August 12, 2009 9:55 AM

Talking to a teen who wants to try to change your mind about religion is not worth the time or energy. Wait until late into their college years before having this type of conversation.

"Boatloads of sophisticated imaging studies and other research show that the frontal lobe of the brain - the part involved in judgment, organization, planning and strategizing - gets all its gray matter by age 11 or 12. But the myriad connections from the frontal part aren't completely wired to function like an adult for at least another decade.

Imaging studies also suggest that because the braking system of the frontal lobe is still developing, signals from the primal emotions in the brain tend to get the upper hand."

"....the reason that teenagers sometimes make bad decisions is because the reward system in their brains is hyperactive..."

Religion has rewarded her. Right now, at her age, if you ask her, she will tell you that she can't imagine her life without it. That's not a good starting point for a conversation.

http://www.abqtrib.com/news/2007/mar/30/brain-doesnt-mature-until-20s-experts-say/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPMP68QP698&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fteenagebrain.blogspot.com%2F&feature=player_embedded

Posted by: CalGeorge | August 12, 2009 9:56 AM

"...i just want to try to understand atheists opinions."

Nikki, I dumped God when I was a little older than you. Going to a church started to seem strange - why were all these people around me congregating, why were they listening to the opinions of the man up front in the robes, and why was it necessary to repeat this exercise week after week after week? It all began to seem terribly strange, and not a little like brainwashing!

Hopefully, you will learn to think for yourself. When you do that, you won't need religion anymore. You won't need it anymore because you will understand how the fraud works.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | August 12, 2009 9:57 AM

All y'all doubters using the "inconsistent capitalization" proof of fraud: my niece writes in almost this same style, with inconsistent punctuation and capitalization and speling erors. Nikki actually seems to be slightly more literate than my niece.

Strange thing is, my niece is *very* smart, and extremely funny, if only you can decipher what she's writing.

I think she's an authentic teen (no (tm) necessary).

Nikki, if you want to know why I don't believe in god, ask yourself: why don't you believe in Zeus, or Allah?

The answer to my question is the answer to yours.

Posted by: charley | August 12, 2009 10:00 AM

Nikki (or Tom)

Stop and think about this belief:

The Bible is the infallible word of God.

You have probably heard it so many times you take it for granted, but it's an extraordinary claim, like somebody claiming they can fly, for example. Imagine how skeptical you would be if somebody made the same claim about a Harry Potter book. Extraordinary claims aren't necessarily false, but you should demand strong evidence before accepting them.

Now go and search for strong evidence that the Bible is the word of God. None of us here have seen any such evidence, and a lot of us have looked long and hard.

Posted by: raven | August 12, 2009 10:01 AM

"On the internet, no one knows you are a dog." Or as Gibson said, "All burning bushes look the same in cyberspace."

Someone once did an analysis of who hangs out on teen oriented social sites years ago. Out of 10 teen agers logged in, 2 were real teen agers, 5 were adults pretending to be teen agers, and 3 were undercover police officers looking for pedophiles.

This person may or may not be a real 15 year old. You can't assume either is true but it won't hurt to pretend one until and unless the inner death cult troll comes out.

Posted by: Lorkas | August 12, 2009 10:03 AM

I'm not totally sure this one should be in comic sans. Obviously she seems a little naive to us, but she's at least ostensibly trying to be open minded about it all. Isn't that the kind of thinking we want to encourage in religious people?

Posted by: latsot | August 12, 2009 10:05 AM

Assuming Nikki is for real, I'd like to ask her about the "same evidence, different interpretation" thing the 'museum' is so keen on. As PZ has pointed out, this fails because creationists manifestly do not use the same evidence: they pick and choose, conveniently ignoring anything that doesn't fit.

It also fails because of the difference between the scientific method and the creationist 'method'.

It would be great to see what a sincere creationist with an open mind has to say on this.

Posted by: heddle | August 12, 2009 10:09 AM

66 post and no Nikki...

Yes, but we were treated to a "death cult" post by raven, and it took all the to the aforementioned #66, so maybe the intertubes are clogged today.

Posted by: Bruce Gorton | August 12, 2009 10:10 AM

Nikki

A few things to consider here, we are all basically people who highly value honesty, and with this being online, we tend to catch out liars - so be honest.

Consider that we are also all basically argumentative - and arguments which will get you flamed include "You're mean." Someone being mean does not equal them being wrong.

Before you accuse someone of missing the point, consider what they are saying and see if they have really missed it - chances are they have actually latched onto implications you missed. That people disagree with you does not equal them not understanding you - they could well understand that you are wrong.

I would suggest you avoid arguing for creationism. This is a science blog and a lot of the people here work in fields touched upon by creationism. It isn't simply a matter of "You have faith in the scientists" the people who argue here include a lot of people who are the scientists.

Your "closed minded" gambit, is essentially a means of consoling yourself while avoiding how bad your argument really is. Skepticism is not actually closed minded, it is open to altering ideas based upon the evidence, as opposed to simply adopting ideas because they sound nice.

Posted by: AJ Milne | August 12, 2009 10:15 AM

Re the suggestive similarities between this "Nikki" and a certain uber-tedious 'n self-important proselytizer who's done his time and jumped his shark, it's interesting, but believers in conversion mode often have a certain sameness about 'em anyway, I find. Not sure it's exactly evidence it's the same vector so much as the same virus...

(/Reason number 90,244 not to go there: religion makes people boring.)

Posted by: zeroangel | August 12, 2009 10:16 AM

And as for 66 posts without Nikki, consider that all these posts have been made in less than 2 hours! If she's real (and plans to come here), let's give her some time! :)

Of course you are right, but come on, any self-respecting teenager should have her email linked to her cellphone which can surf the web!

Then, again, mom and dad might not allow that since "the interwebs are the devil!"

:)

Posted by: Sam | August 12, 2009 10:20 AM

Just wanted to point out that #75 and #77 were written by different Sams.

Posted by: AdamK | August 12, 2009 10:22 AM

AdamK

Does one really need that much prior knowledge before commenting on this blog?

I didn't say a word about "commenting on this blog." Learn to read.

Posted by: JBlilie | August 12, 2009 10:25 AM

Nick@52:

Nicely and succinctly put.

And the best version of Raspberry Beret is at:
http://www.amazon.com/Hindu-Love-Gods/dp/B001CUXZS6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1250087036&sr=8-1

Posted by: B. Scott Andersen | August 12, 2009 10:26 AM

Nikki,

I'll assume you're real; you can assume I'm real. That's the only assumptions we need to make today. You say you wish to understand atheist opinions. OK. Here's one.

The world is a really interesting place, and the more you learn about it the more interesting it becomes. You're living in a very cool place and in a very cool time. People have been learning an amazing amount of stuff about the world. The funny thing is, the vast majority of what we've learned has been since the start of the Renaissance--only about a half a millennium ago.

We no longer believe that bad spirits cause disease. George Washington died largely because he was bled to death, bloodletting being a common way to fight disease back then. We now know that mental illness is a disease and not a person succumbing to spirits or demons. We know that Earthquakes and weather are caused by natural and explainable things and not by God or some set of gods being angry with us.

I say "we" but obviously not all of us do. Superstition, the belief in the supernatural, is still rampant. If they are beliefs that are unpopular in the culture then they are dangerous, cults, crazy, backward, and childish; if they are beliefs mainstream and popular in the culture then these superstitions are good, guiding, noble, normal, and necessary. In our culture we shun people who believe in Zeus or Thor or nothing at all, but embrace people who believe in the Christian God. In other places in the world the Christians are considered the odd-balls.

I don't believe in ghosts or goblins, angel or demons, spirits, the power of crystals, other "planes of existence", Heaven, Hell, Purgatory, Valhalla, devils or gods. The bottom line for me is simply this: the world makes much more sense without them. I don't need supernatural beings to explain the weather, or to tell me how to be kind, generous, fair, forgiving, loving, or gentle.

So, what is this atheist's opinion? Simply this: superstitions can't make me a better person, can't provide insights into the world better than study and knowledge, and that it is better to see the world how it really is, open-eyed and on my feet, rather than fearfully with my eyes-closed on my knees.

-- Scott

Posted by: John Salerno | August 12, 2009 10:28 AM

"So what was there before the universe expaned in a big bang? It couldn't have been nothing because, simply put, nothing cannot exist."

Unfortunately, creationists will use this same argument to *prove* that it must have been God. They'll simply say "Exactly, there couldn't have been nothing, therefore it was God."

The concept that something has always existed does not settle well in their minds, nor does the idea that something can exist without having been created (or "caused").

Posted by: raven | August 12, 2009 10:32 AM

Oh gee, it is heddle the psychopathic stalker:

He can do stupid pet tricks although not many. His usual one is to ignore anything with the fact proof bubble around him to deflect it and lie a lot.

Willian Dembski:

The implications of intelligent design are radical in the true sense of this much overused word. The question posed by intelligent design is not how we should do science and theology in light of the triumph of Enlightenment rationalism and scientific naturalism. The question is rather how we should do science and theology in light of the impending collapse of Enlightenment rationalism and scientific naturalism. These ideologies are on the way out…because they are bankrupt.

Heddle doesn't believe the Death Cultists want to destroy the USA, set up a theocracy, and head on back to the Dark Ages. Even though their leadership says so often.

Willian Dembski, a leader of creationism, hates and wants to destroy "Enlightenment rationalism and scientific naturalism." It is his full time job. These are the basis of modern 21st century civilization and the USA version. Without those two ways of thinking, we would still be medieval peasants.

Of course, he has gotten nowhere. Most people like living in modern, free, and prosperous Hi Tech societies. Watch the facts bounce off heddle,. Happens every time.

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 12, 2009 10:34 AM

I have dim memories of being fifteen. I was an odd little contradiction, I was a democratic socialist literalist christian. (I was a rather strange child.)

One of the things I kept hearing was how different I am by letting Jesus into my heart. I finally stopped to think about this, my heart is an organ that pumps blood. It is not where my emotions are expressed. Despite that nitpicking, I also became honest enough to admit that I felt nothing when I accepted Jesus as my savior. I figured that if I could not honestly say that Jesus changed me, I could not honestly continue trying to believe.

My main point to Nikki would be this, examine why you believe what you do. What is it based on? Are you being honest about what you are thinking and feeling. And learn more about everything about you, there is so much more for you to experience. Do not set self imposed limits.

Posted by: Sam C. | August 12, 2009 10:38 AM

That's fine Nikki! Welcome!

Posted by: zeroangel | August 12, 2009 10:39 AM

She's here! Welcome Nikki! I hope it's possible to keep up with what is sure to be a very long thread!

I guess the best way to start off is for you to state your case.

Posted by: raven | August 12, 2009 10:42 AM

Heddle, try to pay attention for once.

Stop stalking me.

I long ago figured out you were very seriously mentally ill. I usually skip your rambling, incoherent attempts at torturing logic..

Go away. Find someone else to stalk. Under some conditions, internet stalking is illegal under various federal communications acts. Look it up on google.

And try thinking a little. You seem to be rapidly getting worse. It won't do you any good to end up like David Markuze, Scott Roeder, Ken Ham, or William Dembski. Angry, bitter, old kooks. There is more to life than being an internet troll.

Posted by: Gordy | August 12, 2009 10:44 AM

No need to apologise, Nikki. Welcome to the thread!

Posted by: AdamK | August 12, 2009 10:45 AM

I have read your original post and the clear inference is that you were talking about a conversation to take place on this blog.

Your concern is noted. While you're giving writing lessons, it might behoove you to look up the distinction between "inference" and "implication."

Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 12, 2009 10:47 AM

Your concern is noted. While you're giving writing lessons, it might behoove you to look up the distinction between "inference" and "implication."

I am well aware of the difference. The writer inplies, the reader infers.

I think though you be best off jyst keep;ing quiet. Clearly you lack the guts to admit you were wrong, and I for one dislike cowards.

Posted by: TimO | August 12, 2009 10:48 AM

Smart move PZ. This is probably a trap. "Nikki" is going to tell the world that a college professor is harassing her online. Pedo Enemy #1! I can just see the headlines and the Bill O'Reilly commentary now.

Posted by: AdamK | August 12, 2009 10:49 AM

Coward?

Fuck you.

Posted by: Jimmy Haigh | August 12, 2009 10:50 AM

This is my first visit here. What's the thing about Prince? (In my opinion, he's a brilliant musician but his music is garbage.)

Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 12, 2009 10:53 AM

Coward?

Fuck you.

Such charm. You are a nasty little bully who I note cannot take what he gives.

Posted by: Nikki | August 12, 2009 10:57 AM

my case is this: i have been a christian since i was born,my family is very religeous, not going to church on sunday is not an option. So by saying that i know everyone who reads this will assume im just another brainwashed bible thumper, but im not. Im just a christian who yea, believes in creation. can anyone give me 10 good reasons why i shouldent believe in creation or god?

Posted by: heddle | August 12, 2009 10:57 AM

Sorry raven, but any time you rant on "death cultists" (to first order: whenever you post) I feel obliged to mock you-but I won't anymore. On this thread. That is after pointing out:

You do realize that you are in the upper left, the yellow square?

Philip Kahn,

Why does science produce predictions that are testable and all but inevitably correct, but religion can make no such claim?

Because science and religion are different.

Can science say whether animal testing is acceptable? Can it say whether strict gun control is necessary? Can it say whether libertarianism is nuts? If so, you all need to pay much more attention to science so you can settle these questions rationally and stop bickering about these issues.

Posted by: Carl | August 12, 2009 10:58 AM

No matter what you believe, you are always going to someone's hell.

Posted by: Liulian | August 12, 2009 11:00 AM

I dont want to try to change your mind(because i know thats impossible) or anything, i just want to try to understand atheists opinions.

Nikki: I was also a fervent Christian at 15, praying for my unsaved friends and family members, praying to God, reading the Bible joyfully, and evangelizing to all those who didn't know God.

That all changed a year ago (I'm 22 now), when I finished reading The Ancestor's Tale by Richard Dawkins. While I tried to find a way to make sense of both Christianity and science, I found there was no way. My previous understanding of the Bible began to shrink drastically. They were replaced with questions, and lots of them. There's just too much evidence to try to deny evolution.

I think that none of this will make complete sense right now for you, as I was able to wipe away every doubt placed in front of me when I was 15. But maybe you can just keep this in mind as you get older -- remember that it's okay to question. Remember that there's no shame in doubt.

It may take a few years of thinking, but as you learn more about science in your studies, I hope that you will be able to question everything that you understand -- science-related and non-science related. You may come to the conclusion one day that while science is based on experimentation and observation, all the things we learned from Sunday School are based off of an ever-changing interpretation of the Bible by our churches.

My atheist opinion: Sometimes, I miss God. I really do. I miss the Jesus that you know so well. But what I've gained in return -- the ability to evaluate, to question authority, to think clearly about issues -- it has all been worth it. I let go of God by learning about science.

Posted by: Carlie | August 12, 2009 11:02 AM

Let's step back a bit and give Nikki a chance to catch up! Nikki, if you haven't been on a lot of very active blogs before, it can be a bit daunting. Read through the comments, and just pick out a few that you think you can deal with and address. There's no need to think you have to respond to every single person posting here - it's impossible with how many people there are, and a lot of side conversations start and spin off as well.

Posted by: Chris | August 12, 2009 11:03 AM

Nikki,
in the comments above there is a wealth of information and wisdom if you sort out the more aggressive comments.

To give you reasons not to belive in creation or god you should be more specific as to what you mean by creation and what you believe god does on earth.

But let me give this question right back:
Can you give me 10 good reasons to believe in god?

Cheers,
Chris

Posted by: gillt | August 12, 2009 11:04 AM

Nikki: "but im not."

That's not really much of an explanation. I think you're asking for everyone to take you at your word that you haven't simply been indoctrinated from the cradle, and that you do have some self-awareness of the possibility of being so.

Pardon me, but that's a helluva a lot to ask, so I only hope the same generosity is given in return.

Posted by: E.V. | August 12, 2009 11:05 AM

Nikki:

This may help. I was raised as a Christian. My parents are Christian. We lived in Southern/Southwestern States in small towns filled with a majority of Protestant denomination practicing Christians: Assembly of God, Baptist, Church of Christ, Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian and Episcopal.
A few Catholics here and there and a tiny minority of jews.

As a Southern Baptist, we talked about how and why the Church of Christ people were wrong and why we thought the Catholics were definitely wrong. There was really no other (acceptable) information available.

I never realized that had my parents been Hindu and we lived in India, all the "truths" I knew about my religion would have been centered around a different religion - one that did not follow monotheism(The god of Abraham). First truth:Religion is dependent on geographic location and what your parents indoctrinate you to believe. Who you associate with and what they believe can also affect your beliefs.

Atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief. Just alike when you believed in Santa & the Tooth Faery and then realized they were not real but legends that adults made up to please young kids. Is the fact that Santa isn't an actual live person(jolly old elf) a belief?

Posted by: Tammy | August 12, 2009 11:05 AM

Nikki,
I'm not going to try to change YOUR mind either. I will only tell you the same thing I've told my own kids. THINK FOR YOURSELF. Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha, was quoted as saying, (and I paraphrase badly here) that you should never believe anything, even if he himself said it, unless it rings true FOR YOU. I follow this philosophy, and NO religion, because I believe what rings true, what I can see evidence of, and what makes sense. Listen to your own instincts, your own heart.
Tammy

Posted by: Sigurjon | August 12, 2009 11:06 AM

Nikki, first of all realize that believing in creation or god does not automatically entail being a christian. Even if one were to concede the existence of a creator, how do you get from there to virgin births, talking snakes, all species of animals being put in a wooden boat, a whale moving a guy around inside its belly, original sin and all the rest of it?

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 12, 2009 11:07 AM

Can science say whether animal testing is acceptable? Can it say whether strict gun control is necessary? Can it say whether libertarianism is nuts? - heddle

No, but it can produce inter-subjectively checkable evidence relevant to all these questions; and which any discussion of them should take into account. All religion has in these areas is argument from authority: "The Bible says...", "the Quran says...", "The Buddha said...".

Posted by: se-rat-o-SAWR-us | August 12, 2009 11:07 AM

whatismyipaddress.com for email header block.

Posted by: Nikki | August 12, 2009 11:09 AM

"I have a question: Why are you a Christian Nikki?"
Because i believe God created us, and even though he seems very self rightgeous/obsessive, he still gave us life and free will. I cant really explain it, because when im praying or with my youth group, i feel at peace which i know is gonna sound weird but its the truth.

Posted by: j Dubb | August 12, 2009 11:10 AM

Hello, how R U? I'm fine. 'Cause I know that the lord is coming soon, coming, coming soon.

Posted by: zeroangel | August 12, 2009 11:11 AM

Nikki:

10 reasons? I'll give you one:

There is no evidence. What makes you think that your religion is any less fictional then ancient Greek or Norse mythology? Did you ever read the Epic of Gilamesh? The flood story is stolen right out of it!

Posted by: slugboi | August 12, 2009 11:12 AM

Hi Nikki!

I was raised in the church, like you. After awhile, I realized that I didn't really agree with a lot of things that the church said, but I still believed in the message of Christ, and therefore clung to my beliefs. I stopped going to church, however, but would still proselytize to my friends. Eventually, I decided that I should really read the bible, as it wasn't really encouraged in my church. Sure, they would tell you to read certain passages, or certain books, but there was a large chunk that they would leave out or gloss over. So I read it, cover to cover, and the stories it contained shocked me. Not only were a large portion of them horrifying, most of them sounded like juvenile fabrications. How could I have ever believed this nonsense? Part of me still dogmatically held on to my belief in Christ, mainly out of fear, but then I came across this site: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/ which lists some serious questions that believers must ask themselves. This opened me up to wanting to learn more about religion, so I started reading books about the history of religion, and realized that most modern religions tell the same stories. The messiah myth has been told over and over, with Jesus being its most recent central character.

If you really want to know why we are atheists it is because religion cannot hold up to critical thinking. They tell you that critical thinking is evil, because they know that religion breaks down under the slightest serious scrutiny.

There are so many great books out there now for people that want to know more about atheists. You should check out "Why We Believe What We Believe" by Andrew Newberg for some good insight into the psychological and biological reasons that religions are formed, and "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne for a heap of evidence for evolution, and "Jesus, Interrupted" by Bart D. Ehrman for a historical-critical analysis of the New Testament. And of course, if you're really serious, try reading "god is Not Great" by Christopher Hitchens, "Breaking the Spell" by Daniel Dennett, "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, and "Godless" by Dan Barker.

Actually, "Godless" might be a good place to start. It is the story of an evangelical pastors conversion to atheism.

There's a saying, "The truth will out." If you're really looking for the truth, you will discover that religion is not it.

Posted by: ajbjasus | August 12, 2009 11:13 AM

Knockgoats

What is " inter-subjectively checkable evidence " ?

Posted by: Chris | August 12, 2009 11:14 AM

@Ellie
she has posted thrice yet (not counting duplicates) ;-)

Posted by: Sam C. | August 12, 2009 11:14 AM

Unfortunately she has only comment 3 times. I say, as of now, start a timer for 30 minutes- 1 hour to let her read.

Posted by: sharky | August 12, 2009 11:15 AM

@Ellie: if everyone posts ten reasons like she asked, may her god help her. It's a second Great Deluge!

Posted by: JustinB | August 12, 2009 11:15 AM

Nikki,

First, let me just say the commenting system here can be extremely slow. Just be patient and your comment will post eventually. I think most of us have been caught by it and made duplicate posts, so don't sweat that.

Second, I think it's interesting that you say you've been a christian since you were born. There's a saying that "Everyone is born an atheist". No one comes out of the womb with God's name on their lips, or knowing the rules of any religion. Religion is a learned behavior, and the specifics of your religion were taught to you by your parents when you were very young, to the point that you probably don't remember it. The fact that these beliefs are "programmed" into a mind that is very much still forming, that has no capacity for critical thinking, is the reason we often call it "brainwashing".

I'm an atheist who's married to a christian, and we have two children. I was not raised in a religious household, but as a teenager I was very interested in world religions, attending various churches as well as reading about and meeting people from other religions.

After getting married, I was trying very hard to understand more about her point of view: going to church every sunday and reading the bible with her, putting our (at the time only) child in sunday school, which is just about the only way to manage having a young one with you at church. It's amazing how quickly he started repeating their stuff word for word, without really understanding a bit of it, other than that adults he is supposed to listen to told him it was true. I've since stopped going to church and my son doesn't go to sunday school, because I want him to learn how to think critically about claims and evidence before more things are drilled into his head.

Consequently, my other son is two years older and has hardly spent any time in sunday school. I think he outlook on things will be quite different (although he'll certainly pick up bits and pieces from his mom and brother).

Once he's older and understands this, I have no problem if he wants to attend church. What I object to is religion's tendency to "get em while they're young" and set up that religion's specific belief as the foundation of all their beliefs. I believe that children should be taught HOW to the think, not WHAT to think. Let them work the rest out for themselves.

Let me offer a closing thought: There is one factor that influences your religion more than anything else: your parents' religion. The same is true of their religion, which was probably taught to them by their parents, when they were very young. If you were born into a hindu, or muslim, or jewish family, and taught that their beliefs were the True Way, you can be almost certain that that would be your religious outlook now. Does that speak to you of one religion being True above all others, or does it suggest merely that children are a "blank slate" and will generally believe whatever stories the adults in their life tell them?

Posted by: amk | August 12, 2009 11:16 AM

Nikki,

can anyone give me 10 good reasons why i shouldent believe in creation or god?

If you claim something exists the burden of proof is on you. Otherwise you will be stuck with all sorts of beliefs, many of them mutually incompatible.

There's a lot of information gathered in the talkorigins.org FAQs, including age of the earth.

Posted by: Ellie | August 12, 2009 11:17 AM

@Chris, Well so she has! Does that prove my point or not? Still, perhaps some sort of order is needed here?

Posted by: Glen Davidson | August 12, 2009 11:19 AM

After looking at your blog i have come to the conclusion that nothing anyone says will change your mind on how you believe things work and about god..

Nothing except verifiable evidence? Seriously, Nikki, are you already aware that you don't have that, as your statement suggests that you are?

Then why are you Christian?

That said, I bet most of us will be nice, but continue to ask pointed questions about your beliefs.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: glbrown | August 12, 2009 11:20 AM

#115 Nikki
'can anyone give me 10 good reasons why i shouldent believe in creation or god?'

I'll give it a shot.

• Exodus 21:20-21
It's OK to kill a slave, because he is nothing but property, but only as long as he does not die from a beating until at least one day later.

• Exodus 21:7
If in need of a little extra income, a father could simply sell his daughter.

• Exodus 21:17
The penalty for cursing your parents is death.

• Deuteronomy 22:21
If a woman presents herself as a virgin but is not, on the wedding night, she is to be taken to her father's house and stoned to death.

• Leviticus 20:13
Of the exclusively male homosexual acts prohibited by the bible, the penalty for any transgression is death. (Nothing in the bible prohibits lesbian sex).

• Matthew 10:36
A man's foe shall be they of his own household. Jesus tells us here that if we love our mother and father more than him, we are not worthy. Now there are some family values!

• Matthew 11:20-24
Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and eternal damnation because they did not like his sermons.

• Mark 7:9-10
Jesus supports the Old Testament view that disobedient children should be killed, and then criticizes the Jews for not following that law.

• Luke 12:5
Jesus says that we should fear God since he has the power to kill us and then torture us forever in hell.

• John 3:36
John tells us here that if you don't believe in God, you will feel his wrath forever in hell.

I can come up with 10 more if you wish.

Posted by: Tammy | August 12, 2009 11:21 AM

I believe that children should be taught HOW to the think, not WHAT to think. Let them work the rest out for themselves.
JustinB I just wanted to totally agree with this statement. If Nikki feels that her feeling of peace is evidence enough, who are WE to tell her what to think. I can only believe what's right for me. I appreciate her respect of OUR beliefs, and the lack thereof.

Posted by: zeroangel | August 12, 2009 11:21 AM

Because i believe God created us, and even though he seems very self rightgeous/obsessive, he still gave us life and free will. I cant really explain it, because when im praying or with my youth group, i feel at peace which i know is gonna sound weird but its the truth.

Nikki:

Of course it can't be exaplined because it makes no sense. Just think of all the horrible things that god himself did in the Bible. Killing first born children in Egypt and making Abraham almost kill his son are just two examples.

Isn't it possible it's all just made up nonsense from ancient desert nomads?

Isn't it possible the reason you feel at peace with your youth group is because of some kind of group dynamic and meditation? Don't you think you might get the same feeling with any other kind of meditation (religious or not)?

Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp | August 12, 2009 11:22 AM

I dont want to try to change your mind(because i know thats impossible) or anything

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 12, 2009 11:26 AM

Why, yes heddle, one day old babies are more than capable of choosing Jesus as their savior.

Oh, wait a second, you are one of those who believes that people are saved before they are even born.

Thank you you justifying my decision to place you in my killfile.

Posted by: Nikki | August 12, 2009 11:27 AM

"I really do wish there were a God, because it would really be nice to know that there is some ultimate force of good and love that wants nothing more than to make us happy and fulfilled. Life would be so much easier that way."

God created us for his glory, we live to glorify him. God didnt make us so he could have happy go lucky people on earth doing nothing but being happy. While its true god loves us, that doesnt mean he helps us do what WE want to do, he helps us when we do what HE wants us to do.

Posted by: ice9 | August 12, 2009 11:28 AM

Go back and read 107 and 108 together, quickly. The internet in a netshell.

ice

Posted by: dinkum | August 12, 2009 11:30 AM

God created us for his glory, we live to glorify him. God didnt make us so he could have happy go lucky people on earth doing nothing but being happy. While its true god loves us, that doesnt mean he helps us do what WE want to do, he helps us when we do what HE wants us to do.

Posted by: Sam C. | August 12, 2009 11:32 AM

God created us for his glory, we live to glorify him. God didnt make us so he could have happy go lucky people on earth doing nothing but being happy. While its true god loves us, that doesnt mean he helps us do what WE want to do, he helps us when we do what HE wants us to do.

But, would we not glorify him by advancing and loving all others, accepting all, and not shunning those who meet our beliefs? For example, homosexuals. This is one of my main problems with some of the gunk associated with Christianity. Shouldn't simply loving all others and advancing in mind and body glorify him? Make him proud of his creations?

Posted by: Darren Garrison | August 12, 2009 11:32 AM

This looks like a job for (quick change in the hopelessly archaic phone booth) PZdobear!

Posted by: E.V. | August 12, 2009 11:33 AM

God created us for his glory, we live to glorify him. God didnt make us so he could have happy go lucky people on earth doing nothing but being happy.

I'm sure you haven't really read all of the Old & New Testaments. Why don't you read it all first.

Posted by: Peter Ashby | August 12, 2009 11:34 AM

@Nikki

There is nothing wrong with belief per se. Though it depends on what effects holding those beliefs have on the person and society. Your creationism for eg. in Biology class when the teacher tells the class about evolution what will you do? Plenty of kids like you disrupt the class, we have heard many examples in here. This is not a good thing, especially for those who do not choose to believe and want to learn. By all means hold to this yourself, but let others be different and try and keep your mind open.

At age 15 I was just like you, only in New Zealand. Except that I loved Biology, apart from English it was the only subject I never had to study for. It went in my ears and eyes and stuck hard. I kept and bred goldfish and tropicals, had a bit of garden of my own and wanted to know how my body got fit when I ran. The latter question led me to university where I studied Physiology and in process learned to think critically and evaluate evidence. I gradually realised that being a creationist was not tenable in the face of the huge mountains of evidence that the earth was not only far, far older than the creationists assert but that I and you are Great Apes and our cells are an amalgam of a large bacteria who didn't like oxygen and some smaller ones that did in the face of the pressure from all the oxygen the new blue-green bacteria were spitting out. Some of those amalgam cells joined forces with the blue-green bacteria, we call them algae and plants. The scientist who worked out our cells were amalgams is a woman called Lynn Margulis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Margulis . She is one of my scientific heroes for her dogged pursuit of her brilliant idea.

Along my journey I occupied a number of positions, some akin to Intelligent Design. I was however knocked off those unstable perches by that pesky evidence that no such thing ever happened. If it did there should be signs in our dna, you can go look yourself, all the genome sequences are online. You can line up human and our closest other Great Ape relatives the Chimpanzees, the tools do so and the helpfiles are all online. None of the people pushing ID have managed to find anything when all you need is a computer and a net connection. Don't you think that if the evidence were there they would be shouting about it?

Instead the dna tells us Dr Margulis is right and we can even use it to look for the closest living relatives of mitochondria (those oxygen loving partners of ours) and chloroplasts (that plant cells use to photosynthesis). We are even close to finding candidate relatives on the big oxygen hating host cell itself.

A question for you: do you believe the earth orbits the sun with the other planets? if so why? because we have never seen it do so, never sent a space probe up above the plane of the ecliptic and watched the planets go around. We have however watched organisms change over time and we have lots of examples of change in the dna that enabled fish to become amphibians who became reptiles who became mammals and birds. I once worked on how a gene that switches on which cells in embryos that are going to be muscle is controlled. It comes with defined switches on the dna that we could isolate and show where and when in the embryo they turn the gene and off. The evolution of animals with backbones is written on that dna, each time a group of evolving animals had a new body part that needed moving a new switch to turn on muscle there was added and is still there, the later it was added in general the further away from the gene it is, the switch that turns muscle on in the limbs is a long way away and is several genes away from the target gene.

Only evolution makes sense of results like this and this is just one small piece of evidence, there is millions of times more out there. I think it would be a great shame if you closed your mind to this, it explains so much, about us and the rest of life. So use the brains evolution gave you to at least look at the evidence.

Posted by: Gegory Greenwood | August 12, 2009 11:35 AM

Nikki;

The single strongest reason to doubt the existence of god is the lack of evidence. I do not doubt that you have been told that there is all kinds of evidence for god, but scientists define evidence in a very specific fashion. Evidence can not come from what is known as a presuppositionalist position. That is to say, claiming that something is so because 'god says so' is not valid evidence. Circular logic is also not evidence. Saying that god is all knowing because he is god is no argument at all. Indeed, no argument no matter how well constructed is evidence. Evidence comes from the observation of the natural world and experimentation that produces reproduceable results.

No religion has ever produced any evidence for god that satisfies these criteria. There is no more scientifically rigorous evidence for god then there is for fairies or goblins, but unlike these mythologies, religion (including Christian religion) has a long history of violence and repression. Why should we believe in a deity for whom there is no evidence when such belief has been repeatedly demonstrated to have harmful consequences for the cause of reason and for society as a whole?

These arguments may not seem significant to you now, but try to bear them in mind for the future. As you learn more about the world and the human condition, you will likely come to see why these issues are so important. As has been noted above, remmember that there is no shame in doubt. Always question whatever you are told to just accept because another says it is so, even if that person cites god as an authority.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | August 12, 2009 11:37 AM

#65 @Chris,

*Sigh*

You may be right. I sometimes forget that some people don't use the same logic. (Mild irony here.)

Posted by: wÒÓ† | August 12, 2009 11:37 AM

Maybe I'm just like my mother. She's never satisfied.

Posted by: sharky | August 12, 2009 11:39 AM

@Zeroangel: Allah, to be fair, is not the most horrible out there and compares pretty well to the JudeoChristian one. Try the Aztec gods. When your creation myth is "a goddess was raped and torn in half to form the Earth," you've gotten pretty hard to top. (A god who created people not to be happy is quite the piece of work, mind.)

@Ice: Thank you for pointing that out.

I want a poll of how many believe in Nikki.

Posted by: SEF | August 12, 2009 11:40 AM

@ Nikki #138:

when im praying or with my youth group, i feel at peace

But that's what people who do yoga, or tai-chi or practise meditation also say. You'd get much the same story from a Muslim, Hindu or member of almost any other religion you care to consider. What you feel is not unique to Christianity and does nothing at all to justify the specific claims of your flavour of Christianity (or anyone else's religion either). It's a human thing not a god thing.

It's also the same experience some people get from great classical music (or, allegedly, pop music!) or communing with nature or merely observing the vastness of interstellar space. Once again, it does nothing to validate your claim that any god, let alone a particular god (one pre-chosen for you by your parents), exists.

If a Hindu told you they felt at peace in prayer, would you convert to Hinduism? If not, then why do you expect to convince anyone else with something which you effectively admit is not at all convincing.

Posted by: wÓÒ† | August 12, 2009 11:43 AM

Why do we scream at each other?

This is what it sounds like... when the doves cry.

Posted by: zeroangel | August 12, 2009 11:44 AM

@sharky:

Try the Aztec gods. When your creation myth is "a goddess was raped and torn in half to form the Earth," you've gotten pretty hard to top.

Oh yah no doubt. I just figured she'd be more familiar with a relgion closely related to her own and one with countless followers. Great point though.

Besides, everyone KNOWS the Aztecs were crazy,

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 12, 2009 11:45 AM

What is " inter-subjectively checkable evidence " ? - ajbjasus

I did mean "objectively", but wanted to stress the point that for the evidence to count, it must be open to checking by people other than those collecting or reporting it - as opposed, say, to a religious believer's conviction that God has spoken to them - which many believers claim is evidence. I could really just have said "evidence", but then we might have had "God told me X" put forward as evidence (not by heddle).

Posted by: Christophe Thill | August 12, 2009 11:45 AM

Hello Nikki,

"Im just a christian who yea, believes in creation. can anyone give me 10 good reasons why i shouldent believe in creation or god?"
"Because i believe God created us"

Someone said that the first thing you should do is find information about other religions, and especially other brands of christianity. You will discover that by these apparently simple phrases ("I believe in creation", "I believe in god", "I believe god created us") are understood by other people in many different ways, possibly very different from what you have in mind. Why those differences? That will be a good lesson in history, and learning history is often the first step in opening one's mind. Because it teaches that, in pas times, things we take for granted today were not like they are. "The past is a different country", as someone said...

I can't tell you why you shouldn't believe in a god. I can tell you why I don't believe, why this belief does not seem acceptable to me, why it hurts my sense of logic and even of morality. But I can very well imagine lots of reasons why you would want to believe.

Now, believing in creation is something else. If by "creation" you mean specifically "the moment, 6000 years ago, when Yahweh spent 6 days making the universe out of nothing"; well, there are lots of reasons not to believe this. It cannot be absolutely disproved, mind you. But science as we know it today has plenty of elements to show why this scenario is extremely unlikely.

It's all in the books. You're free to open and read them. And if you want to ge deeper, why not go to a university, later, and get a science education? What can be more exciting than studying science?

You're 15. At your age, people love to learn and discover. I don't think you believe the stupid statements on the wall of the Creation "Museum", those that say that human reason is false and only God's word is right. You can't believe this, because if you do, it means you're willing to be the slave of an old book... and of those who claim they know its meaning. You know it gives them power on those who listen to them, don't you?

Science is a different thing. When something in a book has to be corrected, it is. And the old guy (or woman!) who teaches you from this book doesn't want to remain above you: he wants you, one day, to be better and know more than him.

But of course, it is possible that by "creation" you mean something different. Not the myth of creation written by an ancient and ignorant group of people; but, for instance, the simple fact that when you look around you, you feel the presence of something divine. Some people feel this way. I don't; but if you do, I have no good reason to give you against it. It's just your personal choice.

So, if you care to take some advice from an old guy (almost 44...) in a foreign country, remember this: the world is big, much bigger and more diverse than you can imagine. Never stop looking around, never stop wondering, and never stop asking questions. No answers are known once and for all, especially if they were given thousands of years ago. See, think and discover by yourself.

And have fun!

Posted by: Nikki | August 12, 2009 11:45 AM

"But, would we not glorify him by advancing and loving all others, accepting all, and not shunning those who meet our beliefs? For example, homosexuals. This is one of my main problems with some of the gunk associated with Christianity. Shouldn't simply loving all others and advancing in mind and body glorify him? Make him proud of his creations?"

Sorry but i cant answer that because honestly, it would sense to me... But since you mentioned homosexuality:
Many catholics argue that because a few things in the bible say things like " thou shalt not lie with a man like a women" that automatically means being gay is a major sin. Personally i dont belive it because the bible also says that women are basically supposed to be slaves to their husbands but in todays world that doesnt really happen anymore. Does that mean many women are going to hell because they have jobs? no. The bible was written by men who wrote what god had told them but i think they probally wrote some things that they thought were gods word but in reality,was just theyre opinions based on their culture

Posted by: Chris | August 12, 2009 11:45 AM

@LanceR, JSG #179
thanks, i did not know about calvinism (well i had heard the term) and i feel stupider for knowing.

Posted by: Sara | August 12, 2009 11:46 AM

Why am I an atheist hmmmm. At first I wasn't but after a long personal journey trying to find a religion that worked for me I discovered that no religion worked for me. I felt so silly participating in any kind of religious ritual. I was still a "theist" at this point I guess because I believed there was a higher power, and I believed that all the different religions were just different paths to gain access to said higher power. But I no longer held much truck with organized religion.

As most theists I had the thought that *something* must have started the whole process off. I began thinking said "god/gods" weren't very smart in their creation. I mean, the earth is actually very dangerous when you think about it with all the poisonous stuff, and fierce animals, and crazy weather and volcanoes and earthquakes. Not to mention eventually the sun will probably expand to a red giant and engulf us, or a huge meteor could come winging through space and wipe us out in an instant. Also, look how flawed we are with regard to mental and physical diseases. The "design" is just really damned poor and I'd expect better of some supposedly all powerful being. So I had come to the conclusion that said all powerful being was either a jackass and punishing us, or a total incompetent. But it was still hard for me to grasp that there wasn't some kind of super power that started everything.

I began seeing what a horrible power religion seems to have over the world. Yes there are many many many wonderful, kind, moral, nice believers. But the problem is, the wonderful believers are rarely in power. It seems more often that the horrible perverted religious people are in power and are doing horrible things. This really really turned me off from religion of any kind.

I started watching nature and astronomy shows more, The Planet Earth series was amazing, I love David Attenborough. I would sit there and say to myself "WOW, the earth is just so damned amazing, the universe is damned amazing". That was enough for me. It was more comforting and awe inspiring to me to have this knowledge about nature that I required no supernatural to provide me that comfort.

Finally, in my increased interest about science, I borrowed various books from the library to improve my rather poor knowledge on evolution (which I have always accepted as being true, being backed up by science and surviving so many years without being disproved). I also borrowed various books written by atheists just to see what their arguments were. The ones that really did it for me were:

1. belief in a god/gods was unnecessary to be a good person
2. if god/gods created us, who created god/gods? The argument that someone had to start/create everything is useless, because who created that someone? etc etc
3. Science explains a lot, and just because Science can't currently explain everything it doesn't mean that it won't eventually, so there is no need to inject something supernatural into the gaps.

I read many arguments from the creationist side as well, they just don't hold water. Like the bible is the unerring word of god, so it must be true, the bible says god exists so he must exist. Circular arguments suck. Religious texts are full of contradictions and things that I find morally repugnant. I had easily accepted, as the majority of people (even theists) do, that greek and roman, and etc, myths were a way for people to explain the world around them, I found it amusing that I couldn't accept the same about today's popular religions. Creationists seemed to take it so personal that perhaps we are not some deities special project, they don't like the thought of being "related" to apes. It seems to me it is so arrogant to think we are the be all and end all. They want to be special, it's very childlike.

And that is my long, winding, and babbling journey of theist to atheist. The only way I'd change my mind is if "god" showed up on my doorstep and performed something absolutely amazing and impossible by mere mortals. I would tell said deity, Well OK there you are, I believe you exist but I still think you're an asswipe. Either he will smite me down and prove my point, ignore me and go on being an asswipe and still prove my point, or fix everything bad in the world and prove me wrong. I'd love for it to be that last option, but I'm not holding my breath.

Posted by: raven | August 12, 2009 11:46 AM

After looking at your blog i have come to the conclusion that nothing anyone says will change your mind on how you believe things work and about god.

Not quite. Most of the 60 million US areligious are ex-Xians or were at least exposed to it. Including most of the ones on this blog. PZ used to go to a Lutheran sunday school.

We did pay attention to what people said. We also paid attention to what people did. Xians are often pretty malevolent. We did change our minds. We left and most are glad about it. We could go back any time but few will do so.

We can call xians out when they are hypocritical and lie, which is most of the time. We don't have to hate the USA and try to destroy it. We don't have to lie about or fear the age of the universe or the vast majority of modern science, the foundation of US leadership in the world and the basis of 21st century civilization.

Posted by: zeroangel | August 12, 2009 11:48 AM

Someone is impersonating me. I'm the real Nikki and I just showed up.

Well, someone is playing games, I am calling shenanigans!

Posted by: SEF | August 12, 2009 11:49 AM

Are we not all Spartacus today then? Why didn't I get the memo that we're all supposed to be Nikki instead.

Posted by: pdferguson | August 12, 2009 11:49 AM

Heddle blustered:

Of course that's not what you said--you said you were a Christian from birth which is entirely possible--for the requirement is faith, not belief. And faith itself is a gift. There are no requirements for receiving that gift--so it can be bestowed upon an infant--even in the womb.

Sheesh, what utter bullshit.

Faith is wishful thinking. It is not wanting to know what is true. Religious faith is not a "gift", it isn't even a desirable character trait because it impedes people's ability to evaluate evidence, to change their opinions based on the evidence and avoid the absurd claims of religious quackery, such as "[faith] can be bestowed upon an infant--even in the womb."

Do you ever have a clue how idiotic you sound, Heddle? Do you ever listen to your own nonsense? Do you realize that people here not only don't agree with your gibberish, we consider it a form of child abuse when directed at the young?

Posted by: SC, OM | August 12, 2009 11:51 AM

If it weren't for the reasonable comments of the secular guy, I would almost think it was an Onion story.*

"Some may ask why this issue during a Mayoral campaign? And I say why not?" said candidate Anna Falling.

..."Today we are announcing that God will be glorified in this city. He shall not be shunned. Upon our election, we hereby commit to honoring Him in all ways that He has been dishonored," said Anna Falling.

...Her speech was part sermon, part rallying cry. And, it's already winning over some voters.

"I think she stands up very strong for her beliefs. And, I think by doing this she shows that. And, I think that's good. We need a mayor that comes up and is strong about their opinion and is not afraid to express their opinion," said Creationism supporter Angela Childress.

The sign in the photo also spells it "Chistianity." Doofi.

*And would laugh if these people weren't so scary.

Posted by: amk | August 12, 2009 11:52 AM

@wÒÓ†: BOOBIES or GTFO

Posted by: sharky | August 12, 2009 11:52 AM

@Zeroangel: The Aztecs did have countless followers! And the best thing was, they weren't crazy *at all.* Their actions make perfect sense if you remember they firmly believed in gods. Since all life was supported by the Sun, as best they could tell--which is correct--they thought the Sun must need life sacrificed to it to keep burning. All they needed were the right sacrifices, which they got by attacking their neighbors quite often and taking lots of tribute.

They were perfectly sane; just, extremely religious, which made them extremely dangerous.

Posted by: MiKkI | August 12, 2009 11:53 AM

I'm Nikki too... And I think you people are being evil and unpleasant...

Posted by: Tyler | August 12, 2009 11:54 AM

Nikki wrote: i have been a christian since i was born,my family is very religeous, not going to church on sunday is not an option. [But I'm not] just another brainwashed bible thumper...

That's the funniest goddamn thing I've read since I woke up.

Posted by: zeroangel | August 12, 2009 11:55 AM

Nikki:

The bible was written by men who wrote what god had told them but i think they probally wrote some things that they thought were gods word but in reality,was just theyre opinions based on their culture

How do you know the whole thing is just based on their culture and they just pretended to be talking to god? In short, how do you know it's just not all made up?

Posted by: amk | August 12, 2009 11:56 AM

OK, I requested wÒÓ†'s boobies BEFORE I read him claiming to be Nikki.

Ups.

Posted by: heddle | August 12, 2009 11:57 AM

sharky,

My sources being that Protestant Christianity requires the Sinner's Prayer and Catholic Christians believe babies must be baptized to, er, tide them over.)

You need to get better sources. Are you one of the Pharyngulites who knows more about Christianity than most Christians?

As for Catholics, the baptism is for original sin. It is not to "make the baby believe". Since neither Catholics or Protestants think all dead babies are lost, and since they acknowledge that infants cannot "believe", and since they both acknowledge that faith is required for salvation (for the Protestants: only faith) then it logically follows that saved babies had faith--regardless of their inability to believe.

Posted by: zeroangel | August 12, 2009 11:59 AM

@Sharky:

I was joking around bro. I was playing on the idea that Nikki likely thinks the Aztecs were crazy but doesn't see the timber in her own eyes. Get it?

Posted by: Sam C. | August 12, 2009 12:00 PM

@Nikki #205

Sorry but i cant answer that because honestly, it would sense to me... But since you mentioned homosexuality:
Many catholics argue that because a few things in the bible say things like " thou shalt not lie with a man like a women" that automatically means being gay is a major sin. Personally i dont belive it because the bible also says that women are basically supposed to be slaves to their husbands but in todays world that doesnt really happen anymore. Does that mean many women are going to hell because they have jobs? no. The bible was written by men who wrote what god had told them but i think they probally wrote some things that they thought were gods word but in reality,was just theyre opinions based on their culture

- Sorry, I meant "who don't meet"

- And, alright, I can see why you might call it a sin, however:

a)You're exactly right, Men did write the Bible. I, for one find this a key leading part. Did God go *Zap* and the holy book suddenly appeared? No! One of the first reasons I refuted the Bible was because Men wrote it, and, people of the Human race tend to be a tad inaccurate sometimes. For all we know, it could have been a story book. Now, to this you might say "Ah, but it isn't.". However, we have no other evidence, therefore, I can propose alongside the fact that it might be truth; but, I can also say it is a fable. See now why I might refute the Bible? There is no evidence. Without evidence, we really in effect become sheep, following what the leader says without any real truth behind it. Creationism to me truly is blind.

Posted by: Nikki | August 12, 2009 12:01 PM

God flooded the earth(and yes, killed some babies) because the world was so full of sin that the only way to fix things was to flood the earth and clean it, in a way he cleaned the slate, to start anew.

Posted by: Ali Marie | August 12, 2009 12:02 PM

Hello, Nikki.
I'm about the same age you are, and raised in a church. However, I'm currently questioning religion, and classify myself as agnostic rather than Lutheran. Here's my 10 reasons why:

10. I like to ask questions. Simply, I want to know what's going on around me. If something doesn't sound right, I investigate.
9. Science has more solid answers. I can go out and see the answers to my questions.
8. When things go wrong, religion is comforting, but doesn't really explain what's happened. Science can.
7. Many of my peers who claim to be "true Christians" ganged up on me when I mentioned anything to do with geology or paleontology, topics I'm very interested in.
6. I can't take things on faith alone. For instance, the story of Jesus's birth is a nice one, but not one I can accept. It's scientifically impossible.
5. The contridictions between religion and science seem to have been created by the religious community. I see no reason why "Let there be light" and the Big Bang aren't the same thing.
4. The Bible was still written by people. People get things wrong. Mistranslations, exaggerations, etc. So, it can't be taken literally.
3. Many individuals who are very religious are not open minded. A good example is a discussion I was in about the book "Three Cups of Tea." The author and narrator, a Christian, prayed with the Muslims to show his acceptance of their culture, and help to make their conditions better. Some of the others in the discussion thought that was sinful, somehow.
2. I need evidence. I guess this is the same sort of thing as not taking things purely on faith. I want to know, definitively, that something is true. I can't see evidence of anything that is purely God's work. We don't understand everything scientifically, but we are working to figure it out. Religion doesn't always allow for that kind of investigation.
1. Finally, I have found I can't learn anything new from religion at this point. It raised me to have morals and to accept other people (and their ideas), but the sermons all sound the same now. I can learn and discover in science, where I just can't in religion.

I still do go to church occassionally, and I enjoy religious music, but I can't definitively say "There is a God." If you can, and that feels right to you, then that is your personal choice. But I, personally, don't know if there is a God. I do know that I can look at a trilobite fossil, and imagine a world that's 300 million years old, and see how life has changed in that time.
You can believe in a God and still understand the truths science has to offer.

~Ali Marie

Posted by: Paleos | August 12, 2009 12:04 PM

Nikki:

I presume that you wanted more personal reasons than most people here are presenting-we do tend to be rather heavy on theoretical musings. So here are my top 10:

10) As many people have said, there does not seem to be good evidence for the biblical creation or God.

9) The bible contradicts itself, but so does science sometimes. The difference is that science updates itself based on new ideas and evidence.

8) Being atheist/agnostic can be harder sometimes because of personal responsibility for every action, but is also more rewarding because of same.

7) Creation myths and religions are world-wide, the Christian version isn't very unusual or persuasive, so why is it better than any other. Once you see that, then why are any of them persuasive? They aren't.

6) To a lot of us, atheism is actually more comforting. The thought of a fickle, bloodthirsty god is bad, but so is a serene caring one that runs our lives and watches everything we do.

5) The church itself is often run by people who have little to no accountability. They think that even if they do bad things, like rape and murder, that as long as they repent in the end it is okay. As a result, the church as a totality is greedy, petty, and hurtful.

4) Once you start studying and observing nature as objectively as possible, you want to know more about each little detail. The over-arching explanation that God wants it to be that way is unacceptable, and things like evolution and long time spans make much more sense.

3) The bible has explanations for some things, but is really weird and useless for others. For an example, go to wikipedia and look up 'creation according to genesis' for a summary, or just read through Genisis if you haven't already. Really think about how weird and increadible all that sounds. Don't even look at Revelations unless you have a high tolerance for strange.

2) The idea that we don't need to simply have faith that God will do it, but that we can actually work to make ourselves, the people, and the environment we live in better is a really powerful one.

1) God is unnecessary to live a fulfilling, healthy life. You are responsible for your life and can find your own purpose and influences. It is much easier and more fun to live a 'good' life than a 'bad' one, we don't need God for that.

I hope that this helps you in what you are looking for. It is okay to be religious if that is helpful to you, but remember that it is not the only way to think!

Posted by: Sam C. | August 12, 2009 12:04 PM

I also forgot to mention that an illusion inducing drug similar to LSD was found on Mount Sinai, or the proclaimed place of it, and was thought to have grown there since the time of Moses. Just to let you know, Nikki.

Posted by: wÓÒ† | August 12, 2009 12:06 PM

(.)(.)

Posted by: Alexandre | August 12, 2009 12:07 PM

God flooded the earth(and yes, killed some babies) because the world was so full of sin that the only way to fix things was to flood the earth and clean it, in a way he cleaned the slate, to start anew.

But isn't that a problem for your vision of god? Doesn't the fact that he had to start anew mean that he failed in his first attempt? And isn't failing incompatible with your idea of a god that is perfect?

Posted by: LanceR, JSG | August 12, 2009 12:07 PM

@Chris #207: thanks, i did not know about calvinism (well i had heard the term) and i feel stupider for knowing.

Calvinism (and heddle) has that effect on people. Be careful, though. He stormed out of Dispatches in a huff after being called on it a little too closely. We wouldn't want to scare him off.

Posted by: Ben S | August 12, 2009 12:08 PM

Nikki #244
"Ever heard of faith?"

Asking for a reason, not faith. All my faith is in Bill Hicks, none to spare.

Posted by: AJ Milne | August 12, 2009 12:08 PM

...any time you rant on "death cultists" (to first order: whenever you post) I feel obliged to mock you...

Fair 'nough. Pretty much any time Heddle sez anything whatsoever, I feel obliged to mock him...

(But sadly, there just aren't enough hours in the day.)

Re da death cult du jour, tho'...

How will you spend eternity -- Smoking or Nonsmoking?

^^Sign at the Floral City United Methodist Church...

That the saints may enjoy their beatitude and the grace of God more abundantly, they are permitted to see the punishment of the damned in hell.

^^Aquinas, Summa Theologica...

Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of your dear Son Jesus Christ and to drink his blood...

^^Anglican liturgy...

Put a gun to an atheists head and tell him to renounce atheism and praise God and they will do it in a heartbeat. They are not ready to die for their fictional convictions. On the flip side of that, most of the Christians that I know will die for God and for Christ. We would never let anyone force us into renouncing our faith in the Most High God...

^^via FSTDT, natch...

Then out of the smoke came forth locusts on the earth, and power was given to them, as the scorpions of the earth have power. They were told that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree, but only those people who don’t have God’s seal on their foreheads. They were given power not to kill them, but to torment them for five months. Their torment was like the torment of a scorpion, when it strikes a person. In those days people will seek death, and will in no way find it.

^^Revelations (again, natch)...

Somewhat more seriously: divide and conquer has a long and dishonorable tradition 'mongst missionaries (da yellow square, huh?)... As does attempting to mark entirely deserved criticism out of bounds on the mere basis that it has been previously, in times a certain ugly little organization enjoyed rather greater hegemony, or just by deliberately attempting to associate it with someone you hope might easily be alienated from the larger body of critics...

Regardless, 'death cult' does rather fit Christianity, never mind that it may ring a bit unfamiliar. It quite deserves to live much closer to the mainstream. And I figure this can probably be arranged, actually...

(/And oh, look... an impaled, naked guy on a crucifix in a posture of death, at the tail end of slow, terminal torture... Huh... Must be some weird cult totem, I guess...)

Posted by: DaveL | August 12, 2009 12:10 PM

God flooded the earth(and yes, killed some babies)

This global flood never happened. The fact that there isn't enough water tells us this. The fact that there is not a gigantic flood layer present worldwide in the geological record tells us this. The fact that the species that exist today show no evidence of a common genetic bottleneck since the appearance of mankind tells us this. The fact that several cultures have continuous historical records throughout the time this was supposed to have happened tells us this.

because the world was so full of sin that the only way to fix things was to flood the earth and clean it,

For an omnipotent, omniscient being, there is never only one way to do anything.

Posted by: seanjjordan | August 12, 2009 12:10 PM

@176 "Nikki"

Your interpretation that God wants us to be happy is not actually based on any Christian doctrine I've ever seen. Far from it, in fact. If you go back and read the Bible, you'll find that God curses Adam and Eve so that they will toil and feel pain. He also tells them they'll fight with the serpent.

CONSTANTLY throughout the OT, God is punishing people in unhappy ways for offending him.

In the NT, Jesus tells people they will suffer for following him. Paul certainly suffers, sitting in jail and eventually being executed. Tradition shows that most of the disciples were martyred or exiled. There's a long tradition of suffering saints that follows.

Whoever is teaching you that God wants us to be happy does not understand Christian doctrine. I don't know any reputable theologians who would ever make such an argument.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | August 12, 2009 12:11 PM

"The question is: what reason do we have to believe any of it was dictated to them by some god?"

Ever heard of faith?

Do you believe that the Muslim's faith that the Quran was dictated by god is justified?

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: Draconiz | August 12, 2009 12:12 PM

Nikki @ 239

So were the babies full of sin too? This I never get about the Christian God. He is an interventionist God who can do less drastic measures, he could interfere at any point before the flood yet sit back and wait for the most Michael Bay-esque measure possible.

How could this God be considered kind or just?

And what about the evidence for this flood? By the time the "flood" supposedly happen, we have vibrant civilizations in India, China and various parts of the world without any mention of a flood.

Posted by: Louise Van Court | August 12, 2009 12:13 PM

Hi Nikki,
I’ll assume you are actually fifteen and come from a Christian family. I am a believer too and attend an Evangelical church. I would just want you to know that not all Christians or even the more conservative Evangelicals are against science. Many are at peace believing in Christ having experienced a life forever changed by the Savior, but yet also accept science as an adventure in discovering the wonders of the creation. Beware of false dichotomies that many would present to you i.e. either God or evolution. It is OK to ask questions about your faith. PZ is an atheist activist which is his prerogative, there are other scientists who are also believers and maintain an active vibrant faith. There are some very interesting people who comment here, but they tend to represent the strong atheist perspective. Look up theistic evolution and evolutionary creation for another perspective.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 12, 2009 12:13 PM

Calvinism (and heddle) has that effect on people. Be careful, though. He stormed out of Dispatches in a huff after being called on it a little too closely. We wouldn't want to scare him off.

You also need to watch out for a little trick of Heddle's in which he uses ordinary English words in quite extraordinary ways. He did it earlier when he redefined the meaning of faith, whilst keeping quiet about doing so. Common definitions of faith imply an element of cognition. Not so for Heddle.

Heddle is dishonest by most people's standards. However I suspect the person he is most dishonest with is himself.

Posted by: Rob | August 12, 2009 12:14 PM

Nikki,

Let me add yet another post to this huge list.

I would argue that both you and I are atheists, to a differing degree. I simple reject one more religion than you.

By claiming to be a Christian, that is, one who follows the teachings of Christ and the New Testament, you implicitly reject the teachings of all other religions as being invalid.

What I and many of my fellow posters have done is to take this one religion further. We reject the teachings of all religions.

It isn't a perfect argument, but ask yourself why do the members of your church not accept the teachings of the Hindu faith? Why is this? Ask your pastor. He will probably tell you that the Christian god is the one true god, and that all others are false. If you ask a Muslim cleric the same question, you'll get the same answer about Allah.

Posted by: amk | August 12, 2009 12:14 PM

"The question is: what reason do we have to believe any of it was dictated to them by some god?"

Ever heard of faith?

"Faith" can only reasonably described as belief without cause. It is the opposite of reason.

Posted by: Josh | August 12, 2009 12:16 PM

God flooded the earth(and yes, killed some babies) because the world was so full of sin that the only way to fix things was to flood the earth and clean it, in a way he cleaned the slate, to start anew.

*sigh*

Damn.

Okay. Why is it then, that when you look at the world's rocks, there is no evidence for a worldwide flood?

Posted by: Dogs | August 12, 2009 12:16 PM

This poll needs some pharyngulating(?)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10103521/

Posted by: Volcanon | August 12, 2009 12:16 PM

"Ever heard of faith?"

Have faith, friend, for in my hand I have a 2000 year old book that says that I am the owner of some prime oceanfront property in Nebraska! Don't believe me? HAVE SOME FAITH!

Posted by: Alyson Miers | August 12, 2009 12:18 PM

Wow, a lot of stuff happened while I was writing my post. Late to the party, I am.

Posted by: Paleos | August 12, 2009 12:18 PM

Ali @ 241:
"1. Finally, I have found I can't learn anything new from religion at this point. It raised me to have morals and to accept other people (and their ideas), but the sermons all sound the same now. I can learn and discover in science, where I just can't in religion."

Very nicely said, that would definitely be one of my reasons as well.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 12, 2009 12:19 PM

"The question is: what reason do we have to believe any of it was dictated to them by some god?"

Ever heard of faith? - Nikki

Nikki, what do you mean by "faith".

Posted by: Bitchfinder General | August 12, 2009 12:20 PM

"God flooded the earth(and yes, killed some babies) because the world was so full of sin that the only way to fix things was to flood the earth and clean it, in a way he cleaned the slate, to start anew."

Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that the Earth was flooded 4, 000 years ago?

Posted by: Gruesome Rob | August 12, 2009 12:20 PM

This poll needs some pharyngulating(?)

ARRGGHHH. PZ, can you automatically posts that contain this URL?

Posted by: June | August 12, 2009 12:21 PM

Hello Nikki!

Your evidence for God is most likely the fact that you have heard and read about God. My reply is that you probably also heard and read about the Stork, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, Mickey Mouse, Alice In Wonderland, and Harry Potter. The human brain is a wonderful tool for inventing characters with special powers.

But your brain only knows what you feed it through your 5 senses or what it can reason out by itself. So, if your brain has heard nothing but Harry Potter all of its life, it is going to believe there is a Harry Potter. After all, everyone talks about him, and there are books and movies and action figures and costumes. How would your brain ever find out that Harry Potter is imaginary?

Michelangelo painted the story of creation on the Sistine Chapel, and to show us what he really believed, he painted God as emerging from an outline of the human brain (see Wikipedia: Sistine Chapel). You may want to start by wondering how your brain knows anything at all about God.

Posted by: Niall | August 12, 2009 12:22 PM

But Nikki, if God didn't want to kill babies, then why wouldn't he have done something much less cruel and labour intensive than a huge worldwide flood? Couldn't God have just made all the evil people disappear, leaving the babies unharmed and saving Noah from having to build a huge boat and repopulate the world with incest? I understand the metaphor of cleaning the world, but doesn't a flood sound unnecessarily theatrical and violent for a benevolent God?

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 12, 2009 12:23 PM

I would do anything for love...but I won't do that!

Posted by: amk | August 12, 2009 12:24 PM

There are psychology experiments that demonstrate a very strong tendency to accept the beliefs of society even if they are clearly false. Thus if someone grows up surrounded by religion X, they are highly likely to adhere to X themselves.

wÓÒ†'s booby is very sweet!

Posted by: Eric | August 12, 2009 12:25 PM

@240

Welcome to KKMS Live! with Jeff & Lee TODAY'S SHOW August 12 2009: Weekdays 3-6 PM CT

5:00 Hour - "Defending Creationism"
Ken Ham, Founder and President of Answers in Genesis and Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist and Speaker with Answers in Genesis will explain why Creationism is scientifically more plausible than Darwinism and offer several ways Creationists can confidently defend their position.

Call us on the air at 651-289-4499 or 888-332-5169.

http://www.kkms.com/blogs/JeffandLee/11607267/

Call early and call often!

Posted by: Sam C. | August 12, 2009 12:26 PM

Posted by: bilbo | August 12, 2009 12:21 PM Nikki, If you're really here, be sure to not click on any of the other posts on PZ's blog. If you do, you'll find all of those nicely encouraging you in this post calling you an "idiot" and "hateful" and telling you to "fuck off" in virtually all of the others. That includes PZ. Since no one here has brought this up, PZ is an atheist, yes, but he is also a New Atheist. To clear the distinction up, atheism is a simple lack of belief in God or gods. Someone who is a new atheist not only is an atheist but advocates for the complete destruction of religion and promotes attacks on the faithful. It has less to do with a lack of belief and much more to do with bitterness about religion. I urge you to question your beliefs and consider atheism. I also urge you, however, to read the other posts on this blog first. Atheism is indeed a freethinking, clearer worldview. New atheism, on the other hand, is a vile, hateful, disgusting manifestation of pure bigotry wrapped shoddily in a cloak of intellectualism. It is, in all, a joke.

It does not call for the destruction of all! That is a misconceived nigh-ridiculous gross misrepresentation. To me, the term "New Atheist" and the proponents of using this term in a hateful way are....

in all, a joke.

Posted by: ice9 | August 12, 2009 12:26 PM

Scene: Nikki's house. Camera advances in a single shaky dolly across neat front yard, well-tended gardens, into front door and living room, dwells briefly on evangelical objets and sacred sayings painted on driftwood. Brief peripheral of aproned mother clattering dishes in kitchen, Dad behind paper in breakfast nook, brother playing avidly with Christian action figures; David v. Goliath perhaps attracts the lens momentarily, but same continuous shot continues. Down a dimmer hallway, around a corner, into the back bedroom and over-the-shoulder where Nikki types, with frequent thoughtful pauses, on a keyboard. The room is typical 15-year-old girl, maybe a little neater and straighter than you would find outside of the South.

Nikki (to herself) Whoa! (thumbs with quick familiarity through a well-thumbed bible, laminated cover, Jesus' words in red.) Types a few more strokes, hits "Post". Frowns, hits "post" again, and again.

Mother: (from the kitchen, muffled) "Nikki!"

Camera curves around to show Nikki, startled, guiltily hunching. She's a typical 15-year-old American girl, though unpierced, natural brown hair, a bit young-looking without makeup or earrings. In the blowback glow from the computer screen, underneath the fear and guilt, we see perhaps a bit more spark of intelligence and energy in her eyes.
Nikki: "Just a minute, Mom!"

Her screen updates and she begins reading posts, rapidly becoming absorbed and at the same time confused by the profusion of parallel conversations. She scrolls deftly up and down, occasionally nodding, occasionally reading aloud, occasionally allowing an expression of confusion or surprise to cross her face.

From the front room, muffled: "Nikki!"

Rack focus across Nicki's profile to her closed bedroom door. She does not react; so absorbed, she does not hear her mother, then her father call again. Rack focus back again; still she reads, more engaged now; we see more animation and more fascination in her face as she finds herself, perhaps for the first time ever, engaged in a conversation in which adults take her seriously.

Father, louder: "Nikki!?"

She does not react, continues reading. Shot tightens on her face, and we see the words scrolling by, reflected in her eyes, moving faster, scrolling up and down.

Nikki (under her breath, with amused dismissal) "heddle?"

Angle: wide, whole bedroom, from Nikki's right shoulder. Suddenly a knock and the door flies open, Father and Mother barge in. Startled, Nikki reaches quickly for the mouse and fumbles it off the edge of the desk. Camera follows, sees her grasping hands miss the mouse, then withdraw, defeated, the mouse penduluming as the next dialogue takes place.

Mother: (fearful) Nikki?

Father: (forceful) Nikki! What's going on here?

Shot directly above, hands, heads, keyboard, mouse; a confusion of grasping and groping as her parents swarm into her space. The parents lean in and grope for the keyboard and mouse; Nikki at first struggles to prevent them then gives up hopelessly, defeated.

Camera jibs downward and behind all three heads; we can see the screen clearly. It is a Pharyngula comment thread. Prominent in the middle of the screen is a post headed "Nikki" and another post responding to her by name.

Father: "What the Heck! What is this?"
Mother: (nearly hysterical) "Oh my God! Nikki!"
Father: (reading the screen, then, with obvious unfamiliarity, scrolling up) "Good Lord!" (to his wife, who is dithering) "Call Reverend Wilkins!"
Mother: "What is it? Oh my God, Jim, what is she doing?"
Father: (scrolling and clicking frantically, increasingly agitated and disgusted) "Good Lord! Oh, my baby! Oh, no!"
Mother: "Oh my God! is it pornography? Lesbianism? Facebook?"
Father, weeping: "Oh my good sweet Lord! Call the church!"

Cutaway to door

Brother, entering, shocked: "What? What's going on?"

Mother and Father (unison) "Get out of here!"

Brother, shocked, withdraws.

Back to OTS screen shot:

Mother: "Is she...is she...is it Obama?"
Father: (reading) "Oh my God!"
Mother: (reading over his shoulder, weeping) "Oh Lord!"

Nikki: (pleading, guilty) I'm sorry! I was just curious!

Father: (gently, as you would speak to a severely injured person) "It's ok, honey. It's going to be all right."

Mother: "What is this place? Is it Facebook? What are they saying?"

Shot from Nikki's right, low:
Father: (turning on Nikki) "Oh my God...did you write this? Did you write this, young lady?"

Mother: (growing hysterical) "What is it? I don't understand! What was she doing? Is it the gays?"

Father: (hissing) "No. It's atheists. She's talking to atheists."

Tighter shot on Nikki's face. Terror mingled with resolve.

Door shot, mid for three:

Mother: (silent, astonished, looks at Nikki with an empty, hopeless look. She recoils. This is the worst blow yet.)

Slow zoom to father's face:

Father: (commiserating pathetically with himself) "I knew it. I knew it. Oh my God, I knew it would come to this."

Shot from Nikki's right, low.

Pause.
Boom upward to door:

Brother, entering again: "What?"

Father and Mother, in unison: "Out!"

Brother retreating sullenly, but still somewhat entertained. "Jeez."

Camera again wheels on Nikki. Her face is pale, her eyes shocked and filling with tears. Out of focus we see mother and father behind her, arguing and recriminating violently with each other. Mother repeats "Lesbianism" several times; father says "I knew it!" Gradually we see a change come over Nikki, a hardening joining the fear and guilt. Camera racks back across her shoulder, now at profile, shooting through the twitching hands and angry postures of her parents. She takes the mouse in her hand.

From the door, across the angry parents' faces, now blaming each other, expressing fear and anger at this failure. Off-center, we see Nikki mouse gently toward the upper corner of her screen.

Father: "Close that immediately! Oh, my God, after all we've done for you! Atheists! Those people, they... they... they THINK. Close it! You're off the computer, young woman!" And he goes back to arguing with his wife.

Nikki: (under her breath) "Yes, Daddy."

Full shot of computer screen. We see the mouse-arrow travel upward, but with a sudden, fluid teen-aged agility the arrow opens 'bookmarks' and hits 'bookmark this page'. Cutaway: Nikki's index finger decisively stabs 'enter' just as the bookmark dialogue pops open. Full screen: the mouse arrow zooms precisely right and punches out of Firefox; the screen goes black and we can see Nikki's face, now more composed, and the blurry energy of her parents standing behind her--the mother now weeping inarticulately and the father on the phone.

Father: "Yes! We caught her in the act!"

pause, mother weeping audibly.

Father: "Atheists! She was talking to atheists!"

Brother (invisible, he's come back in) "What's an atheist?"

Father and Mother: (to brother) "OUT!"

Fade to black.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 12, 2009 12:27 PM

Someone who is a new atheist not only is an atheist but advocates for the complete destruction of religion and promotes attacks on the faithful. - bilbo

nikki, bilbo is a liar. Certainly, many atheists, including PZ and many others here, think the world would be better off without religion. However, that is a very different thing from advocating the "complete destruction of religion" and promoting "attacks on the faithful", both of which are deliberately phrased to suggest that we intend to resort to violence or the suppression of religious freedom, both of which are entirely false.

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

PZ, another way would be to actually have this email conversation with Nikki (or maybe a group of kids her age), but make it public. I think it would be great to see you (as a professional teacher) explain these complicated questions in very simple terms, and a lot more people could learn from it too, on both sides of the fence.

Posted by: sharky | August 12, 2009 12:30 PM

@Heddle, 262:

Goodness, no, that's not a shared idea among sects of Christianity. Otherwise there's no point for the whole "age of accountability" idea Evangelicals and other groups of Christians frequently discuss, and Baptists would have no reason to stand against infant baptism.

Posted by: Cheezits | August 12, 2009 12:33 PM

...the only way to fix things was to flood the earth and clean it, in a way he cleaned the slate, to start anew."

The only way, right. Except that it *didn't* fix things, people started sinning again immediately. Big waste of superpowers.

Posted by: GAZZA | August 12, 2009 12:35 PM

bilbo@308: You'll have to point out to me where Richard Dawkins uses demeaning language that is vile, disgusting, and hateful. Or say Sam Harris.

Posted by: aratina cage | August 12, 2009 12:36 PM

Babies can have faith in Jesus/God??? Heddle, that had to be the stupidest thing I have ever seen you write. You can usually get away with arguing church doctrine, but not this time. Perhaps you should study neuroscience before making any more statements about faith. You have proven yourself to be ignorant about the science of the brain.

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 12, 2009 12:36 PM

If I was your girlfriend.

Wait a second, there is this strange gender thing going on.

Posted by: Alan Kellogg | August 12, 2009 12:37 PM

Nikki, #244

Oh I have faith in God, but the world requires evidence.

Consider this; the available evidence says that the universe is something like 30 billion light years in diameter. That's a lot of space, and a lot of space (yes, I pun). The universe is simply too big to support the God of the Bible. Sorry, but that's just how it is.

You study the Bible and subjects such as geology, geography (political and physical), history, biology, and physics you'll discover one thing; the world is far more complex and much older than the authors and bards who first composed and passed on what would later become the books of the Bible. The author of Leviticus wrote from his understanding, and of matters from a time and a people long before his. He wrote of the laws he wanted his people to follow, not the laws the tribes who formed the tribal confederation that would one day be known as Israel followed.

The Bible is an attempt to lay down the history of a people, their philosophy and theology, and---in the New Testament---present a reason why a person should take up the cause of a Jewish rabbi who was supposedly so much more. It gets so much wrong. Sometimes there are places where the author out righted lied, even if he was saying something he wanted to be true. Compare Luke's account of the passion of Christ with Matthew's sometimes. To be blunt, Luke lied.

Faith is a fine thing, when properly applied. I have faith most people are basically people and will act decently and with respect towards you. But I am willing to accept that not everybody is nice, and that there are people out there who will treat you with contempt and disdain. I take what most scientists say on faith, because I know something of how science and scientists work. But when I learn that a scientist was wrong, or even lying, I accept that because I understand that people are imperfect and will make mistakes.

My point is, be willing to learn and to correct your errors when pointed out. Even more important, remember that our ancestors and forerunners were just as human as us, and that they made mistakes. Learn to accept this and you'll learn to recognize the errors our predecessors made.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 12, 2009 12:38 PM

New atheist attacks are indeed nonviolent. They are, however, built around verbal insults and demeaning language - bilbo

And another lie from bilbo. Richard Dawkins is universally recognised, among those who use the term, as a "new atheist"; he never (at least in public - I don't know about his private life) uses such language. It is true strong language, that many find offensive, is used on this blog - generally against vile, disgusting, hateful liars like you, bilbo.

Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | August 12, 2009 12:39 PM

Nikki said:

I cant really explain it, because when im praying or with my youth group, i feel at peace which i know is gonna sound weird but its the truth.

This isn't evidence for God; it's evidence for being human. The feeling you get when you feel 'at peace' or think you're feeling the Holy Spirit is exactly the same feeling I, an atheist, can get by listening to good music, enjoying a scenic vista, or watching an emotional movie. The feeling you get - chills, shivers, a feeling like you need to move, something crawling up your spine - is just a human, emotional response. It's not supernatural.

Posted by: Walton | August 12, 2009 12:40 PM

I became an atheist principally as a result of discussions on this site. Arguing on the internet does change people's minds.

Posted by: E.V. | August 12, 2009 12:41 PM

Bilbo & troll are synonymous.

Posted by: bobxxxx | August 12, 2009 12:43 PM

My name is Nikki and I am a christian. I am 15 and very involved in my youth group and last week we were on a mission trip in kentucky.

Though being the gutsy girl i am, i am asking you to give me a chance and have a conversation with me about god and creation.

Nikki, you need to realize you have been brainwashed by idiots. Fortunately you are not too young to recover from this child abuse. But it's up to you to do something about it.

I suggest educate yourself. Read the book "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne. It's easy to understand and you will enjoy reading it. Also, it's up to date because it was published this year.

When you get done reading Coyne's book, if you still believe in magical creation, then the brainwashing was complete and there's no hope for you. Good luck.

Posted by: SEF | August 12, 2009 12:43 PM

Re the multiple "Nikki"s:

Kill-file them all and let PZ sort them out. ;-)

Posted by: abys | August 12, 2009 12:43 PM

All I can say is when I was 15, I thought I was gonna go up and marry Jesus.

Now I'm 24 and I look back on my high school self with pity.

Wait till you get to (a real, state) college kiddo. Your mind will be opened to the real world and it's really gorgeous out there.

And PS: You're 15. You don't know everything. If you truly think your mind can't be changed on anything at 15 then you need to get out more.

Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | August 12, 2009 12:44 PM

Nikki also said:

The bible was written by men who wrote what god had told them but i think they probally wrote some things that they thought were gods word but in reality,was just theyre opinions based on their culture

Nikki also said:

God flooded the earth(and yes, killed some babies) because the world was so full of sin that the only way to fix things was to flood the earth and clean it, in a way he cleaned the slate, to start anew.

Nikki also also said:

Ever heard of faith?

Posted by: LanceR, JSG | August 12, 2009 12:45 PM

@heddle: In small steps: faith is required for salvation (as near a Christian universal as you can find), not all babies are lost (ditto), therefore babies have faith.

False. Your first premise is (generally) correct, in that most xtian sects do require faith for salvation. Your second premise is completely wrong, however. Ever heard of Purgatory? Xtian dogma has a long history of condemning unbaptized infants to hell. Even Calvinism. Your personal system may assume that all infants are magically granted faith by the magic sky-fairy, but you are in the minority.

Sorry, charlie... logic 101 FAIL.

Posted by: Alyson Miers | August 12, 2009 12:47 PM

The bible was written by men who wrote what god had told them but i think they probally wrote some things that they thought were gods word but in reality,was just theyre opinions based on their culture

This is a valuable insight for which I commend you, but see, here's the thing: you would need to have some kind of framework from outside of scripture and, yes, outside of faith, to make this distinction. How do you know which parts were theoretically God's word and which parts were just the writers' pre-existing attitudes? And if the writers couldn't tell the difference, how can you? But more immediately, my question is: how do you decide between what God told these men who wrote the Bible, and the cultural baggage that these very human, imperfect men brought to the Bible?

God flooded the earth(and yes, killed some babies) because the world was so full of sin that the only way to fix things was to flood the earth and clean it, in a way he cleaned the slate, to start anew.

As a justification for an action, this is debateable, but is also assumes the premise that the Flood story was non-fictional and that God actually exists. Which means that, before we can use it as a justification, we must first agree on the premise of the story's veracity--which the evidence (geological, biological) contradicts.

Ever heard of faith?

But that begs the question of why we should have faith, in the first place. We generally find that evidence is much more useful and helpful than faith; where the evidence takes us, faith is not necessary. Then there is the second--and, in the face of the first question, extraneous--question of, if you must have faith, where will it take you? Faith takes your reasoning to a place where no one else can see it, and by the same token, it takes someone else's reasoning (I use the word loosely) where you cannot understand it. Many people with the same amount of faith will come to many different conclusions, and have very poor tools for understanding each other.

Posted by: amk | August 12, 2009 12:47 PM

Walton,

I became an atheist principally as a result of discussions on this site.

Posted by: Bruce Gorton | August 12, 2009 12:48 PM

God flooded the earth(and yes, killed some babies) because the world was so full of sin that the only way to fix things was to flood the earth and clean it, in a way he cleaned the slate, to start anew.

The Noahide laws, came after Noah. The ten commandments came much, much later still. God drowned the world, for breaking rules he hadn't made yet?

Posted by: mothwentbad | August 12, 2009 12:49 PM

First of all, I think a lot of the responses are a little trigger-happy with the troll accusations. I don't see any red flags. Trolling and dishonesty is always a possibility, but I don't see anything fishy here to destroy benefit of the doubt right out the gate.

Second, "nothing will ever convince PZ" is probably right. It's not "closed mindedness", though, so much as the bald facts of the matter are that creationism is probably false, and therefore compelling "evidence" that could make PZ regard creationism as remotely likely almost certainly doesn't exist. It's not an a priori judgment on his part - it's the same as saying that "nothing will ever convince PZ that magic unicorns with levitation powers exist". It's not formally impossible for it to be true, but you and I both know from personal experience that no satisfactory evidence seems to have ever existed, though whimsical story books say otherwise. We can tell the difference, though.

I'm sorry if some of the responders were needlessly harsh right out the gate. Sometimes civility and managing our paranoia is difficult. We've put up with too many attempts at conversion and too many smiling faces thinly veiling their opinion that we can burn in a lake of fire forever for all they care if we don't "come around".

Posted by: Nikki | August 12, 2009 12:50 PM

I meant that the world couldnt handle any more sin and God was so angry at the world so God decided the only way clean things up and show the world he exists was to flood the earth but have noah and his family and two of every animal and plant go on a ark so they could recreate their world with a clean slate so to speak

Posted by: Lucas | August 12, 2009 12:50 PM

I was raised in a catholic family, and I became an atheist probably when I was about 10 or 12. Basically, I realized that adults constantly lie to kids. They lie about sex, about their relationships, about their work. Usually, they lie for what they perceive as benevolent reasons, because they want to protect kids. Me, I found it insulting.

My conclusion was that I should assume that everything any adult tells me may be wrong, unless I find some kind of independent evidence that it is true. Which was often hard before the Internets and Wikipedia, so I was a regular at the school library (and I had to lie to the librarian a few times, telling her the books were for my parents because they thought I was too young to read them), and had a well-stocked book shelf of history and science books.

Well, turns out all those stories I was told in religion class and simply assumed were true because an adult told me they were? Not only was there no independent evidence that they were true (everyone believed them simply because they were written in an old book, and because other adults had told them to believe it when *they* were kids), the things that occurred in those stories - like Jesus feeding a number of people using only very little food, or turning water into wine - were usually impossible to replicate for me in any reasonable way, and there was no evidence that it was possible to replicate them at all, or that any of it ever occurred. I actually honestly tried this stuff, figuring that if it were possible to do "magic" as described in the bible, it should be possible for me to do things like turning water into wine if only I put my mind to it. In hindsight, that may sound weird, but as a kid, a lot of things are new and strange, so believing that magic might be possible didn't seem *that* far-fetched to me.

Given my own failure, the failure of every other living person on earth, and the lack of evidence that any of the stories in the bible actually ever occurred, I inevitably came to the conclusion that christianity - and all other religions - were extremely unlikely to be true. So unlikely, in fact, that it makes no sense to waste any time going to church, or to waste any money on these people.

Posted by: Sam C. | August 12, 2009 12:51 PM

Hmm, coming out of lurking for the first time and heading for the open thread with over 300 comments already. I like it.

Posted by: aratina cage | August 12, 2009 12:52 PM

What would be stupid about it? An omnipotent means the sky's the limit. Nothing is impossible, nothing is stupid. With God, all things are not stupid. -386sx

Posted by: bobxxxx | August 12, 2009 12:53 PM

"Im just a christian who yea, believes in creation. can anyone give me 10 good reasons why i shouldent believe in creation or god?"

Read the book I recommended earlier for thousands of reasons to throw out magical creation. You got to do your homework before you come to place like this. Study, study, study. You can do it.

After you have a better understanding of science, you may decide to throw out your childish belief in a magic god fairy. It's for a good reason virtually all the top scientists in the world are atheists.

Posted by: articulett | August 12, 2009 12:54 PM

Boy am I glad I could not embarrass myself on the internet at 15 since there wasn't much of an internet to speak of.

I hope that PZ's email writers has the opportunity to one day look back and giggle over the cluelessness and transparency of her 15 year old self.

Posted by: Ben in Texas | August 12, 2009 12:55 PM

I really think "Nikki" is a fabrication.

Posted by: William | August 12, 2009 12:56 PM

Nikki, I believe you have answered your own question.

"The bible was written by men who wrote what god had told them but i think they probally wrote some things that they thought were gods word but in reality,was just theyre opinions based on their culture"

Yes, the bible was the work of men. It was not inspired by divinity. It's an archaic, flawed construct, and in the world we live in today, obsolete and irrelevant.

You are struggling identifying your 'personal god'. We have all done that. Is your creator the one in the book, or the one in your heart. The latter makes you feel safe and alive, the former is a raging, confused narcissist, and most importantly, originated from the minds of men. Shed this abomination and let your heart tell you what you need to believe. Create your own creator. In other words, lose your religion and save your faith.

The next step would be to learn to live and love without any supernatural influence. This takes more time, and is far more rewarding, but requires an intellectual approach to understanding deism. You're no dummy, you can do this. Suspend your belief and openly read, read and read some more. And I don't mean scripture. Query this thread for literature that influenced others.

There isn't any single clincher out there, no key unlocking secreted revelation as religion would have you believe. no conduit to the almighty. Review the many reasonable suggestions within this thread. Consider your need for truth and be very clear about your own ability to evaluate what is reasonable and what is dogmatic. You will be hard pressed to find anyone here suggesting you will be punished for your thoughts.

Posted by: articulett | August 12, 2009 12:57 PM

Heck, I'm not all-loving, and I wouldn't make a single child if I thought there was the remotest possibility that said child could suffer forever... why would someone worship an invisible man who supposedly has done exactly that?

Posted by: Bruce Gorton | August 12, 2009 12:58 PM

Nikki

I meant that the world couldnt handle any more sin

Well, what is sin? It is something that goes against God's word right? It is breaking God's rules.

Well, if God was revealing himself via the flood, then surely there couldn't have actually been sin at that point, because there wouldn't have been any rules for mankind to break.

Posted by: heddle | August 12, 2009 12:59 PM

Sharky,

Otherwise there's no point for the whole "age of accountability" idea Evangelicals and other groups of Christians frequently discuss, and Baptists would have no reason to stand against infant baptism.

There is no "age of accountability" frequently discussed--if there were, evangelicals would view abortion as a mercy-killing rather than murder. All those aborted babies who who might have grown up to be New Atheists have avoided damnation!!

The baptist stand against infant baptism is because, unlike say Presbyterians, they do not primarily view baptism as a supernatural means of grace, but as a public testimony. It has nothing to do--whatsoever--with whether or not dead babies can possess a saving faith--and in fact Baptists acknowledge that they can.

I think that, indeed, you are one of Pharyngula's leading experts on Christianity.

Posted by: pdferguson | August 12, 2009 1:00 PM

Nikki bleated:

Ever heard of faith?

Oh Nikki, Nikki, Nikki, you're such a tool...*

We HAVE heard of faith, child. We understand faith's role in religious indoctrination, and we know how claims of faith are the last refuge of believers in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. That's why people are often said to cling to their faith when they have nothing else. That's not a compliment to those people, and it's not praising their faith. If ignorance is the lack of knowledge, faith is the rejection of it. Which do you think is worse?

So the real question becomes, do you, Nikki, understand what faith really is, and why a retort like "Ever heard of faith?" is such a pathetic little bleat?

* requisite Firesign Theater reference

Posted by: Glen Davidson | August 12, 2009 1:01 PM

I meant that the world couldnt handle any more sin and God was so angry at the world so God decided the only way clean things up and show the world he exists was to flood the earth but have noah and his family and two of every animal and plant go on a ark so they could recreate their world with a clean slate so to speak

What evidence is there that the world couldn't handle any more sin (and what were these sins?)?

What evidence is there that there is a god?

What evidence is there that god was angry?

What thinking processes led to god deciding that flooding the world was the only way to fix the situation? What led god to believe that killing babies and animals so indiscriminately was proper to do in order to reach his goal?

You may think I'm badgering you, but these are questions that would have to be answered in court if you were trying to make a case, if somehow a court decision hinged upon your claims. I'm asking the questions anyone should ask of the flood account.

Why would god's purported actions pass without the questioning that a human's would in cases of violence and possible culpability? Surely god should at least provide the kinds of evidence that humans generally are required to present to justify their actions.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: 386sx | August 12, 2009 1:02 PM

it's like Christians think we are all in Super Mario World or something

Nah, not Super Mario. More like...

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

Posted by: cyan | August 12, 2009 1:05 PM

Just a subjective opinion from both remembering being a teenager and from dealing with hundreds of teenagers for sixteen years:

the responses she gets here: she
- will not internalize any of the information in the responses now
- may remember as an adult these examples as that atheists are willing to share personal experiences and to provide scientific evidence for why we think as we do

So, no immediate or even near-future benefits to her from pharyngulite responses, but maybe a memory she will eventually be ready to review in her far-future.

Nikki: remember all the input here as well as in-person that you are exposed to, and review it all at various stages of your life - never keep opinions you formed at age "blank" as ones you keep your whole life - constantly update your neural data bank and revise your views accordingly. Why keep making that effort? - because it is most beneficial both to you as an individual and to all other humans as a group to periodically analyze & update.

Posted by: alopiasmag | August 12, 2009 1:07 PM

Dear Nikki,

I was a raised catholic. I started questioning my religion at 12-14 yrs of age and "came out" in college.

Religion is simply a way people found to explain the un-explainable. Before we knew how "hurricanes" started, people thought "GOD", or "GODS" were angry and caused these mishaps.

If it makes you feel better to believe in something, go ahead. But do not accept everything they tell you as true. You must question and look for facts.

The Bible was written more than 2,000 years ago and has never been edited or corrected!

Modern Science literature and investigative journals are edited and updated constantly to keep up with changing and understanding times!

Another point - There are hundreds of religions. They all believe in different theories, but most accept that science is what gives us an understanting of the world. (Buddhism for example)

Posted by: Nikki | August 12, 2009 1:07 PM

"Heck, I'm not all-loving, and I wouldn't make a single child if I thought there was the remotest possibility that said child could suffer forever... why would someone worship an invisible man who supposedly has done exactly that?"

God doesnt want us to suffer forever, he wants us to spend a happy life glorifying him. But when adam and eve ate from the tree of knowlege, sin came into the world and so did the devil. God tries to help us but sin and the devil work just as him to make sure we are miserable.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | August 12, 2009 1:08 PM

Count me in the I think Nikki is a fake group.

Anyone who fully believes "I'm a 15 year old girl with questions" on the internet is a sucker.

That doesn't mean that Nikki isn't what is claimed, and maybe more importantly, it is far from unlikely that 15 year olds are reading this exchange, in hopes of learning--or more likely, hoping to see their side win.

Which is why I wouldn't pounce, at the least.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: Nikki | August 12, 2009 1:10 PM

"Is God going to have to keep repeatedly destroying his creation over and over again? "

No, after the flood, God put a rainbow in the sky to show that he would never flood the earth again.

Posted by: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood | August 12, 2009 1:11 PM

Nikki,

I'll assume you are for real. As you may have noticed we have people come around impersonating other folks. But I'll take you at face value.

God created us for his glory, we live to glorify him.

That seems like a rather selfish motive for a god. You mean to say he created a race of humans to validate his existence by glorifying him?

An alternative hypothesis is that there is no god and therefore we have no need to ascribe incomprehensible motives to him. However, it's all too easy to determine the motives of your ministers and clergy who, after all, have built an easy living on pastoral work and having influence and power over their flock.

If there is no god we do not have to waste our love, our devotions and our precious resources on worshipping an imaginary deity. Instead we could lavish that attention on our fellow man and do good works. I'd far rather spend money on charitable efforts than on building any number of churches or creation museums, both of which are edifices built on untruth and the power of a clerical elite.

God didnt make us so he could have happy go lucky people on earth doing nothing but being happy.

If people are not created by a god then the purpose of existence becomes something far richer than 'glorifying god'. Glorifying a god is such a narrow, thin purpose when instead you could be reveling in the complexity of the universe as revealed by science, and helping your fellow man.

Why put money in a collection plate to pay for crosses and ikons and your minister's new car when you could spend it on a relief organisation, or helping a science foundation cure disease?

While its true god loves us, that doesnt mean he helps us do what WE want to do, he helps us when we do what HE wants us to do.

That's sweet, but if gods exist they have a long history of hurting their worshipers, of not intervening when their flock is in need, of allowing innocents to die, of coddling butchers and murderers, of condoning killings, of hiding evil within the precincts of churches.

An alternative hypothesis is that there is no god and the evils that men commit happen for reasons of greed, ideology and the moral distortions of religion.

Personally i dont belive it because the bible also says that women are basically supposed to be slaves to their husbands but in todays world that doesnt really happen anymore. Does that mean many women are going to hell because they have jobs? no. The bible was written by men who wrote what god had told them but i think they probally wrote some things that they thought were gods word but in reality,was just theyre opinions based on their culture

If you cannot trust those passages of the Bible, how can you trust any of it? How can you, for example, trust the creation myth?

If you can cherry pick which things are acceptable in modern culture, who makes these judgements? Is it you? Do you decide which passages are 'in' or 'out'? Who gave you that authority? And if it wasn't you, who was it? Your minister? If so, who gave HIM his authority?

Sooner or later you have to come to the conclusion that interpreting the laws and bylaws of the Bible is entirely arbitrary. People are making it up. And many of your religion's traditions cannot even be found in the Bible and instead are imported from elsewhere.

God flooded the earth(and yes, killed some babies) because the world was so full of sin that the only way to fix things was to flood the earth and clean it, in a way he cleaned the slate, to start anew.

Why? Did this god botch the job so badly he had to do over? How did he let things get so bad? And if the world was so full of sin why haven't we had regular global floods since then? If he needed to purge the world why does he not do it more often?

An alternative hypothesis is that there is no god and that the flood myths were borrowed from earlier cultures. Maybe they had a root in an actual historical incident of a small but local flooding. The fertile crescent from which civilization sprang was periodically deluged. Could the flood story not be an ancient echo of this?

I must confess that I'm far more comforted in the notion that there is no arbitrary god going to commit genocide by flood than the idea that there is a murderous good out there bent on punishing the unbeliever.

Posted by: Bruce Gorton | August 12, 2009 1:11 PM

God doesnt want us to suffer forever, he wants us to spend a happy life glorifying him. But when adam and eve ate from the tree of knowlege, sin came into the world and so did the devil.

Actually, no. The devil was already in the garden long before the fruit got eaten - he was the serpent who tempted Eve.

Posted by: Eidolon | August 12, 2009 1:12 PM

Nikki:
Be you troll or no, this thread is a real surprise for a couple of reasons. First, the tone. People are quite openly relating their experiences with virtually no snark. For this group, that's a measure of how honestly their posts reflect personal experiences.

Secondly, look at the length and number of responses. If you want to know how people become atheists, you'd not find a much better sampling.

There is nothing like learning about science. Think on it - lightning used to be the Wrath of God. Now it's just a big spark that smites dummies not smart enough to get off the golf course. Plagues were the Wrath of God. Now they are diseases carried by unclean water or rats or other vectors.Were there floods in ancient times? Sure, but there is no evidence of anything like a world wide flood and the story, lifted from earlier stories is just that - a story. Consider - how would a people who lived by the ocean interpret a tsunami? Wrath of God perhaps but most likely not connected to a distant earthquake.

Please use the 3 lbs. or so of stuff between your ears and ask questions. That is, if you really exist.

Posted by: William | August 12, 2009 1:12 PM

Nikki, you've got to dump that book and start using your own reason. The book is myth, a construct of man, let go or you will never be able to think clearly.

Posted by: abys | August 12, 2009 1:13 PM

Nikki: Many catholics argue that because a few things in the bible say things like " thou shalt not lie with a man like a women" that automatically means being gay is a major sin. Personally i dont belive it because the bible also says that women are basically supposed to be slaves to their husbands but in todays world that doesnt really happen anymore. Does that mean many women are going to hell because they have jobs? no. The bible was written by men who wrote what god had told them but i think they probally wrote some things that they thought were gods word but in reality,was just theyre opinions based on their culture

YES!

Good job, you're taking a step in the right direction.

Here's the truth about the Bible, Nikki. The Bible is a compilation of texts that were written over an extremely long period of time, from hundreds (thousands? It's been a while since my theology classes) of years before Christ was even 'born', to hundreds of years after. The opinions, life rules, and parables expressed in the Old Testament strictly reflect a culture of a people that existed in certain conditions.

1) Only a quarter of children born live past age 12.
2) Life expectancy is somewhere around the age of 40.
3) Food and clean water is not a guaranteed luxury.
4) If the tribe does not work together as a group, everyone dies.
5) Other tribes will kill us when given the chance.

Hence, you get awesome bible books like Numbers, Deuteronomy and Leviticus with those absolutely ridiculous lists of rules and corresponding punishments. Homosexuality was generally frowned upon because if you had someone in your tribe that was more interested in having sex with someone their own gender than someone of the opposite gender, that means they weren't making babies. And if they weren't making babies, the growth and perpetuation of the tribe doesn't happen. And if the tribe doesn't get new members, it'll die off or get killed by a bigger tribe that DID grow. The rules of not eating certain kinds of food was because there were prevalent kinds of diseases and sanitary issues due to maintaining that kind of livestock within a semi-nomadic group (Pigs take a lot of food to raise, their shit gets EVERYWHERE and they can share diseases with humans... ever hear of Swine Flu? Not a recent phenomenon).

Posted by: William | August 12, 2009 1:15 PM

Eidolon #387 Yes, an epiphaniousment!

Posted by: Dianne | August 12, 2009 1:20 PM

No, after the flood, God put a rainbow in the sky to show that he would never flood the earth again

So before the flood light didn't refract? Or just didn't refract with water? What interesting physics the universe must have had at that time! How did they change? What else changed when God made light refraction possible? Or maybe it was the characteristics of water that changed...

Posted by: Pteryxx | August 12, 2009 1:20 PM

I used to ask too many questions in Bible school. I asked why dinosaurs were evil and had to be wiped out, when sharks and crocodiles and snakes are still around. I asked why we kids were told caffeine was a sinful drug while the adults were all drinking coffee. I asked why it was a sin to watch football on TV on Sunday, but not on Monday nights. I asked why the other kids never got punished for lying to me when the bible says it's a sin to lie, but I got punished for pointing out the truth. I asked why God or Jesus or somebody didn't open the hearts of my classmates, who were praised for being good Christians and then beat me up behind the church when Sabbath school was over. Whatever question I asked, the answer was always detention and more Bible homework. So I learned not to believe anything adults told me if it had to do with religion. I could ask questions about math, history, English, books, television, nature shows, and anything else I wanted, but asking questions about religion gave me punishment, not answers.

In science, I can ask all the questions I want, and the answers make sense and build on each other. The more questions that get asked, the more beautiful and miraculous the world becomes.

Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | August 12, 2009 1:24 PM

Nikki said:

God doesnt want us to suffer forever, he wants us to spend a happy life glorifying him. But when adam and eve ate from the tree of knowlege, sin came into the world and so did the devil. God tries to help us but sin and the devil work just as him to make sure we are miserable.

Posted by: E.V. | August 12, 2009 1:27 PM

But when adam and eve ate from the tree of knowlege, sin came into the world and so did the devil. God tries to help us but sin and the devil work just as him to make sure we are miserable.

Let's introduce you to a conceptual term called allegory

(Allegory is a form of extended metaphor, in which objects, persons, and actions in a narrative, are equated with the meanings that lie outside the narrative itself. The underlying meaning has moral, social, religious, or political significance, and characters are often personifications of abstract ideas as charity, greed, or envy.)

Now, look at what you quoted above. Does the Genesis story sound logical or even reasonable? Believing that the story of Adam & Eve is literally true is a form of magical thinking. You might want to look up that term too, Nikki.

Posted by: William | August 12, 2009 1:27 PM

Nikki,
the bible has become your crutch. Whether you believe it or not, you didn't come up with your religious beliefs on your own, it was your environment - happens to us all. What you fail to see is that you while you're wriggling with doubt, you can't break free from your behavioral response - god did it, the bible tells me so. In that context you will continue to flounder.
Suspend your belief, if possible, and think without the book doing it for you.

Posted by: sharky | August 12, 2009 1:30 PM

@ Rey, 394: Probably someone's just throwing stones in the water to see what they can dislodge. A rude or dismissive email from PZ in the first place was probably the hoped-for response. Failing that, there's always just trying to get some good scare quotes.

Posted by: Alyson Miers | August 12, 2009 1:31 PM

God doesnt want us to suffer forever, he wants us to spend a happy life glorifying him. But when adam and eve ate from the tree of knowlege, sin came into the world and so did the devil. God tries to help us but sin and the devil work just as him to make sure we are miserable.

Putting aside the first problem, that this is a Biblical tale without verifiable evidence and not an actual argument for the Almighty's existence, here's what bugs me: Why must knowledge be equated with sin? Why must the devil come straight on the heels of knowledge? Why must knowledge be considered an evil thing? Furthermore, your assertion makes it sound like the devil is more powerful than God, in which case, what exactly are we supposed to worship?

All that is largely hypothetical, as it first assumes the premise, once again, that God and the devil actually exist and that the Bible is based on reality, which is impossible to justify empirically.

In all seriousness, however, I found that my life became a lot happier when I stopped trying to glorify God.

Posted by: bilbo | August 12, 2009 1:37 PM

Nikki,

Since my honest criticism of new atheism was predictably replied to by the very embodiment of the depravity of which I was originally speaking, I'll tell my story and leave this to the very open discussion that has evolved here.

I, myself, grew up as a theist in a church that sounds remarkably like yours. I was taught that evolution was "of the devil," etc etc etc. It wasn't until I got older (around your age) that I found the 'loving' religion I thought I had grown up in was really made up of people using religion as a justification for pure bigotry and hatred. This led me to atheism.

After a while as an atheist, I discovered the new atheist movement, and quickly found that many of those within it were simply the same bigoted, intolerant people I grew to despise in religion. They had simply found another label for their intolerance and bigotry.

Like religion, however, not all atheists are the same. For the most vocal new atheist there is an equally tolerant moderate atheist. All new atheism does is take religion's gun of scorn, ridicule and intolerance and thrusts it in religion's face. True atheism is different. It simply takes the gun away.

Most on this site will tell you there are two choices: remain a fundamentalist Christian, or become atheist. Despite what they tell you, the world is not so black and white. Not all religious people believe that the origins of life are what you see in the creation museum. Many accept evolution in addition to remaining very religious. There are a variety of religions out there.

Above all, question yourself and your beliefs constantly. Think for yourself. If that path leads you to atheism or keeps you a christian, both are equally fine as long as you reach the conclusion on your own. And always, always take what others say with a grain of salt...on this site or in church.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 12, 2009 1:40 PM

I think nikki is the real thing - but Neil@401 is definitely a concern troll. He makes a false accusation that people have been calling Nikki names, and calling her stupid; and no real teacher of evolution would capitalise the word in the middle of a sentence.

Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | August 12, 2009 1:42 PM

Neil said:

We have been asked to 'discuss' what we think, and why. NOT to behave like ignorant Yahoos, accusing her of things; calling her names; pronouncing her stupid. How on earth does that look and how does that show us to be?

Maybe you're reading a different thread than I am. So far, the only insults have been pointed at regular trolls and stalkers.

Posted by: KrateKraig | August 12, 2009 1:44 PM

Nikki, Your god is an atheist. Don't you want to be like "him"?

"If theism is loosely defined as belief in a higher power, a mysterious being whose essential nature cannot be understood (whether in whole or in part) by the believer, then God is an atheist. He does not believe in a power higher than himself, nor can there be anything which he fails to understand, for nothing can be unknown or unknowable to an omniscient being.

If theism is defined as the belief in a supernatural being, then God is an atheist. His own powers, though supernatural from a human point of view, are comprehensible to himself. Everything is "natural" from God's perspective.

If theism involves a relationship of subordination and dependence between a theist and her object of veneration, then God is an atheist. He is a self-sufficient Being who disbelieves in any power greater than himself. He worships nothing, never prays, never seeks forgiveness, and never acknowledges his own errors.

If theism is the belief in a creator, or first cause, who is ultimately responsible for one's own existence, then God is an atheist. He believes himself to have existed eternally--though, as Kant suggested, even God must occasionally wonder where he came from.

If theism involves the belief in an external moral authority, a being whose moral law is obligatory for his creatures, then God is an atheist. He does not believe in a higher law, nor does he think himself capable of doing wrong. He does not regard himself bound to respect the rights of any other being. God is morally autonomous, a law unto himself.

God is therefore an atheist. Moreover, he is a positive atheist of the most dogmatic variety, for he claims to know with absolute certainty that there exists no being superior to himself. He is never troubled by doubt, never re-examines any of his beliefs, and never feels obliged to justify them.

This raises some further questions: Why, if God is himself an atheist, should we suppose that that he disapproves of atheism among his creatures? Is not a benevolent father pleased when his children grow up to be like him? And how can the Christian condemn atheism per se without also condemning their atheistic God? Is not the atheist who strives to be like God more admirable than the Christian who merely believes in him?" - George H. Smith.

Posted by: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood | August 12, 2009 1:44 PM

No, after the flood, God put a rainbow in the sky to show that he would never flood the earth again.

Have you considered why a god might do this? When confronted with this statement the atheist cannot stop asking questions, such as:

Why did god feel the need to only destroy the world once? Clearly the world has been sinful for millennia since the purported flood, why did he not repeat the punishment? What reason can you give for this?

And why, having applied the stick in Noah's time, did he four millennia later apply the carrot with Jesus? If there's a grand scheme here it doesn't make much sense.

However, as a collection of unrelated stories bound together in a testament it makes a lot more sense. If there is no god ten what you are left with is a syncretic mythology borrowed from the early civilizations and given a spin by a bunch of desert nomads.

Posted by: truthspeaker | August 12, 2009 1:49 PM

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 12, 2009 1:40 PM

I think nikki is the real thing - but Neil@401 is definitely a concern troll. He makes a false accusation that people have been calling Nikki names, and calling her stupid; and no real teacher of evolution would capitalise the word in the middle of a sentence.

Good catch. I'd also like to think that no teacher would say "long passed" when they mean "long past", but from prior experience I know better.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | August 12, 2009 1:51 PM

Glen; #412.

I can stand to be politely corrected. Being called a fuckwit is something else entirely.

Then don't libel a person!

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: Dexter M. | August 12, 2009 1:53 PM

@ A. Noyd #358,

I understand many theist consider atheism a religion of a kind. But the point I was trying to make, was that I didn't have religion forced on me when I was young and impressionable. Young children have an overwhelming tendency to believe what their parents tell them. No dogma told me to reject religion; common sense, lack of evidence, and absurd teachings did that.

Posted by: Bradford | August 12, 2009 1:54 PM

Nikki, I used to be an atheist but what brought me around began with the question "Where did the hydrogen come from?"

From there it was "How could hydrogen (and other matter) move itself to form stars and water and living things?"

Either you have to believe matter always existed and moved itself around on its own or God has always existed and created matter and living things.

You should settle this for yourself once and for all: God Exists or God Does Not Exist.

If God does not exist then take what scientists say as gospel concerning the origins of life. Put your faith in what scientists and other speculators say what happened "in the beginning".

If, after examining the evidence that matter exists, and that the numerous life forms on this planet and their special functions such as eyesight and web weaving and photosynthesis are obviously not the result of mindless chance, then settle upon yourself the task of examining all religious claims to determine which is true.

Some claims can be dismissed easily such as Hindoos or Cherokee shamans. Some claims require closer scrutiny such as Joseph Smith and his golden tablets. Fortunately, you are not in a place where questioning Islam with a critical eye is a death sentence so do indeed examine its claims, that if you pray enough times and do enough good works you'll get to paradise.

As you are a Christian it is not enough to just believe and have faith. You must know what you believe and why you believe because you will get hammered with questions. You can't answer them all, of course, but basically it boils down to "where did the hydrogen come from?"

Posted by: glbrown | August 12, 2009 1:55 PM

Nikki,

You may be 15 yo girl, you certainly are not gutsy, you may even be sincere but so far, you are just sad.

These folks have honestly poured out their hearts to you and you have not even said thanx.

In 2 hours you have had damn little to say and that's sad.

I OTOH as a militant agnostic who kicks a puppy dog every morning will say this. Thank you all for being smart and funny and concerned and taking time out of your lives to post your thoughts here. It gives me a warm contented and happy feeling to know all these people who have never met me can give so much of their selves. Now that's love and happiness.

Glory be to you in the highest.

PS plus it's fun to hear heddle keep bangin out that rhythm on the drum.

-gary-

Posted by: SC, OM | August 12, 2009 1:57 PM

This video, featuring three teen-aged girls, two of whom fail to convert their Hindu friend to Christianity, is a video I hope Nikki and others watch carefully.

Oh please oh please tell me that's an elaborate hoax. I beg of you.

Posted by: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood | August 12, 2009 1:57 PM

I was straight CofE until my good friend D'Israeli, the comic book artist, put me onto an excellent book by A.N. Wilson titled Jesus. It is a biography of the historical Jesus, examining the evidence for his life and times and how the gospels were created. After reading it it became impossible to accept Jesus's divinity in any shape means or form.

I highly recommend it.

Posted by: Jason | August 12, 2009 1:59 PM

When talking to Christians, the sure-fire way to spark some introspection is to simply ask, "Why aren't you a Muslim?"

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 12, 2009 2:00 PM

"Where did the hydrogen come from?" - Bradford

The Big Bang. Duh!

And no, I don't for a moment believe you were ever an atheist.

Posted by: flash games | August 12, 2009 2:02 PM

I don't think asking her to post here is the best of ideas. Too many people, too many opinions. She may feel attacked. I think you should have talked to her privately, as she seemed open-minded enough.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | August 12, 2009 2:06 PM

Nikki, I used to be an atheist but what brought me around began with the question "Where did the hydrogen come from?"

Einstein made a good point about questions like those:

To assume the existence of an unperceivable being … does not facilitate understanding the orderliness we find in the perceivable world. – Albert Einstein, responding to an Iowa student who asked, “What is God?” July 1953; Einstein Archive 59-085

OK, Bradford, how does your unperceivable being answer the question of where hydrogen came from?

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: E.V. | August 12, 2009 2:06 PM

I didn't need to have an army's worth of flaming arrows shot at me first, thanks.

Posted by: Josh | August 12, 2009 2:06 PM

The Big Bang. Duh!

Wanna bet that Bradford just read that as "the Big Bang is atheist for God"?

Posted by: Rey Fox | August 12, 2009 2:07 PM

"Now do you still want to claim I'm lying in calling New Atheists bigots?"

Well, we'd probably have to get into the definition of "intolerant" then. I suppose Webster would define that in your way of "calling out the errors in logic present in religious beliefs". I wonder if Webster has gotten around to taking down your definition for "New Atheist" yet: "An atheist who dares to actually identify as an atheist and talk about atheism in public."

Posted by: sharky | August 12, 2009 2:08 PM

@Heddle: Holy five-hundred-yard comments! Less is more.

That wasn't theology by Google count; that was pointing out that something you claimed is a unified nonissue is, in fact, a divisive issue. Whether the numbers are identical or not is not the point. The Left Behind books (written by two pastors, widely swallowed by American fundamentalists and congregations) have ALL infants and children raptured, completely disagreeing with you, your idea, and your stance that all Christians agree.

Baptists are not unified behind the position you state, and I have no idea where you got that. I doubt they do either.

Posted by: GMacs | August 12, 2009 2:09 PM

Nikki says:
God created us for his glory, we live to glorify him. God didnt make us so he could have happy go lucky people on earth doing nothing but being happy.

Then we owe him nothing. I don't believe life has a meaning (unless of course you make one yourself), and I feel that lacking meaning is better than only existing to stroke the ego of a supreme being.

I also don't like that "He" can take credit for so many things, but if something bad happens, "he has a plan", and if I find no reason to believe (and am thus going to hell) and say "that's God's responsibility", people get pissed off.

Posted by: Hank Fox | August 12, 2009 2:10 PM

Hi, Nikki! And welcome!

Whatever happens, I hope you’ll continue to come back to PZ’s site. It’s an interesting and fun place to be.

What follows probably looks too long to read, but I promise you if you read it I’ll tell you some interesting things about dogs, Kim Possible, and the absolutely guaranteed way to meet your One True Soul Mate.

Like you, and like a lot of people commenting on this site, I was once religious. The Southern Baptist church I went to, Harvester’s Tabernacle, was within 75 yards of my house. My brothers and I were friends with the pastor’s family, and we often went over to help Brother Baldridge and his sons mow and weed around the church. I can remember helping set up chairs in the big tent when the traveling Revival came around, and I often helped hand out songbooks during regular Sunday services. Paul, the pastor’s son who was the age of my older brother, stayed overnight at our house many times, and I went to Vacation Bible School with the younger sons Daniel and Timothy. Sister Baldridge was my Sunday School teacher.

But by the time I was 13, I had written in my journal “I don’t really believe in God. It just doesn’t make sense to me.”

Three things in my story, and the stories of a lot of people here, will probably sound weird to you. The first is probably even a little bit scary:

YOU CAN LOSE YOUR RELIGION.

The second might sound even weirder:

YOU CAN LOSE YOUR RELIGION AND IT DOESN’T HURT.

And the third is weirdest of all:

AFTER YOU LOSE YOUR RELIGION, LIFE GETS BETTER.

Regarding that first point, it really is true. You can lose your religion. Generally speaking, atheists and agnostics and secular humanists aren’t people who simply hate the Christian God and are rebelling against following his commandments. They realio-trulio don’t believe in him. Or any god, actually.

Because, really, one of the understandings atheists share is that it’s not just Jehovah or whatever that they’re not-believing-in, it’s Zeus and Coyote and Allah and all the others, from top to bottom, omnipotent superbeings to least little garden fairy. (And actually, most of us also don’t believe in spirit mediums, telepaths, ghosts, elves, flying saucer aliens probing people up the wazoo, or even Bigfoot ... until somebody slaps us in the face with truly amazing evidence.)

Just as you know Kim Possible is a fictional character, we know every religious superbeing we’ve ever heard of, so far, is just as fictional. And for a lot of the same reasons.

Regarding the second point, one mistake a lot of people make is thinking that morality springs ONLY from religious faith. That only if you believe in God and the Bible and the Ten Commandments can you be a good person. And that if you give up believing in God and the Bible and the Commandments, it must make you automatically an evil person, or at least a misguided one who has no solid idea of how or why to be good.

I think you have to admit that there are a lot of people who profess to be good Christians who are pretty wicked. People who lie, steal and even kill others. Which means either they’re lying about being Christians, or that Christianity alone doesn’t make you automatically good.

As you meet different types of people throughout your life, you’ll find it’s the second. There are good people (and bad) in all religious traditions. You probably already know there are good people who don’t go to your particular church. You probably already know people who aren’t even Christians – Jews or Muslims, for instance – who still seem to be pretty good people.

Speaking of Muslims, we Americans tend to feel not-so-good about Islam right now but so far all of the actual Muslims I’ve met personally seem to be at least as non-evil as I am. There was a Muslim couple who lived across the street from me for four years, and the lady wore that all-over black covering – in four years I saw not one scrap of skin beyond her hands and her eyes. But we also had frequent conversations about gardening and such when we were both out working in our front yards, and I can tell you that I’d absolutely be happy to have her as a neighbor for the rest of my life.

Regardless, you will meet many people in your life who are definitely not Christians, yet are good people. Which means: Something else must be going on to cause people to be good. It can’t be just Christianity.

The minute you realize that, you’ll probably think the next thought – that if it isn’t Christianity that makes people be good, it must be religion itself. That SOME kind of faith is necessary.

But you’ll discover, as you journey along this questioning path, that goodness is something all its own, entirely separate from religion, and actually anybody can have it. To be good, you only have to realize how good it is to be good.

And you don’t even have to be human. If you ever get the chance to visit a dog park, take a look at what goes on there. Dogs are capable killers, I think you have to agree. They could cover each other with blood, or even rip each other’s throats out, without trying very hard. Yet MOST of the time, at the dog park, they’re good to each other. They play, they chase, they wrestle and play-bite, they wag their tails and just have a grand time.

They do it because, though they’re predators and carnivores, it’s just more fun to be good. Yes, there’s the occasional jealous scrap, but the truth is, being good to each other really is more fun. Dogs have some sort of moral sense, and they have it automatically, and completely without religion.

Just as we humans do. And the proof is that people of all religions, and people of no religion at all – like me – most of the time make an effort to be good to others.

Eventually you may even realize that you yourself don’t have to believe in your particular God in order to be a good person.

All of life is like that. Early on, most of us think, because we’re taught to think it, that every question of life is answerable by our religion, and that if you give up your religion you lose all the answers. But really, all of the questions that occur to you throughout life are answerable elsewhere.

Regarding that third point, that life gets better after your religion goes away, a big part of the Journey of Life, for each of us, is finding answers to all these questions. And in my opinion, oh my gosh, is it fun to work them out on your own.

To give you a small window into why that’s so, there’s a puzzle in the paper every day, the Daily Jumble, and I’m pretty good at it. (The letters of four to six words are scrambled up, and you have to figure out what the words are. Once you do that, the position of the letters provide clues to another series of words which are the answer to yet another puzzle.)

My neighbor Uncle Boo, an old man in his 80s, likes that same puzzle. He comes over just about every day with one or more words he wasn’t able to work out, and we sit down and work them out together.

If each day’s puzzle came already worked out, it would be no fun at all. We wouldn’t get the pleasure of figuring it out.

Which is sort of my reaction to religion. If somebody told me that the answers to everything had already been worked out, and I only had to copy them down in my head and live by them, I’d ask, “Hey, when do * I * get to figure some of these things out? Or what if those answers don’t make sense, why can’t I, or other people, be free to figure out better ones?”

Which is where Science came from, really. It was like the whole human race, all the bright, curious people, anyway, got together and said “Let’s set all the holy books aside for a bit and figure things out on our own. We’re not saying they’re not true, we’re just asking what sorts of things we can figure out on our own.”

It turned out that doing it that way got better answers. For instance, contrary to the beliefs of one of the religions that predated Christianity, no, there was no chariot towing a boulder-sized sun across the sky every day. Instead the sun is this freakin’ huge ball of superhot gas, a darned long distance away, doing this fabulously complex nuclear reaction called fusion.

Again, doing it that way, not accepting the holy book answers – as if all the puzzles were already figured out, and the answers were so simple little kids could understand them – turned out to be more FUN.

Science is a kind of loose club where people get together to have fun – the fun of figuring out the answers to all the questions.

The advantage of doing it that way is that 1), you get lots of practice in figuring things out on your own, which benefits every area of your own personal life, and 2), every fact you learn, every fact anyone learns, helps you and everybody else learn still more new things.

Which is sort of why today, after only a couple of hundred years of real Science, we have computers to talk to each other here. Instead of, for instance, scrolls and stuff carried on horseback, which is about the best that several thousand years of religion had been able to do.

Anyway, glad you’re here. The fact that you’re asking questions means that you’re already sort of a scientist, and even if we never talk again, I’ll always think of you as one of My People.

By the way, there is no absolutely guaranteed way to meet your One True Soul Mate. I only said that to make the point that it’s better to be a skeptic about ALL such grand claims, whether they appear in advertising or in religion.

Best of luck in the grand adventure – your own personal life – that awaits you.

Posted by: dinkum | August 12, 2009 2:12 PM

15-year-old girl...
"Ever hear of faith?"
A rainbow?
My Little Pony's next. I call shenanigans.

Posted by: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood | August 12, 2009 2:13 PM

New atheism, on the other hand, is a vile, hateful, disgusting manifestation of pure bigotry wrapped shoddily in a cloak of intellectualism. It is, in all, a joke.

What a mean-spirited person you are, Bilbo.

New atheist attacks are indeed nonviolent. They are, however, built around verbal insults and demeaning language that are nonetheless vile, disgusting, and hateful...and are more akin to 5th grade playground fights than mature discussion.

The irony abounds.

And yet, it must be noted that this claim is untrue of folks such as Dawkins who argues robustly but does not indulge in playground fights so far as I can see.

This looks like a personal dig at PZ and a few mouthy atheists. It appears to be an overreaction. I give it scant regard.

In a nutshell? New atheism and atheism are not equivalent.

Since I do not accept there is such as thing as 'new atheism' except as a political construct to vilify one's opponents, I concur. There are simply atheists, of various tempers and demeanours. Some we might consider reliable, others less so. Some we might consider great intellects and others rude demagogues.

How awful that we atheists should be so varied, so individual, so human.

After a while as an atheist, I discovered the new atheist movement, and quickly found that many of those within it were simply the same bigoted, intolerant people I grew to despise in religion. They had simply found another label for their intolerance and bigotry.

I wonder, have you yet found a label for your brand of intolerance and bigotry?

Posted by: aratina cage | August 12, 2009 2:14 PM

Nah, not Super Mario. More like...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxNX_PRqhCQ
-386sx

Which reminds me, music also helps alleviate one of the desire to believe in a god. Nikki, you should try listening to some godless music. The artist does not have to be a non-believer as long as their music questions, mocks, scorns, or calls out the hypocrisy of Christianity.

Posted by: glbrown | August 12, 2009 2:15 PM

#432 jemand

Yea I know but but but

It is frustrating. She asks a reasonable question yet every response to our answers is just more apologies. I guess that is all that she has been taught but come on. When I say something stupid I am held accountable and rightly so. She gets no special respect from me because she is not even trying. The holier than thou attitude she expresses in what little she has said is just icing on the disgusting cake.

I agree with PZ, it's time we start calling them on this behavior.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 12, 2009 2:16 PM

Biblo the concern troll, if you don't like our attitudes, you have two options. The first is to stop coming here. That way, you won't be offended. The second is to STFU. We will not change our attitude for anyone other than PZ, and I seriously doubt he will say anything, as he is on record as expecting us to be rowdy. So, decide which option you prefer to live with, and then live with the consequences, like an adult.

Posted by: BobbyEarle | August 12, 2009 2:17 PM

Well played, PZ.

Posted by: Marcus Ranum | August 12, 2009 2:19 PM

15 year olds don't write like that.

If "she" actually did write that, and were 15 she'd have to be pretty well-educated and thoughtful. Which argue strongly against "her" being a creo-kid. More likely that's a 400lb troll that lives in its mother's basement.

Posted by: Jimmy Blue | August 12, 2009 2:21 PM

Nikki @345:

I meant that the world couldnt handle any more sin and God was so angry at the world so God decided the only way clean things up and show the world he exists was to flood the earth but have noah and his family and two of every animal and plant go on a ark so they could recreate their world with a clean slate so to speak

It appears you don't know your Bible as well as you think. Why do you pick this version of the Flood story and ignore the others?

Which version of the creation myth are you talking about and why did you choose that one?

Posted by: daveau | August 12, 2009 2:22 PM

KATHYxx-

Just don't call yourself a "computer scientist". It only provokes them...

Posted by: jemand | August 12, 2009 2:22 PM

marcus, some 15 year olds do write like that. Probably she's been homeschooled well, knows a lot of english, but it's all been mixed in with religion. And haven't you EVER met an intelligent creationist? Do you even KNOW the term cognitive dissonance? There are lots of very smart people who compartmentalize their minds.

Posted by: Spiri Keat | August 12, 2009 2:23 PM

Nikki

A father told his young children not to eat the cookies out of the green jar and then left the green jar on the table when he went out.

This father knew that young children would not be able to leave the cookies alone, yet when got home and found that they had eaten the cookies from the jar he threw the children out onto the street for being disobedient.

Not much of a father, a bit of a psychopath really.

Tree of life (cooky jar); Adam and Eve (children); Apple (cookies); psychopathic god (father).

Just as well he doesn't exist, for all our sakes.

Sorry to sound patronising but in my experience christians need to have the truth put to them simply.

Posted by: Kat | August 12, 2009 2:25 PM

You guys, while some of you are being respectful to Nikki, I think we should pay head to the fact she was kind of thrown to the dogs. I agree with the "neo-atheists" on calling them on their b.s., but the thing is, there are at least 70 of us here (I didn't go through and count individual sn's) tearing her a new one. She's probably a little overwhelmed. While her beliefs are screwy, at least she came forward to have a discussion about it. She isn't so lost of a cause as some of you are pinning her down to be. Then again, there seems to be inconsistencies with her responses in terms of grammar and capitalization. I agree with #452- we don't need Nikki for this. If we just state our "whys" nicely it is going to go just as unheard if we say them with a sharp edge.

Posted by: AJ Milne | August 12, 2009 2:27 PM

That literal definition makes us all bigots.

No. Really?

(/And the light dawns...)

Posted by: Anonymous | August 12, 2009 2:28 PM

After looking at your blog i have come to the conclusion that nothing anyone says will change your mind on how you believe things work and about god.

Only 15 and already a full-fledged non-reflective hypocrite.

Posted by: E.V. | August 12, 2009 2:29 PM

More likely that's a 400lb troll that lives in its mother's basement.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | August 12, 2009 2:29 PM

I don't think asking her to post here is the best of ideas. Too many people, too many opinions. She may feel attacked. I think you should have talked to her privately, as she seemed open-minded enough.

Well, I don't think it's ideal, but seriously, what is a person to do? PZ probably can't spend a whole lot of time speaking to her group, or responding to her questions and apologetics.

She says she's gutsy, and seems to be. It's not all bad to just let her know that there are a whole lot of questions that she doesn't have answers to, and that her "answers" provoke a whole lot of questions in turn (that she again can't answer terribly well).

Yes, it's "too many" comments and commenters for anyone to handle, even if one had the answers. But I don't see anyone demanding that she answer everything, or even any one thing.

I just don't know what reasonable recourse PZ had other than this one, above all. Probably better than just linking to Talkorigins or some such thing, as she can at least receive personalized responses here.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: Rogers Nelson | August 12, 2009 2:31 PM

I knew a girl named Nikki. I guess you could say she wasn't 15.

This girl seems like the typical troll that comes to these sites. Nikki, just go to school, go to church, listen to your parents. When you are over 18 or at least will admit it, then come here and have a grown up discussion with everyone.

Posted by: Cheezits | August 12, 2009 2:32 PM

No, after the flood, God put a rainbow in the sky to show that he would never flood the earth again.

Now, how does a rainbow show any such thing? Heck, I make rainbows when I water the lawn. :-D

Posted by: Alyson Miers | August 12, 2009 2:33 PM

I like Bugmaster's exercise @456; I've been thinking of a similar thought experiment for some time now, but I didn't have such a colorful description to go with it.

Posted by: RyogaM | August 12, 2009 2:34 PM

Nikki,

Here are ten reasons I am an atheist, even though I was a born, baptized, Catholic-school-educated, confirmed, Roman-Catholic till I was about 21 years old. Make of them what you will.

1) The Old Testament God is awful. Just read Genesis to the end of Leviticus. Questions: Why would an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving god put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the middle of the Garden of Eden, knowing (he's all-knowing) that Adam and Eve would partake of it? That's like putting a loaded gun in front of a gun-obsessed four year old. That's child neglect, under man's law. Why punish all of the decedents of A&E for the crimes of A&E? Is that justice? Why the Flood, killing all the animals and plants of the world, rather than just a quick and clean disappearing of the sinful? Why did God "harden the Pharaoh's heart" many, many times, interfering with his free-will, to force him not to let the Hebrews go? The Bible actually says God did it in a quest for fame. Exodus 4: God tries to kill Moses on the way to the inn, and is only prevented from the act because Moses' wife cut her child's foreskin with a sharp rock and flung it at his feet. And on and on and on. Google, Twain, "damnatory biography."

2)The New Testament God is nut: Not Jesus, though he has his faults (cursed fig tree), but his father, who as the saying goes: Sacrificed his son, who was also himself, to change the rules, that he himself also made. Why not just change the rules without the blood-shed?

3)Pre-Bible people. Apparently, every Greek, Roman, Persian, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, African, Australasian, South American, Central American, North American person who ever lived prior to the year 0, and many who lived after year 0, died and went to hell because god did not feel like manifesting his "True Religion" to them. Guess he was busy.

3) I met hundreds of other people from other religions, Jews, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, both Sunni and Shi'ite, and they all, ALL, believed in their religion with as much conviction and fervor as you do and I did. Just as strongly. They couldn't all be right. But they could all be wrong. Faith, no matter how strong or sincerely held, proves nothing.

4)Place of birth and parentage is the best predictor of religious affiliation. If people are "saved" by having the "right" religion, and your religion is determined by the random chance that you are born in the right place and time to the right people, then your salvation is also random. How fair is that? I was Catholic because my parents are Catholic. All those people I met above^? All from countries where their religion was the majority. Your religion is the religion of your parents. But, unlike everyone else, yours is the "True One!" How lucky for you!

5) I met atheists who were nothing like what I was made to believe they would be. They were all, to a fault, kind, caring, moral, wonderful people. And happy. They had no religion and didn't miss it, or crave it or anything. There is another way. It's okay to not believe in a god.

6) Natural disasters. See, Epicurus. The problem of human-caused suffering is glossed over by theists by referring to free-will, though I still can't kill people with mind-bullets, so god saw fit to limit my free will in that way. But Earthquakes, Tsunamis, Volcanoes, Hurricanes, Tornadoes, The Black Death, AIDS, Ebola (look it up, a disease that practically turns it's sufferers inside out), child-hood cancer, flesh-eating bacteria, birth-defects, large and small, none of these things can be explained by Free-will. Further, it has nothing to do with The Fall. Read the Bible, the only curses due to the Fall where Adam working and Eve suffering Child-birth. Oh, Child-birth! That's another good one. And all-loving god could not create Ebola, much less all the rest.

7) Science Works, B...es! Since the Age on Enlightenment, human- kind has advanced tremendously in all manner of ways. We live longer, work less, have more, know more. Why? Because Enlightenment ideals of free inquiry, even regarding religion, led to the scientific revolution, which led to advances in medicine, transportation, agriculture, communication, and on and on. Without the ideals of the atheists, Free Inquiry!, you would not be able to communicate to us at all in this manner. There would be no internet without the Enlightenment. Prior to that, with only the Bible as our guide? Well, we had Black- Death, open sewage, a 40 year life span, witch-burning, religious wars, etc. etc. Yeah, sorry, the Bible was worthless at actually informing people how to make their lives better.

8) Religion makes people do insane things that they would never do otherwise. David Koresh, Jonestown, witch-burning, 9-11, suicide bombings, the Holocaust, the massacre of the Native Americans, slavery, all in some part supported by the religions of the time. morality is NOT determined by the Bible or we would still be selling our daughters into marriage, killing disobedient children and gay men, killing people who work on the Sabbath, you know, all the things we, as modern people KNOW, without looking in a book, KNOW to be wrong.

9)Hell. Not mentioned in ANY of the Old Testament, and not believed in by Jewish people, yet my Catholicism said this place of eternal damnation existed to punish sinners with extreme cruelty. Who made hell? Well, only god could have! But how would an all-loving god create such a place? Wouldn't an all-loving god be unable to create such a place.

10) Not a damn shred of physical evidence for ANY god, much less the logically frail god of the Bible. No evidence for Yahweh, Allah, Odin, Zeus, FSM, Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, Shiva, or any of the millions of other potential gods. None. Why, then, believe?

Posted by: E.V. | August 12, 2009 2:37 PM

But I put away my childish things…

And you loooove to lie.

Posted by: E.V. | August 12, 2009 2:42 PM

I see I touched the correct nerve induced a mental image of me being an actual weasel.

Posted by: jagannath | August 12, 2009 2:43 PM

Nikki:

What if you are wrong?

Posted by: Samantha | August 12, 2009 2:45 PM

Andysin @#228

If your parents had you simply for you to brag about them and tell everybody how great they are, even though they killed puppies for no discernible reason, how would it make you feel? I personally would want to disown my parents and this is the first step for some people on the way to abandoning their faith.

My parents DID have me (and my brother) just so that they would be "normal" in their social circle and so they could brag about our accomplishments. They never helped me with homework, forced me into programs I hated just so they could say I was in them and cut me off as soon as they could without looking bad (just after I finished high school). I have no love lost for them, but I still treat them with more respect and dignity than the average Christian does their God, for all they supposedly love and respect and worship him.

Nikki, I too was raised to be Christian. I too felt all warm and fuzzy when I prayed to God or was at a church function. Why? Because I told myself that he was what my parents weren't: kind, loving, caring. The perfect father figure, so to speak. My church was a mild one, only preaching about the good that God would give to those who believed and neatly side-stepping the issue of what happened to the non-believers. Then I went to a church camp, where they blasted me with the concept of Hell and terrified me into repeatedly making prayers to Jesus to save me, even though I was already a committed Christian.

That experience made me read the bible... and it was terrifying. Instead of the loving father figure I had always loved and worshipped, God was a vengeful, hateful, killer and his "son" Jesus wasn't much better. God killed all the first-born Egyptian sons, Jesus got a bear to maul and kill a child who sassed him. God wiped out the entire Earth with a flood because the humans he created were using their free will for evil, Jesus blighted/killed a fig tree because it wasn't bearing fruit out of season. It goes on and on, Old Testament and New alike. I could hardly believe that for 10 years (from 2 to 12) I had been taught only part of the "Word of God".

I went to my pastor, the leader of my youth group and even my parents and they all told me that YES the Bible was the inerrant Word of God but NO we didn't follow everything in it because it had been written so long ago that some things had changed. I couldn't understand how God could write the Bible without realizing that things would change and also fail to inspire someone to rewrite the Bible for our modern times. Finally, I went to ask my teacher, who asked me what possible explanations would cover all of what I knew. The only one that I could come up with was that the God my parents worshipped couldn't exist. From there, I also determined that the God described in the Bible couldn't exist, due to the numerous contradictions.

I still wanted to believe in a God, even if it wasn't the Biblical God or the one I was raised with. However, I didn't want to get tricked into believing in a God that couldn't exist again, so I decided to do lots of research to find the one God whose own "Word" didn't make it impossible for Him (or Her) to exist. First, I read up on Jesus, and discovered that there was no believable recounting of his existence until about 75 years after he was supposed to have died. I moved on to the other Abrahamic religions (Judaism and Islam) with the same problem. The same was true of the eastern religions. The only thing I found that made sense with regards to the reality of the world around me was Buddhism and at that point, I realized that I couldn't possibly believe in a god when there was absolutely no evidence for one. All the "evidence" I was taught as a child was either contradictory with itself and/or the world or evidence for God because science hadn't figured out an answer for that exact thing yet. Sometimes it was evidence for God provided you ignored the scientific evidence!

I became an agnostic atheist. I don't think we are currently capable of knowing whether something definable as "God" exists but I don't believe in any of the gods currently worshipped by humans. It was a choice only to the extent that I chose not to pretend to continue to believe in God. I could not choose to actually believe.

You asked for 10 reasons not to believe in God. I can give you three big ones that could easily be broken down into ten or more.

1) Not only is there no positive evidence for God but the evidence that churches and many Christians try to use is more evidence that the God it is trying to prove does not exist than that He does. The same is true of every other religious deity I've looked into.

2) Religious morality is iffy at best. If you are already a good person, you would be good whether you believed in a religion/God or not. If you are a bad person, it is incredibly likely that you will find some excuse in your religious text to be a bad person regardless. Additionally, people who would otherwise be good find themselves caught up by the people who are using the religion as an excuse for evil and end up doing things they don't agree with.

3) Religion thrives off stifling creativity, open thought, questioning things and pretty much every other mental strength that makes us the dominant species we are today. Granted, not every single religion wants its believers to have no thought outside of what they preach and not every atheist believes that every person should think for themselves, but the high majority of each fall within those categories. Religion subsists off of the fear of those who don't know why things are the way they are. Science confronts and tries to allay those fears. Even beyond that, it is far too easy for a religious person to not want to find out how the world works because they trust God to keep it working. Alternately, they want to answer questions of "Why is this so" with "Because God wanted it so". While religion might not be 100% incompatible with science, it is certainly a hindrance at best. Science is why we have everything from medicine to computers to simple clothes and tools.

Now, I don't expect you to change your entire life view or even your religion based on what you read in these comments. It took me about 4-5 years of just reading and researching to become comfortable with the fact that I just could not believe in a god. However, I hope that you do take the time to research some of the things people are mentioning here. I hope you read the full text of the King James Bible. I hope you read up on other religions and the history of religions, both Christian and otherwise. I hope you read up on scientific research on the human brain, evolution, geology and more. I hope you learn that it's OK to question not only others' beliefs but your own, and that of your family. And I hope that you are able to assimilate all that reading into a world view that you are comfortable with. Mostly, I just hope that you don't dismiss everything you read that doesn't agree with what your parents and pastor have taught you to believe. Even if your beliefs stay the same, knowing what you believe and what evidence there is for and against it is always a good policy.

Interesting tidbit; I still feel all warm and fuzzy when I go to meetings of my University's humanist/atheist group. That feeling happens when you believe a person or people accept and care for you as you are. It wasn't God or even "Godly" people... it was just that I felt like they cared for me. I lost my fuzzy feeling with my youth group when they shunned me for daring to ask questions.

Posted by: PJ | August 12, 2009 2:47 PM

Guys, I'm new here..first time to this website.

A very close friend of mine, who is a Muslim, has turned to religion in a big way in the past one year or so. This is surprising because me and all my friends consider(ed) ourselves highly liberal, secular people. The guy touts his Qoran as a teenage girl would tote around 'Twilight'. Every second conversation with him is about him and his religion.

Honestly, my friend is coming close to 'Religious Psychotic Fanatic'. I try and talk to him, but can't go way too far because of the fear of sounding politically incorrect (he is a Muslim in a Hindu dominated country - I am from India)...yesterday, he emailed me pics of alleged mistreatment of Muslims in Palestine with some very choice, angry words - which I find very disturbing.

What should I do in this situation? Tell him upfront to stop being an idiot, ignore him, or be politically correct and let him make his life decisions.

Posted by: SoSayethTheSpider | August 12, 2009 2:50 PM

Bilbo: "Since my honest criticism of new atheism was predictably replied to by the very embodiment of the depravity of which I was originally speaking"

Your honest criticism was incorrect. You are attributing the actions of a few such as Hitchens to an entire group of people. It is equivalent to reclassifying a group of school children as "New school children" because there are a couple of bullies mixed in. There will always be bullies. There is no need to make up a new name for them. Call them what they are.

Posted by: DaveL | August 12, 2009 2:51 PM

Nikki, I used to be an atheist

Liar.

but what brought me around began with the question "Where did the hydrogen come from?"

Hydrogen condenses naturally when a quark-electron plasma cools, as surely and as reliably as moisture in your breath condenses on a cold window. If you don't feel the need to invoke Divine Intervention to explain the functioning of your dehumidifier, you should not need to invoke it to explain hydrogen.

From there it was "How could hydrogen (and other matter) move itself to form stars

Stars form when (mostly) hydrogen falls together under the influence of gravity, as surely and as reliably as water flows downhill. If you don't feel the need to invoke Divine Intervention to explain how your bathtub drains, you shouldn't feel the need to invoke it to explain stars.

and water

Hydrogen and oxygen form water any time they're thrown together at sufficient temperatures, as surely and as reliably as iron rusts when left out in the rain. You get the picture.

and living things?"

While it's true that science hasn't completely answered this yet, we have made significant strides. In my own lifetime I've seen us go from synthesizing simple amino acids to whole viruses and chemical self-replicators. We have viable explanations for things like the origin of biological chirality. What progress has the God hypothesis made? What details has theology revealed as to the mechanics of creation? How, in short, is the "God did it" hypothesis of life's origin superior to the "God did it" hypothesis of disease, human reproduction, tissue regeneration, rainfall, etc?

Either you have to believe matter always existed and moved itself around on its own or God has always existed and created matter and living things.

False dichotomy. You can certainly believe that time itself only extends to a finite extent into the past. You can also accept that matter does come into being on its own (google vacuum fluctuations).

Going in the other direction, you could believe that there are many gods, or a Goddess, or that the entire universe is nothing more than an illusion in your own mind.

If God does not exist then take what scientists say as gospel concerning the origins of life. Put your faith in what scientists and other speculators say what happened "in the beginning".

Science is far less speculative than the God hypothesis. At least it requires positive evidence, and provides details and further insight. The God hypothesis is the acme of speculation - throwing up your hands and declaring since nobody has an answer you like, you'll just make one up to suit you.

If, after examining the evidence that matter exists, and that the numerous life forms on this planet and their special functions such as eyesight and web weaving and photosynthesis are obviously not the result of mindless chance,

How's that obvious?

then settle upon yourself the task of examining all religious claims to determine which is true.

Some claims can be dismissed easily such as Hindoos or Cherokee shamans.

How can they be so easily dismissed?

Some claims require closer scrutiny such as Joseph Smith and his golden tablets.

If you place the credibility of Joseph Smith and his golden tablets above that of the Hindu religion, you are insane. Period.

Fortunately, you are not in a place where questioning Islam with a critical eye is a death sentence so do indeed examine its claims, that if you pray enough times and do enough good works you'll get to paradise.

As you are a Christian it is not enough to just believe and have faith. You must know what you believe and why you believe because you will get hammered with questions.

Actually in the West it would seem that Christians are far more capable than, say, atheists, of going through life without having their beliefs challenged, if they so choose. When's the last time you heard a child mention their Christian faith and seen an adult scoff and say "You don't know what you're talking about, try telling me that again when you're 25", or "Really? If Jesus was fully human how could he also be fully divine?" If any group can safely subscribe to a religious belief without ever thinking much about it in our society, it's Christians. Your own post reveals the depths of your unexamined privilege. You brush aside generations of biological research by declaring at least 3 specific things could not have arisen naturally. You likewise brush aside all of Hinduism and Cherokee spirituality without a second thought.

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 12, 2009 2:53 PM

SC, OM @428, re: @407 Oh please oh please tell me that's an elaborate hoax. I beg of you.

I hope it is too, but the observation of the mindset, the roles and the interaction is so acute, and well-played, that the simpler explanation is that it's documentary. Perhaps they are sufficiently self-aware having moved past the unquestioning fundamentalist phase of childhood that the roles are fresh in their minds even though they have abandoned such primitive ways; we can but hope.

The truth of the lesson is independent of whether or not it's a hoax. Why do the girls worship something that would torture their new friend? Could they, personally, torture her, unremittingly, for eternity? Could their god, the one they say is a god of love?

Posted by: Haruhiist | August 12, 2009 2:53 PM

This video, featuring three teen-aged girls, two of whom fail to convert their Hindu friend to Christianity, is a video I hope Nikki and others watch carefully.

I got to 6 minutes.. then I had to give up. I've never seen such ignorant people in my life! Are they not aware of anything outside their country?

@glbrown, 427:
She didn't ask for this kind of conversation and she isn't trying to convert us or anything. She doesn't owe the posters anything, these posts were made out of their own choice.

I love most of the posts here, plenty of good stuff to read here:)

@Nikki:
I jsut want you to know that minds can and are sometimes changed. This might not be what you're looking for, but when I was your age, I was fully convinced of christianity and everything the bible said; so much so, that I even thought of becoming a pastor.
Now, I'm some years further and see no reason to believe in god. You might ask yourself, what happened?

Well, the main problem that arose for me, was other religions. Right now, one of the better arguments I can think of, is that there is no evidence for god, but that is only because I've come to think somewhat like a scientist.

Back then, what bothered me was how I had come to be a christian and if I would have been a christian if I'd been born somewhere else. I realized, that if I had been born in for example china, I'd have been a buddhist or taoist or something like that.
If that were the case, I would have gone to hell, according to my beliefs. I found that hard to swallow, especially coming from a god who should be the most moral being in the universe.
I also realised, that the biggest reason I was a christian was, that my parents were christian, as were their parents, as in turn were my grandparent's parents, all the way back to a time when probably, my ancestors were pagan.

The first christians in my ancestry might have been forced into it by roman rule, or more likely the church later on (my ancestors were probably german, although perhaps there are some norse or celtic branches of family; genealogy can be tricky like that). Those people might have made their children go to church, to be safe and perhaps at some point, my ancestors really started to believe and have some of their old beliefs mixed into christianity. Try looking up how much of christian belief is borrowed, it might surprise you.

The point is, I had not become a christian because I started believing, I had become a christian because a roman emperor became christian, the roman empire spread it through europe, it got adopted here and my ancestors passed it down. Perhaps if christianity had spread to an eastern empire instead of the roman empire, I would have been a pagan, as were some of my ancestors.

And I would have believed in Wodan, Donar and Freya, just as much as I did then in god, jesus and the holy spirit.

Posted by: TheBlackCat | August 12, 2009 2:56 PM

everybody knows "computer scientist" really refers to an engineer.. right? ...right?

Or is that strictly only something local to my university? I can't say computer engineer, they might confuse me with a computer engineer.

shit. I knew i shoulda stayed in bed today.

What about "software engineer"?

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 12, 2009 2:59 PM

#478 + 496 - Thanks PZ!

Posted by: Helioprogenus | August 12, 2009 3:02 PM

I really don't see what the point of all this is. After this many responses, you either accept that you're maintaining a set of beliefs contrary to the evidence, or you do not. If you continue maintaining those beliefs, then there's nothing we can say or do to change your mind. You must take some science classes, and learn critical thinking. The biggest threat to religion is not a bunch of atheists like us lecturing a 15 year old girl, but a solid science education. It's not a guarantee that compartmentalization will not take place, and certain segment of trained scientists may fall into the Francis Collins trap of faith with little evidence.

To those morons Mooney and Kirschenbaum, it's not us that are the problem, but the fact that there's little funding in science and education compared to math and English. Sure those are important subjects, but without a science background, one cannot think critically. The atheist noise that seems to bother those two idiots drives as many people to the fold as it drives others away. It allows for open, though sometimes hostile discussion. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. Those two want to quiet any discussion and keep it in the bedroom closet where I'm sure they enjoy hiding. This is science, and if you can't stand to look at it publicly, than draw your tail between your legs and move out of the way. You're doing no good to anyone.

Posted by: Helioprogenus | August 12, 2009 3:04 PM

I really don't see what the point of all this is. After this many responses, you either accept that you're maintaining a set of beliefs contrary to the evidence, or you do not. If you continue maintaining those beliefs, then there's nothing we can say or do to change your mind. You must take some science classes, and learn critical thinking. The biggest threat to religion is not a bunch of atheists like us lecturing a 15 year old girl, but a solid science education. It's not a guarantee that compartmentalization will not take place, and certain segment of trained scientists may fall into the Francis Collins trap of faith with little evidence.

To those morons Mooney and Kirschenbaum, it's not us that are the problem, but the fact that there's little funding in science and education compared to math and English. Sure those are important subjects, but without a science background, one cannot think critically. The atheist noise that seems to bother those two idiots drives as many people to the fold as it drives others away. It allows for open, though sometimes hostile discussion. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. Those two want to quiet any discussion and keep it in the bedroom closet where I'm sure they enjoy hiding. This is science, and if you can't stand to look at it publicly, than draw your tail between your legs and move out of the way. You're doing no good to anyone.

Posted by: dinkum | August 12, 2009 3:04 PM

I feel so privileged for having seen his last words. *sniff* I may have them engraved on a plaque.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 12, 2009 3:08 PM

Let the depravity begin!

Posted by: Nikki | August 12, 2009 3:08 PM

"These folks have honestly poured out their hearts to you and you have not even said thanx.

In 2 hours you have had damn little to say and that's sad."

Im sorry for not talking alot and not thanking everyone who commented but im not allowed to spend more than one hour on my laptop in one sitting. so i just got back on.

Thank you to all who told me why they are atheists and others who had great comments. I really appreciate it"

Posted by: Josh | August 12, 2009 3:14 PM

Nikki, you have nothing to apologise for. No one has to inform everyone else when they unplug for a bit and walk away from their computer...

Posted by: K. Signal Eingang | August 12, 2009 3:15 PM

Well, Nikki, if you're still out there, here's one more for you. I was actually about your age when I first started seriously investigating my faith, a process which turned me first agnostic, and then atheist. For me the trigger was the 137th Psalm - be sure to read through to the end.

Certainly there are other, deeper reasons to reject Christianity, so many of which have been listed in this thread that it would be pointless to reiterate them. And certainly there's more to the psalm than just the striking, violent image that caps it off - actually, as a piece of poetry - that is, as an expression of the grief and rage that must have been felt by the poet - I find it astonishingly effective. But the shock of seeing this supposed holy book, this allegedly unerring guide to morality, openly advocating the brutal murder of infants definitely knocked something loose in my psyche. Once that process of asking questions started, I found that I was happiest rejecting the whole corrupted enterprise.

I hope you can find your way loose from the bonds of dogma yourself. You may even find yourself one of those who chooses to still have faith in a god of some kind, but believe me, once you begin questioning the tenets of Christianity, there's no sane alternative but to reject them.

Posted by: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood | August 12, 2009 3:17 PM

According to my good friend Mr. Webster, the word "bigot" is defined as "a person who is intolerant of opinions differing from his own."

I believe you are making the error of confusing intolerance with disrespect. I'd suggest that we can be disrespectful without being intolerant.

We are not attempting to destroy religion in the intolerant manner that religion has traditionally dealt with heretics--by physical destruction, by brainwashing and the passing of bulls and edicts. Rather, we treat it with scant regard and mockery. The rudery may irritate some, but it does no great harm except to the sensibilities of some pearl-clutchers.

I view the atheist cause as somewhat akin to a revolution (an imperfect analogy, but stay with me for now). And while some revolutions may boast a highbrow elite to provide an intellectual underpinning, they will get nowhere unless the firebrands and their mobs prepare the ground first and provide the impetus against the intractable forces of the establishment.

Don't dis the mobs, these rude Jacobins. They do much of the graft and the fighting. The intellectuals benefit greatly from their work in the vanguard.

Of course, what you highbrow types fear is that these godless sans culottes will institute a Terror, which in the context of atheism is a nonsense. There is neither the inclination nor the will to do such a thing. Rudery and vulgar abuse does not constitute a Terror, at least not to anyone with a disposition more robust than your maiden aunt's.

Posted by: Andysin | August 12, 2009 3:19 PM

Nikki,

"These folks have honestly poured out their hearts to you"

I second that. There are some good posts here with personal stories about people abandoning their faith that they didn't need to share with you. I know you're feeling a little bombarded by all these comments, anybody would, but I think you owe it to yourself to spending a little time reading the stories and reaaaaally thinking about what these people are saying. They aren't criticising you. They are trying to relate and help you understand why they left their faith. They also care about you in the same way that proselytizing christians care about non-believers (for anybody who doesn't understand what I mean there's a "Penn says" video on it). They see your beliefs as detrimental to your personal development and to your future as an adult. I am one of these people, please consider what I'm saying. It's always sad to hear about children being indoctrinated, but to actually maintain dialogue with one is kind of heart wrenching. Atheists are good people and we give a shit about the world, and that includes you.

Posted by: Maria | August 12, 2009 3:21 PM

Nikki,
I commend you for your curiosity.
Just thought I'd add my personal story, since this has become such a wealth of similar stories.
I can remember questioning those trying to teach me about faith and religion from the time I was about 7 years old. My second grade (nun) teacher sent me to stand in the hall for it repeatedly. My knack for asking the tough questions never sat well with her.
I grew up in Catholic schools, church every Sunday. My parents to this day find my atheism very upsetting, which was in the end, what made it so difficult for me to come to. It makes my mom cry. I love her, and I hate to see her cry.
I always in some way knew there was no god, but the idea of admitting it was terrifying, because so many people I trusted told me there was. Realizing the grownups (particularly in one's own family) don't always know everything is a scary thing. Who to trust then?
But eventually, I got over the fear, and just admitted what I always knew. And now I'm a happier, not to mention nicer, person because of it.
I've learned intrinsically derived morals are by far superior to those given dogmatically from a book, a religion, or even someone you trust. Because they take into account the people they affect.
I hope you've learned something today, and more importantly, I hope you continue to be curious, ask questions, and read anything you can get your hands on.
Best wishes. -M

Posted by: sharky | August 12, 2009 3:24 PM

Nikki: You have nothing to apologize for. Everyone who's said a word to you did so voluntarily, as others have pointed out.

I have a different question, which you may take or leave. What would you want to change anyone's mind on? We're all convinced of the inaccurracy of the Flood and seven-day creationism, and honestly nobody expects you to be grounded enough in the sciences to debate us, since most of us have had more time to read up on geology and biology. So... if you wanted to convince anyone here of anything, what would it be? Why?

Posted by: CRShelton | August 12, 2009 3:27 PM

Nikki, here's what I see:

You claim to be here to understand our point of view, but so far you haven't been trying; You've only spent the time explaining your world view, which we've heard many times before.

That said, I will try to help you understand our world view, because whether you are genuinely interested in it or not, I believe that it is confusing to you.

Your answer to why you are a Christian:

"Because i believe God created us, and even though he seems very self rightgeous/obsessive, he still gave us life and free will."

The fundamental thing that you must understand about atheists and freethinkers is that we require evidence to believe in something. "I believe God Created us because I believe God created us" is not a strong argument in our eyes.

There is a lot to understand about which kinds of evidence we believe and how much of it we must be able to verify with our *own personal* senses. For example, we don't usually accept purely anecdotal evidence; It must be documented in some way or presented in a way that we can test to see if it's true.

However, sometimes we are put in a situation where we can't actually test what is said because we lack the resources or skills. For example, PZ might say that he saw something happen in the lab and I can't test it myself because I haven't taken enough classes and don't have the right tools in my own lab, but I would still trust him. This is where many religious people get the idea the science is also a form of faith, but there is a big difference.

The difference is that PZ will always show as much physical evidence as he possible can, and that he will always explain how I *could* test what he says if I really wanted to take the time. If there isn't enough evidence or the steps I need to take don't seem clear enough, I wouldn't believe even Him. (little joke there, sorry)

Even scientists and skeptics might have varying standards of proof, but they key element that we all share is that we are more likely to *not believe* what we are told than to believe it. We take the stance that we shouldn't believe in anything in less the evidence is overwhelming and verifiable. That is why you often hear scientists and atheists saying that it is your job to prove that God exists, not their job to prove that he doesn't.

Those are the main things that you should understand about our view of the world. Now as to our view of the Christian Bible and it's teachings, I think you are already on the right track. You have already noticed that a few of the things in the bible don't make sense, and you openly admit to not believing them. For example: All women should be slaves to men.

Now, to see why we don't believe in God, you must understand that we think the two ideas have exactly the same amount of evidence. The Bible says women should be slaves. We don't think The Bible is a verifiable source of evidence (it falls in the category of anecdotal), and in fact we see more concrete evidence that women are emotionally and intellectually equal to men, as you do. So we reject the conclusion that women should be slaves to men

We take the existence of God and apply the same steps: The Bible says God exists and created the world. We don't think the Bible is a verifiable source of evidence (anecdotal and not even a first person account), and in fact we see more concrete evidence that the world was created in a different way. So we reject the idea that God exists and created the world.

I hope that helps you understand our point of view. I hope that you were honest when you said that is the reason you came here. I would love a quick reply if you have any questions about this post or just to let me know if it helped.

Good luck in your quest for the truth.

Posted by: James Sweet | August 12, 2009 3:30 PM

Either you have to believe matter always existed and moved itself around on its own or God has always existed and created matter and living things.

While this is clearly a false dilemma, even if I have to chose, I think I'll take hydrogen in a heartbeat. If I have to believe that something just magically appeared out of nowhere and I will never understand why, it's a lot easier for me to imagine an elementary particle springing into existence from nowhere than it is for me to image a sentient omnipotent being spring into existence from nowhere.

Again, I don't believe hydrogen appeared from nowhere without any explanation, but if that were the only alternative, it certainly sounds less far-fetched than this magical sky daddy business...

Posted by: Monado | August 12, 2009 3:31 PM

Nikki,
You believe what you were brought up to believe or what you dwell on. Just think of how you thought about Santa Claus when you were seven. Everyone around you told you that Santa lived at the North Pole, knew whether you were good or bad, and brought presents. Adults conspired to convince you of this pleasant fantasy. Now, everyone tells you that God lives in Heaven, knows whether you're good or bad, and brings salvation. The main-stream media keep silent about what scholars know:

* That the New Testament was not written until about 70 years after the reputed lifetime of Jesus.
* That his sayings are largely Hebrew proverbs or Greek philosophy.
* That biblical manuscripts were re-written to make it look as if prophesies were being fulfilled.
* That the first mention of Mary and Joseph was in a letter from a Bishop about 2 generations after the Jesus was supposed to have lived.
* That Jesus' biography is made up of elements from the classic Hero Myth: descended from kings, born of a virgin, fearful enemies wanted to kill him, parents fled to a foreign country, etc. etc.
* That the story of Jesus rising into heaven is not in our earliest manuscripts of the New Testament.

If you concentrate on anything enough, whether it's fear of spiders or the life of your favorite heroine, it will seem more real to you.

A wise Greek once remarked that the gods of other countries looked like the people of those countries and that if horses had gods, they would look like horses. We know of over a thousand gods that people have (or do) believe in. People believe in the gods that they were brought up with. In other places, people have tried to replace religion with Communism or other ideals or with a cult of personality, such as the virtual worship of Kim Il Jong in Korea. Others, wanting the comforts of spiritual life without the deadening weight of church authority, turn to philosophical religions like Buddhism or do-it-yourself religions like modern paganism, with its God and Goddess, agricultural year, and be-done-by-as-you-did morality.

In each place, people believe as they are trained and find it almost impossible to imagine thinking any other way. There's no use arguing with them. And in many small towns in the U.S., the church is the center of community activities. People must believe, or pretend to, or they will be shut out of comfort, friendships, and fun. The cost of publicly questioning becomes to high. And we get the conspiracy of silence that won't examine the facts of religion for fear of "rocking the boat." That's the environment that has formed you. As you grow up you'll discover that there are other ways of thinking, that being good is natural to us, and that you can be good (and happy) without believing in unicorns. Or in God.

All of us, scientists too, have trouble letting go of the ideas we were brought up with. That's why the history of science is full of wonderful 30-year debates as the evidence slowly mounts and the old die-hards retire. Examples are
* Life: from other life or spontaneously generated? (from other life).
* Diseases: caused by germs or not? (By germs, at least some of the time.)
* Childbed fever: caused by doctors handling corpses and then delivering babies or spontaneous? (Caused by doctors.)
* (Extinction--does it happen or not? (yes.)
* Geology: uniform processes or catastrophes? (Uniform--usually)
* Genetic material: DNA or protein? (DNA.)
* Universe: steady state or big bang? (Big bang.)
* Birds: descended from dinosaurs or not? (Dinosaurs.)
* Bacterial flagellum: irreducibly complex or not? (Not.)

The good news is, science lets us change our minds instead of clinging to the past.

Posted by: Spiv | August 12, 2009 3:33 PM

This thread is huge, and I'll likely just get ignored, but why not. I'm going to toss in my own "conversion story." I'll try to keep it short and sweet.

I, like many was raised christian. My parents still are. They were always moderates though, not extremists. I was still the listen-to-bible-radio-every-other-day type.

All the same somewhere in my early twenties things came to a head. My faith did not make sense given the way my life had progressed. My expectations were terrorizing me. I was basically forced to start asking questions about the things I had been told (ranging from 'finding your one true love' to 'prayer does something' or 'who is good and bad.' Once I started thinking about these things- really, deeply considering them, the answer got to be kind of obvious: I'd been (not going to call it lied to, but something like that with good honest intentions).

For a long time I kept the idea of a god, just not the biblical one or the version I had been told about. Eventually I took refuge vows (buddhist tradition of giving up the dumb things we do as a means to actually work toward understanding). That helped me a lot as far as straightening out my life and beliefs, not because it was rooted in some religion (buddha was just a philosopher, not a god. But perhaps a pretty decent philosopher.) but because it pointed me in the direction of actually thinking things through.

Now it's kinda like "Is there a god?" "I dunno. Does it matter?"

That and the whole story of Noah was so absurd it was almost like it was put in there just to see who was really willing to believe anything. It works as a kid's fairytale as long as you don't put it in any kind of realistic context whatsoever.

I'm not one of the 'loud, new athiest' types, but I sure am thankful they are out there shining lights on the silliness.

Posted by: Desert Son | August 12, 2009 3:36 PM

Hank Fox at #450 (assuming posts by heddle remain):

Outstanding post. That was a joy to read, positive, considered, forthright, engaging, creative, open, and well-shaped. I've been waffling back and forth on posting to this thread because I, like others, have been concerned whether the prompting email and posts were from a legitimate source (although, as daveau pointed out, that's ultimately irrelevant to having a good discussion). Your post was terrific, and said many of the things I would also have tried to say. Thanks.

Like many here, I was raised in a religious tradition. Many got wise before I did, but it's a great experience at any age. Thanks again.

No kings,

Robert

Posted by: Norseman | August 12, 2009 3:38 PM

I'm a settled lurker and a layman, so I usually just enjoy the reading, but I feel I have to say this.

All the "god's bad personality"-arguments, though making perfect sense to me, don't they just confirm exactly what the christians expect Satan to say (Like technique to employ; smudge god) ?

Imagine, in their mind, god's greatness could rise when he remains silent during the mud-slinging, soaking it up, "biding his time".

I think the only real way is education, and being exposed to other worldviews.

Otherwise I think you handle Nikki in a great way as this was surely some kind of bizarre "challenge" for the Pharyngulites.

Best

Posted by: Nikki | August 12, 2009 3:42 PM

"Welcome back. So you have had an hour, what do you think about our ideas?"

To be honest, I am a little taken aback but after reading some of the comments, I can understand why some
people dont believe in God.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | August 12, 2009 3:43 PM

#438 Glen D OK, Bradford, how does your unperceivable being answer the question of where hydrogen came from?

Based upon conclusive evidence that hydrogen exists, I can either assume the existence of an unperceivable being (per your Einstein quote) or conclude the non-existence of an unperceivable being.

OK, you restated your illogic, without, of course, telling me at all how your unperceivable being answers why hydrogen exits, or anything else.

Apparently you're only interested in stopping your questioning with the invocation of magic, not interested in meaningfully explaining anything at all.

You're welcome to your positive attitude toward ignorance, but you still have no legitimate reason to inflict such tripe upon others.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 12, 2009 3:50 PM

I see I touched the correct nerve. - bilbo

...and bilbo confirms once more what a bladderhead he is. Bilbo old halfling, no-one with the slightest pretensions to intellect or character ever uses that line: it equates to "People disagree strongly, so I must be right". Doesn't follow, does it?

Posted by: MikeyM | August 12, 2009 3:52 PM

@551 I love that Jefferson quote, and not just because "Fix reason firmly in her seat" sounds so dirty.

Posted by: Elwood Herring | August 12, 2009 3:54 PM

I go out for an afternoon and when I get back there's a new item here with over 550 posts already. OK, time to play catch-up (again!)

Posted by: DogmaticAtheist | August 12, 2009 3:58 PM

Nikki:

Why does god need and desire glorification?

Posted by: Kagehi | August 12, 2009 4:01 PM

Would someone just stuff Heddle in a crate and ship him back to Blackwater. The "Prince" is probably missing his court jester.

Oh, wait... I forgot, according to Heddle, there *are no* "Christians" that think Democracy needs to be replaced with a new line of God ordained Kings/Caliphates..., like the good old days when us peasants could be killed at a whim, over whether or not we bowed deep enough as the great leader passed.

Well, ship him some where else then. I am sure there is some group of loons missing their court entertainer some place, where he would fit in.

Posted by: Alpinist | August 12, 2009 4:02 PM

I'd have to say, looking through this HUGE thread of replies to Nikki, and reading every one of her posts, I don't think that any of this is really sinking in. All of her replies are just sidestepping by regurgitating all the same (very very old) talking points that have obviously been drilled into her head for the 780 Sundays that she's been here on Earth.

It's a shame, too, because I'm seeing some very powerful points here that deserve some attention.

Off Topic: Where did TypeKey go? Now I have to sign up for ANOTHER stupid ID login!?!?

Posted by: Evolving Squid | August 12, 2009 4:04 PM

Well Nikki, you will have to evaluate things for yourself to determine why you should or should not believe in some deity. Personally, I shrugged off the yoke of Christianity when I was about your age.

You wanted 10 reasons not to believe. I am not sure there is a universal 10 reasons not to believe since the arrival at the conclusion that there are no gods is an experience pretty unique to each person who has it.

Nevertheless, here are my reasons:

1. First and foremost, all religions claim to be the universal truth. The fact that there is more than 1 religion necessitates that most of them be wrong. The added fact that the universal truth only ever seems to spring up in one place, then spread is weird if any religion is true. If the truth of a religion is universal, one would expect cultures that were separated to have teh same religion without intermixing (i.e. Columbus comes to America and discovers Christian natives). Logic would seem to indicate that a better answer might be that no religion is true. The strength of this alone is sufficient for me to cast off all formal religion. Others have said that the answer to the question "why don't you believe in Zeus?" will also answer "why don't you believe in God/Jesus?" That is the essence of this reason.

2. As a minimum, the Abrahamic religions seem to be about the use of force. Using force to punish the heretics. Using force to command obedience. Using fear to control populations. Killing and smiting in holy righteousness without regard for the victim. Brainwashing of children into unquestioning, unthinking adult drones. If that is what the universal truth of religion leads to, I don't WANT to believe in it even if it is true... religion is UNWORTHY of my belief.

3. Religion, particularly the Abrahamic religions, always seems to need money. For a bunch of people who believe that an invisible, all powerful man in the sky looks after them, they sure are money-grubbers. As a young person from a relatively poor family, I found the expectation that we would throw money at some guy in a robe with a funny hat to be offensive. Certainly any person who looks at the abject poverty in Africa and elsewhere and then has a look at the Vatican or any of the modern palaces of American evangelicals has to wonder why God needs the money since it doesn't seem to help as many people as it could. It is because of this that I find religions to be dishonest and (again) UNWORTHY of my belief.

4. From censorship to outright persecution, wherever religion goes, so does backwardness, hatred, and pain. Christianity largely gave us the Dark Ages. Islam took the Arabs from being science leaders to being blood-thirsty, uncivilized yahoos. Even before I was a teen I understood this and it always scared me about religion. Right now, religious leaders like Ken Ham and his museum LIE against established fact. Once again, I consider it a demonstration that organized religion is unworthy of my belief.

There's three solid (I think) shots at religion. But it's possible to believe in a deity and not follow a specific religion. So...

5. No hard evidence has ever been produced to suggest the existence of any deity. Logic games and posits are not evidence. Although the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, one might think that of the 12 billion people who have ever lived on the planet or currently live on it that SOMEONE would have noticed undeniable proof of a deity. In the absence of proof, there is no reason to believe. Strangely enough, this is the one condition that should be the easiest to defeat. I can state with some certainty that if definitive proof of the existence of a deity appeared tomorrow, legions of soon-to-be-former atheists would sign right up... while bigger legions of religious people screamed "HERESY!" and started a war to smite the infidel.

6. Evidence does indicate that a deity is not required for the explanation of anything. All our advancement in knowledge in recorded history has not required a deity. Indeed, that advancing knowledge has severely narrowed the places where a deity would even fit. This leads me to conclude that there is no deity and any current gaps in our knowledge will eventually be filled without a god just as our past gaps have been filled. In the absence of need, there is no reason to believe.

7. This is related to the previous point, I suppose. Gods appear to grant little, but ask a lot. They're like that mooching uncle who always shows up at supper time, drinks your beer, sits in the comfy chair and spouts racist, sexist nonsense until he passes out or is finally kicked out. Gods want obedience in thought as well as deed, they want your money, they want to tell you who you can have sex with, how you can dress, what you can say, what you can eat, what you can touch, how much you have to toady, what direction to face while toadying and so on... it's kind of weird that some being who would claim that humans have free will would then do everything he can (including global smiting and eternal torture) to ensure that we don't actually use that free will. Most deities have one or more of these properties according to literature. They aren't concepts I can believe in, so there's no reason to believe in the god that supports them.

Posted by: E.V. | August 12, 2009 4:05 PM

Kathyxx:
I wasn't questioning whether you were a nontheist, agnostic or believer. *grins*. No I was pointing out that even like minded individuals here tend to eventually attack due to the stress of hypomanic accusations and quick tempered redresses from misread posts (not to mention hot button sur-ideological biases) and above all - the quality of trolls Pharyngula attracts.

My Reservoir Dogs reference was to illustrate my point; Mr.Pink, Mr. Brown, etc. end up holding guns on each other thinking the other had double-crossed them. Too obscure an analogy, I suppose.(I won't spoil the ending for you)
Glen rarely bites as hard as he bit you, but when he bites there is surely cause.

It's a rough&tumble atmosphere here and you have to stay on your toes because someone is sure to step on them, if not stomp on them and fill the screen with blistering invectives and what some view as obscene language.

Posted by: Brango | August 12, 2009 4:10 PM

Nikki said: "God decided the only way clean things up and show the world he exists was to flood the earth"

If the very act of showing the world he exists involves killing everyone, then what's the point? Now he's got a world full of corpses who believe in him... that's not exactly a big win!

For an all powerful omniscient being, this god ain't exactly the smartest tool in the box. Are you sure he wasn't a dropout from god school and creation is his revenge against the teachers who flunked him?

Posted by: Tallgrass05 | August 12, 2009 4:14 PM

What do all religions have in common?

1. A creation tale for the earth and/or the universe.
2. A special creation tale for humans.
3. The concept of an afterlife, with a good place and a bad place to go.

Humans have constantly invented gods and religions for thousands of years.

Posted by: phantomreader42 | August 12, 2009 4:15 PM

Nikki @ # 113:

my case is this: i have been a christian since i was born,my family is very religeous, not going to church on sunday is not an option. So by saying that i know everyone who reads this will assume im just another brainwashed bible thumper, but im not. Im just a christian who yea, believes in creation.

Because you have been raised in an environment where no other belief is tolerated, and have been forcibly dragged to church for indoctrination all your life. You even admit this. Have you allowed yourself to consider the possibility that what you've been taught might be wrong? Or are you too afraid of what the rest of your cult would say? This kind of brainwashing is exactly the way any cult works.

More from Nikki:

can anyone give me 10 good reasons why i shouldent believe in creation or god?

If it's a really GOOD reason, you only need one. Can YOU give even ONE good reason for believing in your particular version of god, instead of any of the countless other myths humans have been making up for so long?

But if you really need ten reasons, it shouldn't be too hard to come up with that many, some derived from your own statements. This is, of course, assuming that all the "Nikki" posts in this thread are actually yours, an assumption that may not be correct, but at the very least those posts are representing beliefs actually held by christians.

1. First, and most important, is that there is not the slightest speck of evidence that any god, much less YOUR god, actually exists. If god isn't real, all religion is a fantasy.

2. By your own admission, the bible was written by men, and contains outright falsehoods and fantasies dreamed up by fallible humans. The same is true for every other holy book. They're all known to be FALSE in many particulars. Given this, it makes no sense to take their assertions of divine authorship seriously.

3. As you stated, you have been raised to be a christian from birth. This is not unusual. In fact, the primary factor determining a person's religious beliefs is the religion of their parents. Had you been born to muslim parents, you would be arguing in favor of islam, if you were even able to see the computer screen through your burqua. If these religions had actual evidence to back them up, they would not need to indoctrinate people as children. And yet the indoctrination of children is how religions sustain themselves.

4. In comment #238, you said God flooded the earth(and yes, killed some babies) because the world was so full of sin that the only way to fix things was to flood the earth and clean it, in a way he cleaned the slate, to start anew. First of all, there is no evidence that this actually happened. Floods leave behind predictable features, and if there had been a global flood in the recent past, there would be countless signs left behind. There are none. There was no flood. It's a myth.

5. Continuing on the flood, you claim that there was no way to fix the world except by flooding it. This claim is incompatible with the notion of an omnipotent god. If there truly was an all-powerful, all-knowing god, it would not be limited to a single solution, much less such massive overkill as flooding the entire world. You cannot simultaneously claim that god is omnipotent AND that the flood was the only option. It's a total contradiction. And if you're going to limit your god's power to match this myth, that just shows you're making it up as you go along.

6. And again on the flood, there's the simple monstrous overkill of it all. The murder of countless innocent people (and even more innocent animals) by such a grotesque, gruesome, and sloppy method is simply evil. What possible purpose does the flood story serve, except to spread fear? If there were a good and worthy god, it would not need to rule by fear. And an evil god, even if it existed, is unworthy of worship.

7. Religion promotes "faith", that is, belief without evidence, even in the face of contradicting evidence. This is not a way to understand reality. It's a way to plug your ears and cover your eyes to deny reality. Faith is not a virtue. It's a vice. It's a way of lying to yourself.

8. Another christian dogma is the idea of hell. The belief that people who don't believe the right things or obey the right rules will be tortured without end. This is simply monstrous. If hell actually existed, whoever created it would be the most evil being imaginable. It's a scare tactic, a way to terrify people into submission and rule by fear. The doctrine of eternal damnation is a deliberate attempt to bypass critical thinking in support of fearmongering and tyrrany. All the evidence says it is false, and it would be evil even if true. Any religion that teaches such filth is run by con artists trying to scare people into giving them money and power.

9. As to creation, there are countless creation myths. They are all mutually exclusive. Even the bible has two different, contradictory accounts of the creation, both of which also contradict observed facts. There's no way they can all be right, and the evidence shows that NONE of them is right.

10. Finally, another creation issue, going back to where I started. There is no evidence to support the belief that anything was actually created by any god, just as there is no evidence that such a god exists. Creationists persist in claiming they have proof of creation, but they don't. They don't even try to argue for creation. All they do is attack evolution. And those attacks are not backed up by facts. They are based on misconceptions, willful ignorance, and outright lies. Many classic creationist lies are documented and debunked at the Talk Origins Index of Creationist Claims. These lies were debunked decades ago, in many cases, one common one was known to be a lie over a century ago, but creationists still repeat them. If the creationists had the truth on their side, why would they need to lie? Evolution, on the other hand, IS backed up by evidence. It has been observed, in real time, in the real world. The fossils fit, the DNA fits, the evidence shows that evolution happened and continues to happen. Science. It works, bitches!

Posted by: KATHYxx | August 12, 2009 4:20 PM

You mean the other post wasn't an attempt to set me on fire by reading it? haha.

I understand, especially since all of that applies to me too. My apologies to Glen.

Next time I decide to become a newbie somewhere, I'll do it with a full night's sleep.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 12, 2009 4:24 PM

After looking at your blog i have come to the conclusion that nothing anyone says will change your mind on how you believe things work and about god.

Did you also conclude that Dr. Myers is much better educated, informed, intellectually mature, and thoughtful than you are? You should have, and that alone should be reason to question your beliefs. Why would you expect anything you might say to change the mind of any college professor, regardless of their beliefs? What makes you think you have the skills to determine whether someone might or might not be able to change their mind about something?

On those matters on which you and Dr. Myers disagree, who do you think is more likely to be correct, and why?

Posted by: amphiox | August 12, 2009 4:34 PM

#566 and others;

I think you are being quite a bit too hard on Nikki on this point.

She comes here with a world-view that she has been indoctrinated in by multiple people she loves and respects for many years, a world-view which so far as made her happy, to a forum already a prior established as being hostile to that world-view.

She's not going to change her mind on the authority of our opinions alone, (and I for one would not want her to - that is just trading one unquestioned authority for another) nor could she possibly have had time to even begin to read the vast volumes of material that has been provided for here via links and book titles, etc.

The talking points she brings up may seem old to us, but that is only because we have engaged so many others like her in the past. These points are not "old" to her.

She has already stated flat-out that she does not accept the literal word of the bible without question. That alone makes her not a fundamentalist (at least by my definition of that term), even if she thinks she is one or self-identifies as one (not actually sure that she does, in fact). That alone means she has already opened her mind, at least a little bit, to independent critical thinking.

All we can do here is plant the seeds and see if they take root, and there is already evidence that there is some fertile soil already present in which the seed can grow. And regardless of what Nikki chooses to make of this in the future, if she does not try to force her opinions into the public sphere with deliberate lies and deceptions in an attempt to indoctrinate others, like Ken Ham or Vox Day, or spread demonstrable falsehoods that degrade the hard-won pool of collective human knowledge, like Bill Dembski and Casey Luskin, or slander the work and opinions of others with false and unjustifiable accusations, like Ben Stein, or compel the teaching of narrow sectarian beliefs and the exclusion contrary beliefs, to other people's children, like Steve Buckingham, or attempt to assume a position of authority or responsibility in our society where the application of personal beliefs contrary to reality would have a detrimental effect on the well-being of others, like Michelle Bachmann and George Bush Jr, her private beliefs, her relations to her social group, her sense of self and group identity, are her affair.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 12, 2009 4:38 PM

I can understand why some people dont believe in God.

Now about understanding why they should ... you wrote in response to "state your case for God":

my case is this: i have been a christian since i was born,my family is very religeous, not going to church on sunday is not an option. So by saying that i know everyone who reads this will assume im just another brainwashed bible thumper, but im not. Im just a christian who yea, believes in creation.

Sorry, but I see no case at all there. Do you even comprehend the request?

Posted by: MikeM | August 12, 2009 4:41 PM

Nikki, since you keep bringing up Noah's Flood, two questions to ask yourself:

1) Where'd all the water come from?
2) Where'd it all go?

I take the position that there was no flood, that the story of Noah's Ark is a fable. Actually, fable isn't right; fables usually have morals at the end, and this one doesn't. The closest you can get to one is God got really mad at one of Noah's grandsons, and couldn't see, through all his abilities to see and know everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen, that some people would use this story to rationalize slavery. God, for some reason, just couldn't see that one coming.

One of Noah's sons sees that Noah has gotten drunk, and is passed out and naked, so he covers him... So the grandson gets cursed? Really, that's how God works?

This is the infinitely-loving, infinitely-wise, infinitely-patient God?

How can you account for that?

That was more than two questions. Sorry.

Posted by: Neith | August 12, 2009 4:48 PM

Nikki -

My late father was, in his time, a Biblical archaeologist and Old Testament scholar. He knew (and taught) Biblical languages, including Aramaic and Assyriac, in their various historical forms, as well as ancient Hebrew, ancient Greek and Latin. (He also spoke several dialects of Arabic, modern Hebrew, French, German and Norwegian, as well as read Egyptian hieroglyphs. I believe his total was 17 languages, most of them dead.) He dug at Jericho and other sites in the Middle East. He was also an Episcopalian priest, one who had left divinity school to fight in WWII because he was repulsed by the number of men who came to his school, without a calling, just to avoid the draft. He believed deeply in God. He was an intelligent man, with a high IQ.

And through his studies, through the science and analysis that is necessary in archaeology, he began to question the things that underlay his faith. The more he questioned, the more questions he had. Eventually, he renounced his orders - how could he be a clergyman when he no longer believed in God, when the Bible was revealed to be nothing more than myth and lies, cobbled together by men who rejected one ancient manuscript and included another for reasons of power and politics? When he knew those manuscripts, the "inspired word of God" were frequently merely slightly altered versions of stories from other cultures that long predated them? When, looked at in the cold light of day, those manuscripts depicted a vicious and vindictive deity for whom no one with compassion for his fellow man (and woman) could have any respect, much less speak to that deity's glory? When, following the history of Christianity, he found a trail of lying and corruption and convenience? (Have you been told that Mary Magdalene was a whore? Did you know that this was promulgated by Pope Gregory in 591 AD and does not appear in the Bible at all?)

People create gods to explain what they cannot fathom. Accepting that nature has no motive, no reason, that lightening bolts are not evidence of an angry god, but an electrical phenomenon, that ecstatic visions can be triggered by ergot rot on rye or a dopamine dysfunction, can be frightening - after all, if there are no gods to appease, no way to make deals to get through life unscathed, no sacrifices that can make things better, life is terrifying, full of random occurrences that cannot be controlled. Until that fear can be overcome, people cling to their beliefs, cling to the notion that if they just believe enough, just follow The Rules, everything will be all right. (As author Tom Robbins wrote, "Science gives man what he needs, but magic gives him what he wants.")

Thinking critically, reading all that you can about the origins of religion, of various creation myths, may give you some insight into why atheists reject a belief in a god, any god. Learning more about science and how scientific enquiry is conducted will help you understand how scientists view the universe. Doing that may shake or strengthen your faith; that's up to you, but it should give you some answers.

Posted by: mouse | August 12, 2009 4:52 PM

Isn't she the pot calling the kettle black? All humans are stubborn when it comes to the thing they are impassioned about, whether that be religion, money, or politics. Personally I feel that what is between you and your belief system, (god, buddah, allah, yahweh, none at all, cailleach, etc.) is between you at that belief system and is no one else's business. I also believe that people should keep that to themselves.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | August 12, 2009 4:53 PM

What the fuck. 586 comments in just a few hours. <hand smashing into forehead> No way am I going to read all of them.

That means I won't participate in this thread. In the unlikely case anyone really wants my input, find a way to beg me.

Oh, yeah, judging from the last 2 or 3 comments, it looks like this hasn't been mentioned yet. Nikki should read it. (Even though it's long.)

Posted by: amphiox | August 12, 2009 4:59 PM

Hi Nikki,

Not sure if you're still with us, as I'm sure you have other things you need to do with your time that sitting at a computer reading and writing posts.

But I'll tell you what would convince PZ and pretty much everyone posting here that god exists.

One bona fide, demonstrable, verifiable miracle. Just one. Give us just one and all scientists would become believers, and the only atheists left will be conspiracy theorists. (In scientific parlance, this would be called valid evidence - atheism is a falsifiable scientific hypothesis, one confirmed miracle is all it takes to demonstrate that atheism is wrong, while theism is not a scientifically falsifiable hypothesis, as an eternity without any evidence for god does not preclude the possibility his existence but refusal to intervene in any detectable manner).

And the more specific the miracle, the greater the degree of belief. Something vaguely, but clearly, supernatural would lead to acceptance of the reality of the supernatural. Something vaguely, but clearly, divine, would lead to the acceptance of the existence of a god or gods. Something obviously Christian would lead to the acceptance of the Christian god.

An example of the type of miracle that would do the trick (and no the only such example, but an example), would be the appearance of Jesus at the Smithsonian, where he would do the St. Thomas thing, letting experts in human anatomy and medicine examine and touch his wounds, allow an MRI scan to be taken, a blood sample to be drawn and DNA to be sequenced, confirming a haploid genome with no Y chromosome with nevertheless a male body, a recorded demonstration in the presence of world expert wine tasters of a transformation of water into wine, or a similar demonstration of a divine power.

Though, scientists being scientists, if this happened, they would not immediately accept the inerrancy of the bible or any other holy book. They would want to investigate this miracle, repeat the observation of the miracle if possible, in short, to test the nature of the now revealed god to see if it really is consistent with prior accounts! (I'm not sure if the devoutly fundamentalist religionist would prefer this scenario to the current one!)

Posted by: Joffan | August 12, 2009 5:04 PM

Hmm, I see I missed my chance to mock the flood/rainbow story... think carefully about this, Nikki, if you still believe that rainbows only happen because God wants to remind people of when he killed practically everyone. If you know that the real reason rainbows appear is the properties of light in water droplets, perhaps you can understand how not to take the Bible too literally.

But rainbows themselves are beautiful. It's glorious how each raindrop is throwing off a perfect circle of colour back at the sun and the circles all line up precisely so that we catch the same bit of that circle from a million raindrops along each line of view. It's glorious physics, but it's still wonderful to see. And it has indeed inspired many stories among ancient people.

Posted by: DaveL | August 12, 2009 5:09 PM

Based upon conclusive evidence that hydrogen exists, I can either assume the existence of an unperceivable being (per your Einstein quote) or conclude the non-existence of an unperceivable being.

How does the existence of hydrogen require you to conclude either of these things?

Posted by: perry147 | August 12, 2009 5:13 PM

15 year old??

http://www.cruzweb.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/to-catch-a-predator.jpg

Posted by: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood | August 12, 2009 5:13 PM

Nikki,

The lack of evidence for a good or supernatural events is a pretty strong reason to be an atheist.

Actually, the point someone makes above about atheists becoming believers in the face of a bona fide miracle probably needs to be more nuanced. What happens is that scientists would search for a naturalistic explanation for the miracle. That explanation would incorporate a deity if evidence was found of divine cause and therefore god would become proven by science.

This is unlikely, but science does not rule it out. It simply ignores theses that are unsupported by evidence. The Bible, I must point out, does not supply evidence that holds much water.

Posted by: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood | August 12, 2009 5:21 PM

The lack of evidence for a good god...

Damn my typing.

Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | August 12, 2009 5:23 PM

To be honest, I am a little taken aback but after reading some of the comments, I can understand why some people dont believe in God.

Posted by: Mr DArcy | August 12, 2009 5:29 PM

Nikki, I'm intrigued by the fast moving comments here. Is it true that you are really a 400lb hulk, resident in the bombshelter of the church? Or are you really the angel of innocence wanting to understand how the "godless" feel?

Either way, and quite apart from the science of rainbows, science has contributed more to the total knowledge of humanity in the last 400 years, than have all the priests, shammans, prohpets, gods, spirits, demons and Bible bashers have done in the whole actual development of homo sapiens, of some 100,000 years or so.

Every advance of science has pushed the Christian (and all other gods) more and more into the realm of the mystical *supernatural*. That is increasingly unexplainable.

If Nikki is who she claims, I wish her the best. If Nikki is a plant posted by the Discovery Institute, then I wish them the best too! But not without saying that the ideas of the Discovery Institute are pernicious, insisdious and harmful!

Posted by: Shinobi | August 12, 2009 5:30 PM

Hey Nikki,
Assuming you made it through 600 comments....

There were two things that lead me to become an Atheist, the first:
1. The church's insistence that I take what it said on "faith" and that I not seek logical or rational reasons for those beliefs and actions. If what they were saying was so true, then why is it not acceptable for me to doubt and to question? Even Jesus questioned God, why do I have to blindly accept what is given to me? When I answered this question it all became clear to me.

2. Wanting something to be real is not enough reason to believe in it. When I was your age I was fascinated by Wicca, by Astrology and by Tarot cards. I thought they were really interesting and I wanted to believe in them. But they ultimately seemed silly to me, as much as I wanted the stars to dictate my life and cards to tell me the future and the Goddess to grant me my wishes if I lit the right candles, I couldn't believe in it just because I wanted to. And even though I want there to be a God, and I want there to be a heaven and angels and all these other things I was taught to believe, wanting is not enough to make something true.

Those are the reasons that I think it is important to focus on doing the best we can for humanity right now. There are no second chances, there is nothing that can make the bad things we do go away, a life once taken is lost forever. This is it.

Warm Regards. Shinobi

Posted by: Erp | August 12, 2009 5:34 PM

Nikki,

I suspect you are being overwhelmed. I see two issues. The first is using Genesis as a source of scientific information. For that I suggest perusing the Talk.Origins website. Many Christians consider Genesis to be a series of parables with little or no historical fact (much like the story of the prodigal son in the New Testament). You do not necessarily cease to be a Christian if you agree with this. You might also want to check out Ken Miller's web page for a Christian and a serious biologist.

The second issue is the existence of God and if a God what its traits and requirements are. For that you've read many reasons why people don't believe. What you believe is something you are going to have to decide. You are also going to have to decide what your values are. Read Catholic thinkers (both liberal and conservative), read other Christian thinkers, read thinkers in other religious traditions or none. And for fun read "Small Gods" by Terry Pratchett.

Posted by: Cheezits | August 12, 2009 5:39 PM

Seriously, though, hasn't anyone requested a timestamped photo of 'Nikki' to prove she's legit?

Who gives a flying fig?

Posted by: foolfodder | August 12, 2009 5:48 PM

Hi Nikki, on the assumption you get this far, and with apologies if this point has already been made:

Faith is one of the reasons I don't believe God exists.

If you believe something for good reasons why would you need faith? If the only way you can justify having a belief is with faith, haven't you shown that you have no good reason to believe it?

Do you think you should believe things that you have no good reason to believe?

Posted by: Brian Rapp | August 12, 2009 5:51 PM

ice9 - I love your user name.

Posted by: Desert Son | August 12, 2009 6:02 PM

Bradford at #619:

All Jesus was saying "When you get together and eat and drink, remember me."

All Jesus was saying is reported to have said in an unverified statement is something which I have chosen to interpret as, "When you get together and eat and drink, remember me."

Fixed.

No kings,

Robert

Posted by: Desert Son | August 12, 2009 6:06 PM

Transubstantiation, by the way, is one of the biggest reasons I never could accept Catholicism.

On the other hand

from Genesis 1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. That is where, after examining the evidence and the various truth claims that I consider to be the best answer to the question of "Where did it all come from".

makes much more sense.

Well, you've got me convinced.

No kings,

Robert

Posted by: Eidolon | August 12, 2009 6:08 PM

Bradford @ 543:

You state

The origin of matter has never been observed. The evolution of say, reptiles to birds, has never been observed.

Actually, the creation of matter out of energy is routinely observed and the exploration of the earliest moments of the universe is why they keep up all that particle physics stuff. You know all the "atom smashers" and such.

Your claim about avian evolution is simply wrong. There seems to be a pretty decent line of fossils that incorporate both avian and reptile features. What you want to see is is not just the development of a different species but of whole new class of organism. You are looking for a giant leap, not just steps along the way. Fortunately, you can trace the development of organisms and their interrelatedness through the fossil record, genetics, embryology, anatomy and more. This goes beyond speculation, amigo. These ideas can be tested and verified. Please look up the difference between 'hypothesis' and 'theory' and what happens in between.

In your response to Native American views, how do you know they are wrong? You seem to draw on what you know about human procreation. Apply the same to the virgin birth scene please. You did not address the functional difference between the Spider Woman - others call her Grandmother Spider (Hopi) - who sits in the corner watching what we do and the xian god sitting on high keeping score.

While we do all have to find some explanation of things, I reject your claim that untestable belief is equal to a world view based on what we see and can find out. No "God of the Gaps" for me. As we learn ever more, the job description for a deity just keeps getting more and more trivial.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 12, 2009 6:12 PM

I know I'm very late to the thread, but I figured it would be a bit of a dogpile, so I stayed deliberately away. (I severely underestimated the dogpile, it has been a while since I have seen this much activity in such a short time.) Nikki, you my find this hard to believe, but the start of my road to atheism was reading the bible cover to cover. Twice. Reading little passages here and there, even if daily, doesn't give you the effect of reading it in a couple of weeks or less. Yahweh is not a nice god. Certainly not one I would care to worship. The bible disagrees with itself all over the place. It certainly wasn't inspired by god, unless the priests/scribes were on some bad cactus juice. I also noticed the number of miracles happening back then, and notice the same number of miracles weren't happening now. I learned the scientific method, and its error correction capabilities. I compared this to religion, where there is no error correcting capabilities. I then looked for hard physical evidence for the deity and found none. Turned toward atheism and never looked back.

Posted by: lose_the_woo | August 12, 2009 6:18 PM

I agree Elwood at #623. I have a similar thought at #389.

Posted by: Pharyngulette | August 12, 2009 6:32 PM

As an infrequent poster at the best of times, I've been standing back from commenting, but I have read through all 600+ comments and I haven't seen this observation stated yet, so will add it here: "Nikki", if she's what and who she states she is, is acting exactly like I would have, when I was a self-identified 15-year-old Christian. I would absolutely have tried to contact PeeZed and tried to engage him in discussion as to why he couldn't see Teh Truth of God's Great Glory(TM) and then, when confronted with literally hundreds of responses from terrifying, Satanic, puppy-kicking atheists, I would have been struck temporarily dumb by all the attention. So that, at least, rings true for me.

Also, at 15, I was well-known to use phrases like "taken aback" and "gutsy" in a non-ironic fashion. But then, I was a straaaaange child.

Another thought occurs to me. If Nikki is as thoroughly immersed in her xtian culture as she described, she may well be thinking to herself "Satan is tempting me with what seems to be reasonable ideas. I should run as far as I can, back to the safety of God!" and slamming shut the computer.

That's what I would have done, though I hope Nikki is smarter than I was.

Posted by: Fatboy | August 12, 2009 6:35 PM

Well, with well over 600 comments I doubt many will see this (or Nicki herself), but as two more sources on atheism essays, I'd recommend Ebon Musings:
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/

and to shamelessly promote myself, a collection of religious essays I came up with:
http://www.jefflewis.net/religion/

Others have already mentioned TalkOrigins, which is a very good source of info on evolution.

For a question specific to Christianity, here's something I've been saving to use in a future entry on my own blog, but seems very relevant here. Please explain the relevance of Jesus's death and resurrection, and how this somehow forgives humanity. How does one being's suffering forgive a different being's faults. Can this reasoning be applied to mortals - can a volunteer take the place of somebody in prison or on death row, and suffer in their place so that society will forgive the criminal? Before resorting to an emotional plea and asking me if I'd give up my daughter to save humanity - if I was omniscient and knew she'd come back after a 3 day weekend, I might seriously consider it.

Posted by: lose_the_woo | August 12, 2009 6:44 PM

...puppy-kicking...

Eh-hem....

What about kitten-killing and baby-eating?

I would hate for her impression of atheists to be incomplete. Just sayin'.

Posted by: Fatboy | August 12, 2009 6:48 PM

Re: Modern Day Miracles, and Assuming They No Longer Happen

Have you actually discussed this with any religious people? I have asked religious in-laws about miracles, and they have dozens of anecdotes to tell me about real, honest to goodness miracles. I even knew a guy who told me that his mom could cure serious diseases by laying her hands on people, and that her hands would get extremely hot during the process.

Obviously, all the anecdotes were second hand accounts without any evidence backing them up, but to the religious, Biblical type miracles are still occuring.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 12, 2009 7:01 PM

I've just spent two hours reading this entire thread. I'm impressed with everyone including Nikki (but excluding Heddle and Bilbo).

My road to atheism started with a beating. I was in 8th Grade at a Catholic boys school. I got into an argument with my religion teacher, Br. Louis,* who had me caned on my bare buttocks for disagreeing with him (I still have the scars). I investigated the point of our disagreement in detail (and discovered that he was right and I was wrong). Then I took a long, hard look at Catholicism and noticed several things that made no sense. That caused me to study Christianity closely, including reading the Bible three times cover to cover. God, especially in the Old Testament, was a sadistic, sociopathic bully. Jesus wasn't much better. So I looked at other religions. None of them stood up to strong scrutiny.

When I graduated from Catholic high school I was the class valedictorian. The bishop was at the graduation and, after I gave my speech, congratulated me for being such a good example of Catholic youth. I replied: "Thank you, Your Excellency, but I'm an atheist. I can thank Brother Louis for showing me the light."

*I realize now that Br. Louis was the worst teacher I ever had. He wasn't too bright, was a religious fanatic, and hated having his authority challenged.

Posted by: adobedragon | August 12, 2009 7:08 PM

I meant that the world couldnt handle any more sin

So how does one measure sin? With a Sin-o-Meter? If the world reaches maximum sin capacity, does a warning alarm go off! "Beep-beep-beep! Massive sin overload!"

and God was so angry at the world

Methinks that your god has some serious anger management issues.

so God decided the only way clean things up and show the world he exists was to flood the earth

I thought god was all-powerful and whatnot? An all powerful, creator god should have been able to use something a little more sophisticated than a flood. Like lasers. Yeah, sin-dissolving lasers, which zapped the sin, but not the sinner.

If he wanted to know the world he existed, wouldn't it have been easier to just pop on down to earth and have a chat with his sinful little creations?

but have noah and his family and two of every animal and plant go on a ark so they could recreate their world with a clean slate so to speak

So what about the fish? Freshwater fish can't live in salt water and salt water fish can't live in fresh. No mention of fish.

And you do realize, that this means Noah had to "get busy" with his family in order to repopulate the planet. Eeeew!

Whaaat? You honestly can't expect a non-snarky response when your justification for belief is the flood and the garden of Eden.

Posted by: Billy | August 12, 2009 7:11 PM

Nikki,
I'm not a christian anymore, because it doesn't make sense. Right from page 1. I find the idea of mankind being punished for something they did *before* they knew right from wrong as absurd. Most christian arguments are made in ignorance eg, "I (the christian) cant explain morality/first cause/biological diversity, so it must be god. Ignorance is not evidence. How do theists even know there was "nothing" before there was something?

On big obstacle to keeping my faith was the bible. Not only was a literal reading of genesis absurd in the light of molecular biology, zoology, ethology, geology, botany, astronomy etc, but the gospel naratives were bogus. The killer was going through the prophecies that jesus supposedly fulfilled and reading them in context. I suggest you do it. Isaiah 7:14 is about a sighn for Ahaz. It is not a prophecy about jesus being born to a virgin. Micah 5:2 concerns an Assyrian threat. It is not about jesus being born in Bethlehem. Every one is the same. They are all taken out of context and not about Jesus.

Posted by: adobedragon | August 12, 2009 7:14 PM

correction: If he wanted the world to know he existed, wouldn't it have been easier to just pop on down to earth and have a chat with his sinful little creations?

Oy. I'm the typo queen.

Posted by: Chris Jones | August 12, 2009 7:18 PM

Bradford #619 --

"if you believe matter just popped into being from nowhere and from nothing, well, I cannot prove you wrong nor right. Nobody can. For me, zero multiplied by anything is zero so I don't consider it an option. Please don't ask "so where did nothing come from then?". "

Bradford, just substitute "God" for "matter" and apply your argument to God and you'll be making some progress.

Posted by: Jason A. | August 12, 2009 7:29 PM

Addition to my #639:

I said we don't give religion any credit because it depends on the authority of the bible which we think is just 'opinions based on culture'. I should have also mentioned why science is different. If a religious person tells me something about the world, and I ask how he knows that, he says 'it's in the bible'. If a scientist tells me something about the world, and I ask how she knows that, she gives me the history of the discovery - who did the experiment, what exactly it showed, where it's invalid, and offers to show me how to do the experiment myself and see for myself. Religion can merely tell me (and I have to trust it), science can show me.

Posted by: A. Noyd | August 12, 2009 7:31 PM

Dexter M. (#422)

I understand many theist consider atheism a religion of a kind. But the point I was trying to make, was that I didn't have religion forced on me when I was young and impressionable.

Your main point was fine; I was just being nit-picky with your assumption. I thought the same way myself till recently. I just wanted to make clear how it's an assumption that can have unintended consequences when talking to people whose approach to selecting or rejecting beliefs is actually completely different.

Posted by: thomas | August 12, 2009 7:36 PM

So... is this over?

Nikki wanted to get some understanding of why some people don't believe in god. She seems to have gotten that. Is it reasonable to assume this discussion of many and one is at an end?

On the one hand, there's been a largely civil exchange, which is pretty pleasant. It may well be that Nikki got what she wanted out of the encounter.

On the other hand - she's shown that she believes elements of the bible to be fallible. But when questioned on particulars, she has responded with statements that have no evidence behind them - apart from the bible. There seems to be something of a contradiction here.

It's a little irksome that the conversation should end on such a note - but Nikki didn't necessarily come here to change her mind. Nonetheless, I think it's worth repeating a question that people have already put to her.

Nikki - how is it that, in considering the bible, god putting a rainbow in the sky as a sign of his promise is taken as fact, but the subservient role of women is regarded as an artefact of the patriarchal culture at the time of writing.

Similarly - why do you regard the story of the deluge as a fact - but (presumably) you aren't in any way motivated to support slavery, stoning to the death, condemnation of homosexuality etc, etc.
If the bible is what you are basing your beliefs on - how do you know which bits were false (and written in by imperfect men) and which bits were true (the word of god transcribed accurately by these imperfect men)?

I don't really expect or want an answer from you. I'm just putting the question to you so you might feel motivated to learn more about the evidence behind the age of the earth, evolution and the source of many of these ancient myths (I know you likely cherish them and hold them dearer than a simple myth - and I'm not trying to belittle your beliefs simply for the sake of it but they really do boil down to one particular set of creation myths)

Hopefully you've taken something positive from Pharyngula anyway. It's not as damning as people would have you believe.

Posted by: jemand | August 12, 2009 7:43 PM

thomas why do you think this is over? That's crazy. Nikki was originally asking for an email correspondance. As in, she was probably expecting to devote an hour a day or so to the subject over the course of a few weeks. And you think the fact that she's not online 24/7 and madly posting means she'll never come back and you start going on about this "ending on such a note..."

Chill. Seriously.

Posted by: sarah l | August 12, 2009 8:38 PM

I have really been enjoying reading the road-to-atheism stories of others, despite the facts that 1)I can't remember a time I believed in god and 2) I am a full time research scientist (and, thus, a big fan of scientific explanations.)

I grew up in a very religious area, and used to get told I would go to hell for not believing in god all the time, so I am pretty impressed by Nikki, who hasn't done that despite ample opportunities.

I wanted to share a couple of the moments that contributed to my staunch atheism (as opposed to the naive agnosticism I carried around until I was about Nikki's age.) They are my experiences, not really arguments against the existence of god or for evolution, but lots of other posters have already made what I consider good attempts at both of those.

The first moment was in a history of philosophy class I took. One of the other students brought up the story of Abraham-- the one where God asked Abraham to kill his son-- and Abraham actually almost does it. I had never heard about this story before, because I had been brought up in blissful, naive agnosticism, and I just couldn't believe it! A lot of other posters have mentioned much worse things that god is claimed to have done in the bible, but I didn't know about those then, and asking someone to kill their son just to prove their faith seemed bad enough. That kind of behavior doesn't seem very benevolent, or perfect, to me, and I know I never entertained the idea of a benevolent perfect god ever after that class-- if the bible itself says god was doing all kinds of horrible stuff, that puts a pretty grim face on god.

The second moment came in a neuroanatomy class I took as a graduate student. I am sure I would already have happily classified myself as an atheist by then, but one day in the wet lab, when I had a human brain and a sheep brain in front of me, and a picture of a mouse brain open on the table, it occurred to me that I couldn't understand how anyone could look at the similarities between different types of mammal brains and ever think that evolution didn't happen. Of course that wasn't the first time I had ever realized that different animal brains were similar, but it was the first time I ever registered how weird the reality of brains that are almost indistinguishable across some animal species is in light of the idea that all the animals just got pooofed into existence. If animals got poofed into existence, why would their brains all be so similar? Maybe there is an apologetic answer to that question, but at that moment I couldn't understand how anyone could look at a bunch of mammal brains and ever conclude against evolution.

The first moment I describe is not as theologically sophisticated as others that have been brought up here, and the second is certainly not as in depth an analysis of a biological phenomenon as others that comment on this blog regularly post, but they were both powerful moments for me and potentially can show Nikki or others like her that incredible theological or biological sophistication are not necessary to suggest questions about god and biblical literalism.

Posted by: Anri | August 12, 2009 8:50 PM

There are more than a few 'In reading over this thread, I noticed...' comments, so I suppose one more can't hurt:

In reading over this thread, I noticed the massive differences in the style, tactics, arguments, and... well... everything... among the various posters here. We've got folks with PhD's, all the way to folks who aren't out of college yet, or who just never managed to get in their 4 years successfully (myself, for example...)

We've got strident people, sarcastic people, nice people, nasty people, verbose people, terse people... people who go for the pithy bite and people who try to cover all the bases in their argument.

We have writers of good prose.
We have poets.

I mention this to give the lie to anyone who is, I dunno, blind enough I guess, to insist that we are sheep, all traipsing along behind a leader, lockstepping into a lack of faith.
We disagree, we squabble, we fight.
We get hysterical, we say things we can't defend, sometimes we even get points scored against us.

I can attest (and I imagine many others can also) to starting out reading a thread agreeing with a specific poster or position, and by thread's end, having seriously reconsidered.
And, yes, the includes our host for the rough-and-tumble, PZ.

This is not to appear to believe that we here are in some way superior to 'the unwashed masses' or anything of that nature. It's just my own personal view on why I keep coming back, and back, and back - why I always look forward to a new post, a new thread, why I am utterly thrilled when I can actually add to some of the provocative thought going on here.

Keep it up!

And, Nikki - if you're reading - keep reading. You will be challenged, likely insulted, perhaps outraged from time to time. But you will learn things here, many things.
Best of luck.

Posted by: truthspeaker | August 12, 2009 9:15 PM

One of the other students brought up the story of Abraham-- the one where God asked Abraham to kill his son-- and Abraham actually almost does it. I had never heard about this story before, because I had been brought up in blissful, naive agnosticism, and I just couldn't believe it!

Once again, I am grateful to my grandmother for giving me a book of "Children's Bible Stories" when I was a kid. The story of Abraham and Isaac was one of those stories. I don't think it had the effect she intended.

Posted by: Bryan | August 12, 2009 9:30 PM

The best way I have found to understand things is, generally, to shake the etch-a-sketch and start anew, leading myself through each constructive point, and comparing it to the structures and rules of reality.

When I did this with religion, Catholicism in particular, I very quickly found that nothing in religion fit together with anything except childhood psychology. I soon became an atheist.

There's a lot of personal baggage that goes with that conversion story, but that's really the meat of it: due to an unpleasant situation (not so much a tragedy, but a difficult descision), I was forced to reexamine my beliefs, and they simply didn't hold up well enough to stay.

Posted by: Chris A | August 12, 2009 9:55 PM

I second #111's recommendation of whywontgodhealamputees.com

I would also recommend whatstheharm.net, as a further example of the inneffectivness of prayer (one of the central tenets of your religion), and the dangers of lack of critical thinking

Posted by: Mark N. | August 12, 2009 10:33 PM

I was reading this thread earlier today but have not kept up on how it evolved. I do remember that two "Nikki"'s showed up at one point, and more may have shown up after I stopped following the thread. I just want to say that such a thing is not without precedent in my experience. I guy I grew up with (actually about three years my junior) is now an Assembly of God minister. After finding me on Facebook, he wrote the following:

"Hey, Mark. As you might imagine the circles I operate in don't include many atheists so I don't have opportunity to ask many questions. Speaking for myself, I've realized many times I was certain I was right about certain issues only... to have my opinions altered after I spoke with someone from an opposing viewpoint. Hence, I don't argue evolution much because I know I lack a lot of knowledge of the science.

Which brings me to a question I've had rolling around in my mind. Is the universe, and all the matter that makes up the universe including the space in between any matter and any energy, eternal? Has science proven that the universe is eternal? That it always has been? Or is it a presupposition? The reason I ask is that I would think that if we say there is no creator wouldn't that make all the "stuff" that comprises the universe eternal? After all, if there is no creator then something cannot come from nothing, therefore "something" must have always been."

It took me about three months to give him a proper reply, as I was busy working on my senior research project, which, interestingly enough, dealt with the problem of increasing the public understanding of science in a part of the country where fundies dominate. My reply to his very thoughtful, legitimate questions was a 15-page (1.5 spaced) recap on how science discovered that we live in an expanding universe which is about 13.5 billion years old.

I am not an accommodationist by any stretch, but when a believer asks a serious thoughtful question, we owe it to them, as thoughtful, rational beings ourselves, to give the most patient, thoughtful replies we can muster. I do not know that I changed his mind about anything, but for no other reason that my own personal integrity, I owed him my best effort in a thoughtful reply.

Posted by: bilbo | August 12, 2009 10:40 PM

Articulett,

You have less of a penchant for reason and more of a penchant for baseless argument.

I never said I "joined" the New Atheist "movement." I said I discovered what it was about (yes, when PZ calls people his "followers," it's a movement, albeit not a religious one). I then noticed how disgusting and pitiful it was and decided to be a simple, middle of the line atheist. I simply don't need to blame people for my lack of belief. This will unleash a tirade from you and others. I will only laugh.

Bottom line? You're reaching. For arguments, for selling points, for a new troll to hate. Isn't hatred what this blog is all about?

Posted by: Alyson Miers | August 12, 2009 10:59 PM

Nikki the teenage creationist makes more of an effort at a conversation with Pharyngulites--and shows vastly better manners towards our godless heathen asses--than does Bilbo the accommodationist concern troll.

Posted by: GOPnot4me | August 12, 2009 11:01 PM

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
Bertrand Russell

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 12, 2009 11:06 PM

Alyson, I also noted most of us responded politely to Nikki, as she wasn't into name calling. Unlike the concern troll who defames his moniker, who seems to think that he can call us names, but not vis versa.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 12, 2009 11:19 PM

Isn't hatred what this blog is all about?

No, nitwit, it's all about learning and having fun.

Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | August 12, 2009 11:31 PM

Isn't hatred what this blog is all about?

We don't hate, we defend. You don't need to hate to defend against obvious ignorant onslaughts. What's there to hate anyways? Your screen name? lol

Posted by: echidna | August 12, 2009 11:35 PM

Atheism is attractive because it fits the evidence. Gods are useful for social control, but frankly we don't need them any more. And the universe is a complex enough without adding a few extra layers of delusion.

To quote from Tim Minchin's beat poem, "Storm":
"Isn’t this enough?
Just this world?
Just this beautiful, complex
Wonderfully unfathomable world?
How does it so fail to hold our attention
That we have to diminish it with the invention
Of cheap, man-made Myths and Monsters?"

Posted by: Wingnut | August 12, 2009 11:42 PM

Nikki, I was about your age when my faith evaporated. Funnily enough, it wasn't scientific arguments that did it to me - It was my own realization that something was not right with the God of the Bible.

We were studying the story of King Nebuchadnezzar and Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who would not bow down to worship the great golden image, even upon pain of death.

Nebuchadnezzar said "whoso falleth not down and worshippeth, that he should be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace."

I realized that the ultimatum given by Nebuchadnezzar was essentially the same as the ultimatum given by God. Being "cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace" for not bowing down is no different from being damned to hell for not believing in God.

That's what set the ball rolling for me. Of course, since then I've accumulated a whole slew of much better reasons not to accept the claims of any religion. You seem to have a pretty good attitude, Nikki. I hope you consider everything that is said on this thread deeply and gain as much from the experience as you can.

Posted by: Tom Estes | August 12, 2009 11:52 PM

Nikki,

Please don't mess around with these people. They are only being kind because they believe they can convince you. The moment they see that you're not buying it they will turn on you and attack you, not caring that you're a 15 year old girl.

And PZ is not a nice man at all. He is a vile God-hater who is only interested in getting attention for himself and provoking Christians who stand up to him. Don't be fooled. And if you need evidence that these people are crazy, just read the comments that will be made to me.

I believe you have good intentions, I actually tried to come here with good intentions as well, but these people aren't worth it. The only reason I even made this comment is because I saw you were actually here. There are Christian forums where these things can be discussed civilly, I would try that.

God bless you Nikki,

Tom Estes

Posted by: An Opinionated Englishman | August 12, 2009 11:57 PM

I dont want to try to change your mind(because i know thats impossible) or anything, i just want to try to understand atheists opinions.

It's not actually impossible to convert PZ to your beliefs, if they are convincing enough. Trust me on this:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/07/i_am_a_convert.php

Posted by: wheatdogg | August 13, 2009 12:02 AM

Nikki --

If you get tired of reading through the hundreds of comments here, visit Laci on MySpace. She's closer to your age than most of us here, and perhaps more entertaining. http://www.myspace.com/gogreen18

Posted by: SC, OM | August 13, 2009 12:04 AM

And if you need evidence that these people are crazy, just read the comments that will be made to me.

My response is that you, Nikki (if you're who you say you are - or even if not), should follow the evidence concerning the existence of the Christian (or any) deity. Never stop questioning or asking for evidence for any claims.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 13, 2009 12:15 AM

And with that one comment Tom Estes proves that he's less intellectually honest than your average 15-year-old.

Posted by: Paul Murray | August 13, 2009 12:25 AM