Pharyngula

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 6:06 PM

PZ Myers has time to post this blather on his blog but not enough time to engage in an argument on behalf of his atheism. Poor PZ Myers!

Posted by: Glen Davidson | November 24, 2009 6:12 PM

Yes, evolutionists are unwilling to answer Meyer, because they can't.

No, that wasn't quite it. Meyer is unwilling to acknowledge the many cogent replies he's had, because otherwise he couldn't blither the same stupid things over and over again.

Yes, I think the second is much closer to the mark, after all.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: Jason Febery | November 24, 2009 6:14 PM

Thanks, PZ, for calling attention to this. I read through the CNN article earlier today with disgust. That such a piece of vile would be published on CNN makes me doubt the journalistic standards of CNN as a whole.

--

http://jasonfebery.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/not-just-a-theory/

Posted by: Cimourdain | November 24, 2009 6:15 PM

Depends. Darwin is controversial, but not in the way these clowns mean (cue Daniel C. Dennet's book...)

I also maintain that not one in ten who claim to accept his findings have really understood the implications.

Posted by: AJ Milne | November 24, 2009 6:16 PM

Hee heeeee.... Oh, my... He's still going, huh?

My my, whatever wound 'im up, I wonder?

'Nooooo... No posting things that are not about meeeeee! Pay attention to meeeeee! I are hawesome master-debator too! Rilly! Like, totally! Honest! Pay attention to meeeeeeeeeee!'

(/I'd file this under 'delusions of grandeur', but it's really more 'delusions of detectable significance'. And I don't even have a file for that.)

Posted by: Knockgoats | November 24, 2009 6:18 PM

I also maintain that not one in ten who claim to accept his findings have really understood the implications. - Cimourdain

But the Great Leader Cimourdain has! The core of Darwin's message? "Teh Muslins is ebil!!!".

Posted by: Sastra | November 24, 2009 6:22 PM

Well, at least the religion-focused Reasons to Celebrate Darwin is actually on their religion page: I would have been dismayed if they were for standard consumption. One might expect theists to be glad that Darwin wasn't an atheist (though it's rather unclear what he was; my guess is that he would have liked the term "agnostic.")

It is rather pathetic, though, that before mention of his genius and hard work, it was felt to be very important to note that he wasn't a "meanie," he was a "softie" -- "He hugged his children, bathed them when they were babies, and let them jump on the sofa, even though it was against the rules." Awww.

Plus

Darwin hated to offend and he hated controversy. In "The Origin of Species" you will see that in his voice. It pained him to think that he might cause anyone discomfort or hurt. That's why he sat on his theory for decades.

Why am I not surprised that a religious audience would be so, so concerned over tone and attitude? He wanted to be inoffensive. So this means that, if Darwin were alive today, he'd leave you alone to believe whatever you want! And he wouldn't make you feel small or silly. There now. Stop sniffling. You can crawl back into your safe place, snug as bugs in a rug. It's okay to accept Darwin. He demolished the Design Argument in a really pained voice, like he knew how fragile you were.

Posted by: CatBallou | November 24, 2009 6:25 PM

Thanks, CS Jr. That cracked me up!

Posted by: Glen Davidson | November 24, 2009 6:30 PM

Newsweek has published a dozen reasons to celebrate Darwin.

Really, it would have been more responsible to have said that a Newsweek blog published those "reasons," and that blog is prominently marked "On Faith," being targeted to believers. Or perhaps it's really a Washington Post blog, associated with Newsweek in some manner unexplained manner, since the address includes "washingtonpost" and we see "Washington Post" prominently displayed on the page.

Granting that they probably don't have any opposing blogs, at least it's clearly targeted toward believers. So it's not as bad as one would suppose from PZ's post.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: strange gods before me, OM | November 24, 2009 6:34 PM

Cimourdain, why do you hate Pharyngula? Why do you have to derail every thread with your bullshit? And since you obviously do hate Pharyngula, why do you keep coming back here?

Posted by: 1984 | November 24, 2009 6:39 PM

Darwin's legacy lives on
http://www.stargazette.com/article/20091124/VIEWPOINTS02/911240303/1121/Darwin-s-legacy-lives-on

"Samuel Wilberforce, Bishop of Oxford, said, "The principle of natural selection is absolutely incompatible with the word of God." Andrew Dickson White, the first president of Cornell University, stated that Darwin's theory "came into the theological world like a plow into an ant hill.""

Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 24, 2009 6:48 PM

Clowns are creepy and evil creatures of pure malice. And they are just waiting for you to sleep so they can eat you.

No, those are bouffons.

I learned all of this because I dated a clown--one Without Borders, no less--and she wouldn't allow me to be scared of clowns, at least as a result of ignorance. So now I still find them scary, but I tell other people not to be because of the bouffons.

Posted by: Cimourdain | November 24, 2009 6:52 PM

strange,

If you look at my two posts here, you'll find them exactly on topic.

As to why I come here: research mostly. I'd like to know if there's any amongst the rank-and-file of the "vocal atheists" who're any good in the real fight for civilization. Also, if I didn't make it a point of exposing myself to opposing points of view, I'd end up like KG here. Finally, it's good training.

Posted by: Katharine | November 24, 2009 6:54 PM

David Mathews, you still haven't answered the question:

Why do you think atheism is somehow flawed at all?

And since you weirdos have issues with your masculinity, which you tie somehow to your (lack of) bravery or courage, I'm going to say you're a total wuss until you answer.

Posted by: Katharine | November 24, 2009 6:56 PM

Also, Newsweek can suck a syphilitic one.

Posted by: Zifnab | November 24, 2009 6:58 PM

Dear Glenn Davidson -

Visited your site. Holy shit, dude. CSS. Live it, learn it, love it. Anyone with anything intelligent to say is going to have to do better than navy blue Ariel font on a moldy pink background.

How am I even supposed to address your meandering tripe about an ill-defined "consciousness" when my eyes begin to swell up with blood after two minutes of viewing your website.

Otherwise, it's been absolutely lovely reading you.

Side Hugs and Fish Kisses,

Zifnab

Posted by: Buzz Buzz | November 24, 2009 6:59 PM

(#28)"David Mathews, you still haven't answered the question:"

That's because trolls don't answer questions.

Posted by: Qwerty | November 24, 2009 7:06 PM

Halfway down the Meyer article there is a link to the Comfort/Cameron Origin w/ creationist intro giveaway. At least this story is a little more balanced in that Ken Miller is allowed to present another viewpoint that counters the new intro to Origin.

Posted by: sng | November 24, 2009 7:06 PM

Brownian,

To the best of my knowledge I have no deep seated irrational fear of bluegrass fiddle players but if the issue ever comes up I'll make sure to ping on you.

Posted by: rcpilot | November 24, 2009 7:08 PM

It's actually a pretty nice piece for what it is, but it would be more suitable to the 200th anniversary of his birthday.

Posted by: Knockgoats | November 24, 2009 7:10 PM

I'd like to know if there's any amongst the rank-and-file of the "vocal atheists" who're any good in the real fight for civilization. - Cimourdain

That's the fight the Great Leader Cimourdain will wage against the ebil Muslins, you understand. He's here looking for stormtroopers.

Posted by: Rahne | November 24, 2009 7:15 PM

Totally off topic, but when I first glanced at the post I saw "a long piece of tripe from Stephenie Meyer" and I giggled to myself then screamed "WHY IS VAMPIRE LADY TALKING ABOUT DARWIN?"

Then I reread it and figured I need to go to bed. Being up all night with a term paper does not do wonders for reading.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | November 24, 2009 7:21 PM

I'd like to know if there's any amongst the rank-and-file of the "vocal atheists" who're any good in the real fight for civilization.

Sorry, not all of us have the fear of mooslums that you have.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 24, 2009 7:22 PM

To the best of my knowledge I have no deep seated irrational fear of bluegrass fiddle players but if the issue ever comes up I'll make sure to ping on you.

Irrational fear? Have you not heard bluegrass fiddle? You're naive not to be afraid.

Posted by: nejishiki | November 24, 2009 7:30 PM

@Cimourdain #26
I will help you fight for civilization. I support the use of currency, a written language, agriculture, and government. I am also very anti hunter-gatherer.

Posted by: idle.pip.verisignlabs.com | November 24, 2009 7:48 PM

That newsweek article is the worst article I have read in a very very long time. I love all of the comments on it. I read a dozen or so and didn't find a single positive one in the bunch. They were basically all critiquing the article, and rightly so.

Posted by: ChicagoMolly | November 24, 2009 7:59 PM

Meyer is only pimping his new book, which says basically the same thing as the CNN piece, but chews up hella more trees doing it.

Posted by: Joe Hill | November 24, 2009 8:08 PM

CS Lewis: "...I am also frustrated by Sir Mix-a-Lot's refusal to reveal his opinion about booty. If only there were some way to know!"

{Cue science rapper Pee-Z}:

"I LIKE COOL SQUID AND I CAN NOT LIE..."

Apologies to Sir Mix-a-lot and Prof. Myers...I couldn't resist. ;-P

Posted by: Knockgoats | November 24, 2009 8:17 PM

I'd like to know if there's any amongst the rank-and-file of the "vocal atheists" who're any good in the real fight for civilization. - Cimourdain

That's the fight the Great Leader Cimourdain will wage against the ebil Muslins, you understand. He's here looking for stormtroopers.

Posted by: Knockgoats | November 24, 2009 8:22 PM

I'd like to know if there's any amongst the rank-and-file of the "vocal atheists" who're any good in the real fight for civilization. - Cimourdain

That's the fight the Great Leader Cimourdain will wage against the ebil Muslins, you understand. He's here looking for stormtroopers.

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 8:25 PM

Hello Katherine,

* "Why do you think atheism is somehow flawed at all? "

Katherine, atheism is an intellectual vacant idea lacking any defensible qualities whatsoever.

Doesn't stop PZ Myers from being an unhappy bitter person, though.

Posted by: Knockgoats | November 24, 2009 8:28 PM

Sorry about the multiple posts - ebil Muslins sabotaging my computer, obviously.

Posted by: Kel, OM | November 24, 2009 8:29 PM

Katherine, atheism is an intellectual vacant idea lacking any defensible qualities whatsoever.

Atheism is simply non-belief in God. That's it. No doctrine, no tenets, nothing more than a label for those who don't believe that there are such things as interventionist deities.

So if it were intellectually vacant, it would have to mean that theism has an intellectual component that goes missing when gods are taken out of the picture. So what does the removal of gods from a world-view actually do?

Posted by: Knockgoats | November 24, 2009 8:35 PM

atheism is an intellectual vacant idea lacking any defensible qualities whatsoever. - Dave Fuckwit Mathews

You've said that scores of times, and never provided an argument to support it, thus providing us with an excellent example of intellectual vacuity.

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 8:39 PM

Hello knockwits,

* "You've said that scores of times, and never provided an argument to support it, thus providing us with an excellent example of intellectual vacuity. "

There's no need for an argument because the atheists agree with the principle as affirmed above.

Posted by: Gruesome Rob | November 24, 2009 8:47 PM

Atheism is about as close to a nonexistent idea as could ever exist. It is pointless to engage in an argument or attempt to disprove a nonexistent, intellectual vacant idea.

Null Hypothesis is the only supportable conclusion with no evidence. Without evidence, you're the one with the untenable position. So where's the evidence?

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 8:48 PM

Hello Islander,

* "If you don't want an arguement ... "

I've spent ten hours on this blog waiting for an argument from you folks.

There's no argument about atheism's status as an intellectually vacant, contentless idea.

We've reached a consensus about this much and I'm absolutely certain that PZ Myers agrees.

If you want an argument you'll have to find some subject which we can argue about. The nature of atheism isn't that subject, though. Agreement and consensus prevails.

Posted by: Peter G. | November 24, 2009 8:50 PM

You are surprised by CNN? This is the network that has decided to let Alex Castellanosa (right wing politcal media consultant) to keep his role as an on air personality despite the fact that he has just been appointed as chief communications adviser to RNC Chairman Michael Steele. I'm only surprised Behe hasn't been tapped to do CNN's science coverage.

Posted by: Kel, OM | November 24, 2009 8:51 PM

Atheism is about as close to a nonexistent idea as could ever exist. It is pointless to engage in an argument or attempt to disprove a nonexistent, intellectual vacant idea.

Okay, so to take your reasoning.

Being a non-astrologer simply means to not believe in astrology. Nothing more, nothing less. Since it's essentially a non-existent idea, it's it pointless to engage is in argument about it.

Of course this is missing the whole point. What does it mean to be a non-astrologer? It means that one doesn't believe in astrology. But what you're missing is that such a statement is a challenge to the validity of astrology. And instead of addressing that, you're pushing it away as if it were void.

An intellectually honest person would see that while atheism says nothing beyond a position on the existence of gods (and interventionist ones at that), it doesn't say nothing. It's a challenge towards the validity of theism, hence my question to you. What does theism offer intellectually that is lacking in atheism? If you can't answer that, then all you have is an equivocation fallacy and the pretence that you're saying something profound.

Posted by: Peter G. | November 24, 2009 8:54 PM

DM@74 "It is pointless to engage in an argument or attempt to disprove a nonexistent, intellectual vacant idea." Pretty much sums up God I'd say.

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 8:56 PM

Hello Kel,

* "Of course this is missing the whole point. What does it mean to be a non-astrologer? It means that one doesn't believe in astrology. But what you're missing is that such a statement is a challenge to the validity of astrology. And instead of addressing that, you're pushing it away as if it were void. "

No, Kel, astronomy is a positive scientific idea which actual objectively defensible content. Astrology is rejected because of the positive, objective, testable and verifiable content of astronomy and for no other reason.

* "An intellectually honest person would see that while atheism says nothing beyond a position on the existence of gods (and interventionist ones at that), it doesn't say nothing."

You contradict yourself. By necessity, of course, but a contradiction nontheless.

* "It's a challenge towards the validity of theism, hence my question to you. What does theism offer intellectually that is lacking in atheism?"

Theism isn't obligated to offer you anything. Theism and atheism have this much in common.

* "If you can't answer that, then all you have is an equivocation fallacy and the pretence that you're saying something profound. "

If you wish to draw a distinction between atheism and theim you'll have to define your terminology and explicitly define the difference between these two allegedly contradictory ideas.

Posted by: WowbaggerOM | November 24, 2009 8:58 PM

Kel wrote:

An intellectually honest person...

So...you aren't talking about David Mathews? His postings demonstrate he doesn't qualify as intellect, honest or intellectually honest; he himself claims to be something other than a person - at least in the sense that we are people.

He can therefore be safely ignored.

Posted by: Gruesome Rob | November 24, 2009 9:01 PM

When you say "Null Hypothesis" I have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about and suspect that you aren't talking about anything at all.

How can a nonexistent idea have preference over any other idea, however irrational sounding to you?

To put it in other terms: You're making the positive claim, you provide the proof. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

And, if you believe in one god (I'm going to assume Jehovah / Yahweh for the nonce, feel free to correct me), please disprove the following:
Anubis
Zeus
Jupiter
Shiva
FSM
Ashaera
Loki
Quetzelcoatl

You can't use the Bible as the source disproving them, as the respective holy works of each also disclaim others.

Posted by: Peter G. | November 24, 2009 9:04 PM

Just curious Dave M, but which particular version of God are you so certain exists? Is it the vicious Old Testament pre-anger management class God or the New Testament turn-the-other-cheek dude. Perhaps your tastes run to the esoteric: animist or maybe old school Zoroastrianism? What's your poison?

Posted by: mattsmom | November 24, 2009 9:05 PM

David Mathews, you are past becoming boring and tiresome. I am becoming weary of your repetitive bullshit. Are you one of those students who earns extra credit points for posting on non-Christianist blogs? If so, please tell your instructor that I have said that you earned your A for today. Now, please go someplace else.

You are very fortunate, and should be honored, that others have engaged you, but they seem to be growing tired of your bullshit as well.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 24, 2009 9:07 PM

David Mathews wrote:I don't need to do this, Islander. If atheism possesses positive content you can tell me.

It's obvious, to me anyway, that David understands atheism as a rejection of theism - so in attempt to salvage a rejected position, he attempts to reverse roles and pretend that it is atheism being rejected...

Smart if you think someone like Casey Luskin is smart.

Posted by: Islander | November 24, 2009 9:09 PM

I don't need to do this, Islander. If atheism possesses positive content you can tell me.

I'd love to hear it, too. I'm all ears.

Here is an opportunity. Describe your atheism to me.

Yes you do need to do this, because theism makes specific claims about the universe. If you're going to assert the existence of a god, you need to back up this assertion. Atheism is the position that doesn't believe in a deity because there is no reason to.

I can't make this any simpler: There is no evidence for any gods, and you haven't disputed this fact. So why is the lack of belief in something we have no reason to believe in the wrong position?

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 9:10 PM

Hello Anonymous,

* "It's obvious, to me anyway, that David understands atheism as a rejection of theism - so in attempt to salvage a rejected position, he attempts to reverse roles and pretend that it is atheism being rejected... "

You people are the experts regarding atheism. I'm not going to do your job. If anyone wants to say something on behalf of atheism they might as well say it rather than demanding that I use ESP to read their mind.

Posted by: WowbaggerOM | November 24, 2009 9:12 PM

I believe in the God which resides in my own soul. This particular God takes many different forms and has many different names, all of which is a byproduct of the particular flaws which afflict a self-destructive perpetually violent primate's mind.

Riiiiight. Say, have you tried explaining this position of yours to any old-school Catholics? They might be able to help you. Now, where's that copy of Tubular Bells?

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | November 24, 2009 9:13 PM

How many threads, folks? How many threads?

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 9:16 PM

Hello Wowbaggers,

* "Riiiiight. Say, have you tried explaining this position of yours to any old-school Catholics? They might be able to help you. Now, where's that copy of Tubular Bells? "

I didn't know that I was under some obligation to the Catholics, whether old-school or otherwise.

I'll define my religion as I wish. If your atheism demands a particular religion in which to insult, too bad for you!

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 9:20 PM

Hello Gruesome,

* "Funny, this is the same position that you say in us is bad. Make up your mind. "

You are seriously confused if you imagine that my viewpoint is identical to the atheists.

The atheists reject all of the gods and are at war with, essentially, everyone.

I accept all of the gods and am at war with no one.

There's no boundaries in my religion. It is absolute, inclusive, unbounded and uncontained.

This is why I am so mystified by the perpetual wearisome unhappy struggles of the atheists. Did you people reject God so that you might spend your entire lifetime at war with everyone? You'd do yourself a favor by adopting a religion so that you might at least not be a war with someone.

Posted by: stogoe | November 24, 2009 9:23 PM

If you're not amused by people bashing in the arguments of whack-a-trolls, feel free to go somewhere else rather than to express your concern in a whinging and impotent manner.

Your concerns, as it were, have been noted.

Posted by: Gruesome Rob | November 24, 2009 9:27 PM

I accept all of the gods and am at war with no one.

So, let me get this straight, you accept multiple, inconsistent views, we accept one consistent one, and WE'RE the ones with the vacuous position? I think one of the previous posters is right, you need medication.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 24, 2009 9:28 PM

David Mathews wrote: You people are the experts regarding atheism. I'm not going to do your job. If anyone wants to say something on behalf of atheism they might as well say it rather than demanding that I use ESP to read their mind.

So you demand that a position which makes no claims... make a claim.

See, again, here you are simply reversing what I think is visibly a projection. We all know theism does in fact make claims (you've made at least that much clear in some of your comments above). To be an atheist doesn't require any expertise in atheism - it actually requires an understanding of theism (you have to know something about A to then say 'A is false').

I'm sure you've heard the line that calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color - thats part of the problem here. Being bald is something that does exist in the sense people understand what being bald is - same goes with atheism.

That you try skew terms and words to advance your own ideas only says something about you. Not of atheism or anyone else here.

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 9:28 PM

Hello PaulM,

* "Atheism does, of course, say something. It is not only a rejection of an interventionist God, it is the acceptance of an explanation for our origin based on methodological naturalism. "

You are connecting one contentless idea to another. It makes you sound intellectual but you start with nothing and end with nothing.

* "While you state "It is pointless to engage in an argument or attempt to disprove a nonexistent, intellectual vacant idea" I'm surely you're being disingenuous. When creationism challenges well-established scientific principles on the basis that God-did-it, it is certainly not pointless to defend the science. A part of that defense is that God-did-not-do-it. "

You are defending an intellectual vacant idea by appealing to an irrelevance.

* "Thus, when defending atheism, readers here are almost certainly always defending a rational worldview. "

If you say so ... but it leads necessarily to a contradiction and a paradox and a conundrum.

Either atheism possesses content or it does not. Yet the atheists seems to claim that it does both. Please do resolve this mystery!

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 9:30 PM

Hello Gruesome,

* "So, let me get this straight, you accept multiple, inconsistent views, we accept one consistent one, and WE'RE the ones with the vacuous position? I think one of the previous posters is right, you need medication. "

Your viewpoint isn't quite as consistent as advertised, Gruesome. You'd prefer to imagine otherwise, though.

Posted by: Kyorosuke | November 24, 2009 9:31 PM

I'll define my religion as I wish. If your atheism demands a particular religion in which to insult, too bad for you!

No, it really doesn't. In certain ways, your muffiny, New Age, Eaglestrongish, pyramid power nonsense is even more annoying than conventional religion.

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 9:33 PM

Hello Wowbagger,

* "Woo is woo. You've produced no evidence nor supported your assertions with anything resembling a compelling argument; you're no different from any of the other invisible-fairy-worshipping loons who, puffed-up and arrogant, think they can come here and use naught but empty sophistry to try and ameliorate their cognitive dissonance. "

You mix self-praise with futile meaningless insults ... I'm impressed. Atheism really works for you!

PZ Myers has taught you well!

Posted by: Rey Fox | November 24, 2009 9:34 PM

"PZ Myers has time to post this blather on his blog but not enough time to engage in an argument on behalf of his atheism. Poor PZ Myers!"

Someone has a man-crush.

Posted by: Gruesome Rob | November 24, 2009 9:35 PM

Your viewpoint isn't quite as consistent as advertised, Gruesome. You'd prefer to imagine otherwise, though

How is "there is no god until shown otherwise" not consistent?

Posted by: Earrnz | November 24, 2009 9:36 PM

David Mathews,
If you don't know what a null hypothesis is, go read about it. It's not very long.
I'd also say that non-theism/deism is the most parsimonious hypothesis that fits the evidence.

Posted by: Peter G. | November 24, 2009 9:40 PM

"This is the reason why your atheism possesses all of your negative traits, the bitterness, the unhappiness, and perpetual struggle, and prejudice, the bigotry, and the emptiness."- Dave Matthews

Dave you are such a complete Scientologist. That quote nails it. How much did they ding you to reach your current level of enlightenment? I realize they operate as a kind of multi-level marketing racket and you'll earn credits for bringing in recruits but I have to tell you you've got a tough row to hoe if you think you'll find turnips here.

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 9:42 PM

Hello Kel,

* "Again, you're missing the point. Are you honestly that obtuse, or merely evasive? Atheism is to theism as non-astrology is to astrology. The positive claim is by the theist / astrologer, the atheist / non-astrologer is the one negating the positive claim. "

Atheism is like astronomy? Like hell. Astronomy is not an intellectual vacant opinion. Astronomy is actually a science with objectively verifiable ideas subject to confirmation or refutation.

Atheism is mucjh closer to astrology.

* "Okay, I'll define the terms. A theist is one who believes there are interventionist deities operating within nature, an atheist is one who either implicitly or explicitly rejects such claims. "

I suspect that the above definitions aren't how a philosopher would define either theism or atheism. I doubt very much that even the dictionery would define the terms in the above manner.

* "And just to be clear... astrology holds that certain events in our lives can be predicted by the stars. Showing that the stars operate according to the laws of gravity is evidence against there being a link between the stars and us. Just as an interventionist deity is said to play in nature (and in particular in the affairs of humans), so evidence of blind forces acting is evidence against interventionist deities. "

The above paragraph is an example of a non-argument argument. I'd avoid the whole astrology mess if I were you ... and I'd also avoid inventing any claims about those things which god must or must not do.

* "So are you going to continue to be evasive and show intellectual dishonesty by using equivocation, or are you actually going to address the very simple question that follows from the atheist position and addresses your statement about atheism - that is what does the loss of theism do to our intellectual selves? Surely instead of trying to weasel out on definitions and play a game of evasion, you can answer the question of what theism actually does intellectually for us. I contend that theism is a non-answer masquerading as one, and the attacks on atheism are nothing more than a distraction from the otherwise obvious fact that theism is completely lacking in any substance. "

I suggest that theism isn't obligated to do anything for you. I suggest that God and the Universe do not circulate around you.

God can exist without either serving or caring abot you.

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 9:44 PM

Hello Wowbagger,

* "Do you accept this? If not, why not? What the yardstick against which gods are measured? "

I accept it, Wowbagger, and therefore accept you as a theist. I've converted one atheist today!

Posted by: Peter G. | November 24, 2009 9:45 PM

Get your Thetans! Get your red hot Thetans! Two for a buck!

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 9:47 PM

Hello llewelly,

* "I believe Mary was impregnated by an intergalactic reptoid, and Jesus is therefor an alien-human hybrid. In time, He will return in quantum antimatter-powered spacecraft, and demand all humans be abducted and probed. Since there are no boundaries in your religion, you too must believe as I do, and likewise prepare for that Glorious Day upon which All of humanity will Raptured, Probed, and Impregnated by aliens. And you must be as excited as I am. "

You are talking as if you imagine that you might offend me with these words.

Please do keep in mind that I'm not impressed by primates nor by the thoughts of primates. If you accurately described your own actual thought processes it wouldn't be any less silly than anything you said above.

Humankind is going extinct for a reason and it isn't because humans are an especially intelligent animal.

Posted by: WowbaggerOM | November 24, 2009 9:51 PM

David Mathews wrote:

I accept it, Wowbagger, and therefore accept you as a theist. I've converted one atheist today!

Gosh, that was too easy. Now say I'm not a god. How can you tell whether this statement is true and the other is false or vice versa?

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 9:53 PM

Hello Earrnz,

* "If you don't know what a null hypothesis is, go read about it. It's not very long.
I'd also say that non-theism/deism is the most parsimonious hypothesis that fits the evidence. "

You are calling something a "null hypothesis" which, according to all presently expressed evidence, doesn't exist at all.

I have no idea what you believe or why you believe it, Earrnz. When you call your opinions a "null hypothesis" you aren't actually saying anything.

You'll have to actually define your opinions and explain why anyone should have any regard for them, much less regard those opinions as a "null hypothesis".

But you cannot. The moment you define your opinions they will cease being a "null hypothesis" and become a mess of self-contradictory mutually exclusive nonsense.

Posted by: Insightful Ape | November 24, 2009 9:54 PM

Good point Dave the troll. That's precisely what I was going to say-in fact that in why my faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is unshakable. See, no one knew about the FSM until 2005. But the existence of His Noodliness is not predicated upon your knowledge of that or indeed, your willingness to be humble before the one true master, the FSM.

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 9:58 PM

Hello Peter G,

* "Dave you are such a complete Scientologist. That quote nails it. How much did they ding you to reach your current level of enlightenment? I realize they operate as a kind of multi-level marketing racket and you'll earn credits for bringing in recruits but I have to tell you you've got a tough row to hoe if you think you'll find turnips here. "

So you lash out in your bitterness ... how unexpected!

Posted by: Gruesome Rob | November 24, 2009 9:59 PM

God's existence isn't predicated upon your acceptance of the idea.

No, it's not. But lack of existence is consistent with all known scientific laws. Show why this is wrong.

Posted by: DaveH_of_Lahndaan_Town | November 24, 2009 10:00 PM

I give you

The Reverse Troll Argument

A perfect being who loved us would never let us be susceptible to that illusion of information exchange which makes us engage with trolls.

All He need do would be to ensure a perfect correlation between superficial comprehensibility and genuine content, so saving us from the frustrating fact that grammatically acceptable paragraphs can be constructed by a moron.

Therefore, there is no loving God.

Being a moron in itself is not a sin, so The Fall doesn't cover it.

If my argument is moronic, that proves it true. There is no loving God.

The shorter version of this argument is:

There is no loving God.

Posted by: llewelly | November 24, 2009 10:01 PM

David Mathews | November 24, 2009 9:47 PM:

Please do keep in mind that I'm not impressed by primates nor by the thoughts of primates.

That's what all the reptoids say.

_{... and then they beam strange dreams into our heads and evangelize us with tales of all-inclusive religions.}

Posted by: Insightful Ape | November 24, 2009 10:03 PM

Incidentally Dave, why all you are trying to do is show how unfamiliar you are with statistics? I have no intention of doing your work for you but throwing in lines such as "the moment you define your opinion it stops being a null hypothesis" only makes you everyone's laughing stock.
Gosh, is this the best the believers can do? Trolling the intertubes showcasing their stupidity?

Posted by: Kel, OM | November 24, 2009 10:04 PM

Atheism is like astronomy? Like hell. Astronomy is not an intellectual vacant opinion. Astronomy is actually a science with objectively verifiable ideas subject to confirmation or refutation.

Where at all did I mention that atheism is like astronomy? Nowhere, I maintained it was like non-astrology, it's the not-belief. Are you that dense, or deliberately lying?

Atheism is mucjh closer to astrology.

No, atheism is like non-astrology. Astrology is a positive claim about the universe, atheism is the negation of a positive claim - much like non-astrology is the negation of astrology.

The above paragraph is an example of a non-argument argument. I'd avoid the whole astrology mess if I were you ... and I'd also avoid inventing any claims about those things which god must or must not do.

I didn't say what a god must or must not do, rather how we measure that such a god exists. If there's no evidence that there's an interventionist deity, and many claims regarding interventionist deities turn out to be indiscriminate forces, then that counts as evidence against said deity.

And if you were me, I'd feel embarrassed at such evasive tactics you're using. That you misrepresent what I say and use blatant equivocation to attack a position it is clear you don't actually understand.

I suggest that theism isn't obligated to do anything for you. I suggest that God and the Universe do not circulate around you.

Where did I say that God was obliged to do anything for me? I didn't, you're again misrepresenting what I'm saying and evading the question once more. So again I ask, what does theism have which in the negation of theism creates an intellectual vacuity? Why can't you answer this?

God can exist without either serving or caring abot you.

Completely agreed. But that's not what I'm talking about at all, I'm asking what theism has which upon the negation of theism leaves an intellectual void? You're not answering this, instead trying to turn this on me. And if you're going to do that, please try to address the position I'm actually advocating instead of doing your utmost to create a straw man out of what I said. You haven't nearly begun to address my claims, just tried to turn my words around into something that's easy for you to knock down. Stop that, it's incredibly dishonest.

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 10:06 PM

Hello Gruesome,

* "No, it's not. But lack of existence is consistent with all known scientific laws. Show why this is wrong. "

What? You are speaking in an extremely vague manner. When you say, "all known scientific laws", I really have to wonder ... what scientific laws do you know?

You probably know a lot less of them than you imagine and those that you know you don't comprehend. Such an argument is fatally flawed.

Posted by: 386sx | November 24, 2009 10:10 PM

CNN has also published a long piece of tripe from Stephen Meyer.

Oh greeeeaaat. It's always such a pleasure reading Stephen Meyer, and seeing his face. And on CNN, no less. So wonnnnderfulll...

Posted by: Owlmirror | November 24, 2009 10:15 PM

I am not a person in the sense that you are a person.

Then what are you?

Define yourself.

I believe in the God which resides in my own soul. This particular God takes many different forms and has many different names, all of which is a byproduct of the particular flaws which afflict a self-destructive perpetually violent primate's mind.

So you are a self-destructive perpetually violent primate.

I accept all of the gods

Except that you said that your God resides in your own soul, but doesn't know or care about humanity.

Is logic too much to ask for?

and am at war with no one.

You seem to be at war with yourself. And PZ Myers. And the commenters on Pharyngula. And logic.

There's no boundaries in my religion. It is absolute, inclusive, unbounded and uncontained.

And self-contradictory, nihilistic, purple, oblong, pompous, obese, dull, boring, and omnipresent.

Posted by: WowbaggerOM | November 24, 2009 10:18 PM

David Mathews wrote:

I accept it, Wowbagger, and therefore accept you as a theist. I've converted one atheist today!

Gosh, that was too easy. Now say I'm not a god. How can you tell whether this statement is true and the other is false or vice versa?

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 10:19 PM

Hello Kel,

* "Where at all did I mention that atheism is like astronomy? Nowhere, I maintained it was like non-astrology, it's the not-belief. Are you that dense, or deliberately lying? "

If atheism like non-astrology like football is non-astrology?

Perhaps you have something else in mind. I'm searching for a needle in a haystack with these atheists!

* "No, atheism is like non-astrology. Astrology is a positive claim about the universe, atheism is the negation of a positive claim - much like non-astrology is the negation of astrology. "

Oh. That's better. That's what I was asking.

Still a convoluted nearly incomprehensible argument, though. I think it needs more work ... like decades more thought.

* "I didn't say what a god must or must not do, rather how we measure that such a god exists. If there's no evidence that there's an interventionist deity, and many claims regarding interventionist deities turn out to be indiscriminate forces, then that counts as evidence against said deity. "

Well, I read the above and still cannot comprehend exactly what you are looking for and why you are looking for that as if it was promises to you. Who told you that God would work in a manner observable by humankind? Upon what philosophical principle do you make this demand of God?

* "And if you were me, I'd feel embarrassed at such evasive tactics you're using. That you misrepresent what I say and use blatant equivocation to attack a position it is clear you don't actually understand. "

I'm embarrassed. Really. Not. Not really.

I'm simply trying to get a handle on your opinions. You haven't actually defined them very well. You probably haven't spent enough time talking to theists. This is the reason why your argument is so vague and imprecise and confusing.

* "Where did I say that God was obliged to do anything for me? I didn't, you're again misrepresenting what I'm saying and evading the question once more. So again I ask, what does theism have which in the negation of theism creates an intellectual vacuity? Why can't you answer this? "

Atheism's intellectual vacancy doesn't relate so much to theism as it relates to the utter lack of positive ideas within atheism and as atheists repeatedly affirm when engaged in an argument with theists.

* "Completely agreed. But that's not what I'm talking about at all, I'm asking what theism has which upon the negation of theism leaves an intellectual void? You're not answering this, instead trying to turn this on me. And if you're going to do that, please try to address the position I'm actually advocating instead of doing your utmost to create a straw man out of what I said. You haven't nearly begun to address my claims, just tried to turn my words around into something that's easy for you to knock down. Stop that, it's incredibly dishonest. "

When you say "the negation of theism" I really don't know what you mean and you really don't know what you mean ... this is the intellectual vacancy of atheism.

But if you want to describe your beliefs you can do so. Perhaps there is something of substance in your beliefs which is lacking in everyone else's.

Posted by: bevo/devo | November 24, 2009 10:22 PM

David said this:

I accept all of the gods and am at war with no one.

There's no boundaries in my religion. It is absolute, inclusive, unbounded and uncontained.

And then accused someone else of speaking in a vague manner. What a dumb douchebag.

Posted by: Peter G. | November 24, 2009 10:22 PM

"I accept it, Wowbagger, and therefore accept you as a theist. I've converted one atheist today!"

Oh no WowbaggerOM! Not You. Say it ain't so. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukeHdiszZmE

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 24, 2009 10:26 PM

David--I accept your belief system and am in total support of it. You have been intelligent and brave, and these miscreants have been unfathomably and unjustifiably abusive. This makes me sad.

Further, I have a proposition for you. I have a bridge that I am trying to sell, but to make back my loan I am asking for $10,000,000. It seems like a steep price, but get this. It's a bridge to EVERYWHERE. Anywhere you want to go...Pittsburgh, Uganda, Sha Ka Ree, you name it. It starts right where you find god and follows a rainbow trajectory straight past your head and through your asshole. I got it from a dealer down in Hobbiton, named Mr. Baggins. I could go as low as $9,000,000, or for the original price I can throw in the armor of god. The rest of these cheapskates aren't buying.

Posted by: Robert H | November 24, 2009 10:28 PM

Hi David,
my question was not rhetorical. Not to belabor the point or seem boorish... "Does your god encourage you to be aggressive to people you perceive of as your inferiors or is this your non-divine aspect with which we are having to deal?"
In defense of your verbal behaviors which I felt many would perceive as hostile you stated that others were naughty somewhere else. Do you perceive this as an acceptable justification for your actions on this thread or do you feel you do not need to deign a response? I do agree that there is a lack of civility in the blogosphere, and that it knows no ideological or religious boundaries but I fail to see how acting similarly to those you appear to hold in contempt is going to bring about a raising of the tone of discourse.

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 10:29 PM

Hello Gruesome,

* "All you have to do is show evidence for a god and show how any scientific law requires a god. Go for it. Until then, the Null Hypothesis continues to hold."

I'd no more shore evidence of God to a human than I would attempt to teach physics to a cat. Human intellect is about as brilliant as a match lighted on the moon.

Why should a primate such as yourself claim to know anything? I'm amazed when a primate has enough awareness to see beyond the end of his own nose. To ask such an animal to perceive God is just plain silliness.

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 10:32 PM

Hello bevo/devo,

* "And then accused someone else of speaking in a vague manner. What a dumb douchebag. "

Your lack of knowledge regarding religion, and especially about the wide diversity of religious and philosophical ideas about God and religion, is really quite astonishing.

You've spent your life talking but haven't spent any time listening. This is a trait common among atheists.

Posted by: Insightful Ape | November 24, 2009 10:33 PM

In fairness, Dave, there's something to be said in favor of "I'm amazed when a primate has enough awareness to see beyond the end of his own nose", because just to paraphrase your next sentence, to ask David Mathews to have a clue about statistics is just plain silliness.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 24, 2009 10:36 PM

Why are we still responding to this Mathews wanker?

Slow day on FAILblog.

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 10:37 PM

Hello Wowbagger,

* "Ah. Now we're getting somewhere. Okay David, answer this question if you dare: to your knowledge, what do the gods you speak of do?

* "Do they have a purpose? Can they affect us in any way? "

If the gods are as intellectually impressive as humankind, they spend their time eating, watching television, becoming morbidly obese, engaging in warfare, destroying their home planet and going extinct.

Too bad those Gods aren't so special as humankind!

Oh, to be a human ...

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 24, 2009 10:40 PM

Too bad those Gods aren't so special as humankind!

Hey. I though we were ripping on lemurs here.

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 10:40 PM

Hello bevo/devo,

* "Preaching =/= giving a rational reason you believe in something, moron. I live in America; if I want a preacher I don't have to look far. Why the fuck are you on this blog whining about not being able to engage PZ in an argument if you don't want to engage in an argument? Or are you looking for bragging rights for being hit with the banhammer? "

If you want a preacher you can find yourself a preacher.

I'm not seeking you as a convert nor would I accept you as a convert even if you wanted to become a convert.

God doesn't need you ... nor do I.

This entire argument has nothing whatsoever to do with you. You aren't the center of God's Universe. God can afford to lose you if you think that you have lost God.

Posted by: WowbaggerOM | November 24, 2009 10:42 PM

David Mathews, you didn't answer the questions. Are you afraid to? Are you not capable? Here they are again so you can have another try. Bonus points will be given for honesty:

David, to your knowledge, what do the gods you speak of do? Do they have a purpose? Can they affect us in any way?

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 10:43 PM

Hello RobertH,

* "In defense of your verbal behaviors which I felt many would perceive as hostile you stated that others were naughty somewhere else. Do you perceive this as an acceptable justification for your actions on this thread or do you feel you do not need to deign a response? I do agree that there is a lack of civility in the blogosphere, and that it knows no ideological or religious boundaries but I fail to see how acting similarly to those you appear to hold in contempt is going to bring about a raising of the tone of discourse. "

I'm not going to listen to any whining or weeping from the atheists. If you are unhappy your unhappiness if your own concern, not mine.

Posted by: Chen | November 24, 2009 10:43 PM

***Darwin is controversial (nope, he's only controversial among ignoramuses)***

Darwin and the implications of evolution are controversial, both for Christian fundamentalists and modern sensibilities. Darwin was an abolitionist, however, this belief did not prevent him from observing human differences and speculating on how they came to be. Just as he could not exempt humans from evolution, he could not exempt the races from the natural effects of selection pressures in different locations.

"The races differ also in constitution, in acclimatization and in liability to certain diseases. Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual faculties.” (Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1871, pp. 461-474).

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2008/02/apes-or-angels.php

Posted by: Tim Harris | November 24, 2009 10:45 PM

David M is obviously having a whale of a time, in his silly, twisted way. What the devil is the matter with the lot of you, trying to have an argument with someone who has no interest whatsoever in having a genuine argument, and whose only interest is in making it appear that he is scoring points and - very successfully - in getting more and more suckers involved in a pathetic non-debate? Can't you find more interesting issues to address, and leave that silly little troll alone? You're not going to pin him down, or, rather, if you do,he'll pretend you haven't.
What struck me about the 'Darwin wasn't an atheist' claim (in a letter, I forget to whom, CD lamented the fact that he had stuck in the words about the Creator as a sop to the sensitive)is the way it once again demonstrated the quite extraordinary dishonesty and mendacity of so many people who profess themselves Christians.

Posted by: Insightful Ape | November 24, 2009 10:46 PM

Mr Troll isn't gonna listen to my whining? Oooh, that is breaking my heart.
But then there is the issue of amusement I am getting from his rants. I hear that cracking up is good for unhappiness.

Posted by: Owlmirror | November 24, 2009 10:46 PM

Why should a primate such as yourself claim to know anything? I'm amazed when a primate has enough awareness to see beyond the end of his own nose. To ask such an animal to perceive God is just plain silliness.

So by your own (current) logic, since you are a primate, you cannot have perceived God.

Posted by: bevo/devo | November 24, 2009 10:47 PM

Your lack of knowledge regarding religion, and especially about the wide diversity of religious and philosophical ideas about God and religion, is really quite astonishing.

Please show me where I said anything that would give you a clue about my knowledge or lack thereof about religions. Someone who says "I accept all religions" despite their obvious incompatibilities is someone who knows nothing of religion.

You've spent your life talking but haven't spent any time listening. This is a trait common among atheists

Thanks for letting me know how I've spent my life, you're obviously the expert on that. Project much? If you're assuming I've always been an atheist, you're mistaken; I spent the first 20 years of my life as a christian.

Yet again, give me any sort of rational reason to believe in whatever it is you have faith in, since judging by your first post, you came here for an argument.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 24, 2009 10:50 PM

Thr species never asked for my advice nor would it have heeded it if offered.

Maybe it would take you more seriously if you had a bridge to EVERYWHERE. I guess its time to head back to the home planet. But know this, my friend. You can hold your head high, because dammit, you tried.

Posted by: Insightful Ape | November 24, 2009 10:54 PM

"Don't be upset at me because of humankind's extinction. Humankind chose this fate on its own. Thr species never asked for my advice nor would it have heeded it if offered.
Humankind lives only one way and that is perpetual violence against Nature and itself. Humankind is a really miserable animal and irredeemably so.
It is a tragedy which ends tragically.
So much for humankind ..."
And we are the unhappy ones!
I would say talk about projection, but given his track record on stats, I doubt he is much better in psychology.
Thanks for the laugh though.

Posted by: bevo/devo | November 24, 2009 10:55 PM

Okaaaaay, after Davey's post at #197, I'd like to suggest that we recognize that he's clinically insane and in need of immediate help. It's been fun, but I feel guilty making fun of the mentally ill. PZ will certainly hit him with the banhammer tomorrow anyway.

Posted by: Owlmirror | November 24, 2009 10:55 PM

Don't be upset at me because of humankind's extinction.

Humankind is not extinct.

Thr species never asked for my advice nor would it have heeded it if offered.

You have no advice to give.

Humankind lives only one way and that is perpetual violence against Nature and itself.

Well, you certainly do.

Humankind is a really miserable animal and irredeemably so.

Well, you certainly are.

Posted by: Robert H | November 24, 2009 10:58 PM

Hello David,
One last thought before I move on. If you're not going to listen to the whining and weeping of atheists why are you infesting this thread? This is one of the strangest masturbatory fantasies I have ever come (giggle) across (yours, not mine).

eof

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 11:01 PM

Hello atheists,

The present conversation has run its course. You people can spend tomorrow praising yourself and each other and telling PZ Myers how great he is as a scientist, an atheist and a rational person.

Stay happy! Atheists are nothing if not happy, happy, happy!

Apollo 8 was a big mistake, though. Damn those astronauts for failing to give a lecture while they were circling the moon. Didn't they know that little PZ Myers wanted a lecture? How could they offend him! The Bible completely ruined PZ Myers day that day and God has suffered ever since!

God really wants you back, PZ Myers. God promises that no astronauts will ever quote the Scriptures from the moon ever again. Not ever again!

No more Genesis reading from the moon. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever!

God makes this promise to PZ Myers and God will keep his promise: Astronauts will never read the Bible while in orbit around the moon, nor from the moon's surface, nor from anywhere near the moon, nor from Mars, nor from anywhere else in the Universe.

Hell, humans won't even be in space ever again a few decades from now!

Does that make everything ok, PZ? Has God sufficiently apologized for His sin against the child you?

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 24, 2009 11:04 PM

The Universe will be fine without us, too.

Damn. You live outside of the Universe? I actually don't think my bridge will get you there. So, I'm coming with you, right?

At least let me know this: Will the lemurs be OK when we're gone?

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 24, 2009 11:09 PM

That extrauniversal genius left me here. guess I'll watch the Daily Show.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 24, 2009 11:09 PM

You are talking about Jesus Garza, right? Because, Jesus Jones was totally passed out before Jose Mesa let everything blow up. Ergo, no crying for him.

I swear I read Jerry Garcia there.

Might have to bust out some 1978 Dead now.

Posted by: bevo/devo | November 24, 2009 11:11 PM

God makes this promise to PZ Myers and God will keep his promise: Astronauts will never read the Bible while in orbit around the moon, nor from the moon's surface, nor from anywhere near the moon, nor from Mars, nor from anywhere else in the Universe.

Hell, humans won't even be in space ever again a few decades from now!

Hey, a falsifiable prediction! We almost never get one of those from the religious, and it only took 12 hours of an atheistic slaughter!

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 24, 2009 11:14 PM

I just took a look at the logs. David Mathews started posting at 11:31am, and his last post was at 11:01pm. In less than 12 hours, he left 255 comments.

Somethin's wrong with that boy.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess it's more than just one thing wrong with that boy.

Posted by: bevo/devo | November 24, 2009 11:16 PM

Has anyone just cut to the end and told David Mathews to go fuck himself?

So many times, in so many ways. Don't bother to read the whole thread, unless both your forehead and desk are insured.

Posted by: Kel, OM | November 24, 2009 11:16 PM

If atheism like non-astrology like football is non-astrology?

No! Atheism is like non-astrology in the sense that it is either an implicit or explicit rejection of an explanation about how the world works.

Perhaps you have something else in mind. I'm searching for a needle in a haystack with these atheists!

Are you that stupid that you need this spelt out to you? I don't know how to say this any simpler... but here it goes. Whether Gods exist or not is a claim about reality. As it is a claim of existence, it is a positive claim. Take gravity, whether one believes in it or not has no bearing on whether gravity exists. But to claim that gravity is real, one must show positive evidence for it. With gravity we can do this, and to deny gravity is quite absurd. Can the same be said for God? Is it absurd to reject God? If so, why?

Still a convoluted nearly incomprehensible argument, though. I think it needs more work ... like decades more thought.

What's the problem with it exactly?

Well, I read the above and still cannot comprehend exactly what you are looking for and why you are looking for that as if it was promises to you. Who told you that God would work in a manner observable by humankind? Upon what philosophical principle do you make this demand of God?

Okay to set the record straight, I'm not making the demand of God. I'm making the demand of those who claim that God exists. Big difference, they are claiming an interventionist deity so I would like to see the evidence for such a deity. As for philosophical principles? Humean scepticism is a good starting point. The problem of miracles specifically. Or as Carl Sagan says "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

I'm simply trying to get a handle on your opinions. You haven't actually defined them very well. You probably haven't spent enough time talking to theists. This is the reason why your argument is so vague and imprecise and confusing.

I've spent plenty of time talking to theists, and they've been able to get what I'm saying. The problem here is you, I've never seen someone who can't follow such simple statements.

As for a handle on my opinions, here it is. You're deliberately misrepresenting what people here are saying and arguing a strawman. Instead of backing up what is a positive claim about the universe and instead trying to call for the intellectual vacuity of the opposing point of view. And because of that you don't have an intellectually defensible position.

Atheism's intellectual vacancy doesn't relate so much to theism as it relates to the utter lack of positive ideas within atheism and as atheists repeatedly affirm when engaged in an argument with theists.

Because atheism isn't a positive idea. Next you're going to say that not collecting stamps fails as a hobby.

But what you're missing as has been pointed out time and time again is that your equivocating between not providing positive claims and not providing anything at all. The burden of proof is on the theist, they are the ones making the positive claim about reality. Just as the burden of proof is on those claiming that gravity exists, or that the stars have a personal relationship with the affairs of humans, or that homoeopathy works.

In other words, the position that homoeopathy doesn't work is but the negation of the claim that it does, but it is not an intellectually vacuous claim. It says nothing about the evidence for the position, it's just the position itself. It seems you can't distinguish between the two.

When you say "the negation of theism" I really don't know what you mean and you really don't know what you mean ... this is the intellectual vacancy of atheism.

Are you saying I don't know what I mean?!? I'll explain it again. Atheism is either the implicit or explicit rejection of the notion of interventionist deities. It's the non-belief, the belief in not, the expression of disbelief - whatever you want to call it. Long story short, someone who doesn't believe in god is an atheist - end of story.

Could it be any simpler? it really is a simple concept and it's amazing you can't grasp it; instead choosing to equivocate particular terms in the definition in order to dismiss it. Are you honestly that stupid?

But if you want to describe your beliefs you can do so. Perhaps there is something of substance in your beliefs which is lacking in everyone else's.

I've said this before, atheism is but the negation of theism. The reasons for atheism is different to atheism in itself, just as the reasons for dismissing astrology are not inherent in being a non-astrologer.

I could have good reasons to support my position of non-belief, I might not. I think I do. But I wouldn't go so far as to say that the position is intellectually vacuous by definition, it depends on the arguments for or against it.

In the case of astrology, people have many positive claims for it. Just as in theism people have many positive claims for the existence of God. Now would it be intellectually vacuous to say "My shoes are one size too small, therefore God doesn't exist"? I would hope so. But if I were to counter the arguments for God, would that be intellectually vacuous? I think not.

This is where the problem of your language is. You're making the equivocation between the negation of a concept and the reasons for not supporting the concept. I don't believe in bigfoot. I'm an abigfootist. Does that mean it's an intellectually vacuous position just because it is the negation of a positive claim? No!

Posted by: Stu | November 24, 2009 11:18 PM

Just popping in to say:

Does that make everything ok, PZ? Has God sufficiently apologized for His sin against the child you?

Someone skipped their thorazine this morning. Either that, or someone got a nice big shot of meth in their host.

255 "comments"? Egads. That is one comment every 170 ever-loving seconds! Perhaps this clown can make a living stress-testing blog commenting software all by himself?

Posted by: Rixaeton | November 24, 2009 11:23 PM

#217 Patricia

From the speed reading of the to and fro, Dave is not a primate, and may be a God, but only in the sense that it is in his own mind.

It feels like a "Guess Who I Am" parlor game.

I don't think anyone has asked him to do what you have asked, as Dave's species is in doubt, so it may not actually be physically possible.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 24, 2009 11:25 PM

I'll say this for him. I would have made a LOT more typos at that rate. Guy's got the kind of typing skills that only hyper-intelligent time dancers have.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | November 24, 2009 11:28 PM

Rixaeton - You could be right, but on the other hand it may be Daves only chance at love.

Posted by: Spooky | November 24, 2009 11:31 PM

With that speed, and few mistakes, were we just trolled by a Turing Machine?!?!

Posted by: DaveH_of_Lahndaan_Town | November 24, 2009 11:36 PM

@230

I think he's the infinity+n^th monkey.

Posted by: WowbaggerOM | November 24, 2009 11:37 PM

Shorter David Mathews: 'I'm an intellectually dishonest, fast-typing blatherer who dodges questions he can't answer but misrepresents the arguments of those who answer him; ergo god* exists.'

He won't be missed. Capable of slightly more coherence than facilis, but far less intellectually honest.

*Despite him evading any question involving him quantifying or describing his god, its qualities or abilities, or how he came by the knowledge he claims to have.

Posted by: Commissar Claw | November 24, 2009 11:39 PM

That is some genuine Grade A crazy from Senor Matthews.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 24, 2009 11:40 PM

Back on topic, how long has it been since CNN was worth a shit?

Stephen MEyer?

Really?

Posted by: MrFire | November 25, 2009 12:04 AM

Why are we still responding to this Mathews wanker?

A conversation with the coprolite of a crocoduck would be a better expense of spirit.

Anybody capable of causing Smoggy to break character, out of sheer exasperation, deserves some kind of twisted respect.

Or not.

Posted by: John C. Welch | November 25, 2009 12:08 AM

Dave Matthews, (an appropriate name, since the other one pushes non-specific pablumic tripe disguised as music, and this one does the same for 'religion) is one of those jackanape lackwits who pull this one:

"I'm not religious, i'm spiritual"

aka "I don't believe in anything, i believe in everything". you can't get him to be specific, because he cannot. it's like getting a cat to do linear algebra.

well, you might succeed with the cat.

Posted by: Sparky | November 25, 2009 12:43 AM

@ Dave M.

*sniff sniff*

Smells like meth to me.

Posted by: Rewarp | November 25, 2009 1:06 AM

I was going through NewScientist yesterday when I stumbled upon, this article written in such a way as if it were interviewing Charles Darwin.

Intrigued by the somewhat novel approach to introducing Darwin to individuals without the patience to read through all his leeters, I followed some of the links to the Darwin Correspondence Project.

It is a fascinating read of the man and you come to realise he is one of the classiest of men. Unlike me, who would derive some form of pleasure from completely destroying a person's position in debate, Darwin tried to avoid confrontation and left most of the fighting to Huxley.

Here is a sample letter of how he humbly describes he would rather believe suffering is a result of natural causes rather than a supernatural being.

Dear Madam.

It would have gratified me much if I could have sent satisfactory answers to yr. questions, or indeed answers of any kind. But I cannot see how the belief that all organic beings including man have been genetically derived from some simple being, instead of having been separately created bears on your difficulties.— These as it seems to me, can be answered only by widely different evidence from Science, or by the so called “inner consciousness”. My opinion is not worth more than that of any other man who has thought on such subjects, & it would be folly in me to give it; I may however remark that it has always appeared to me more satisfactory to look at the immense amount of pain & suffering in this world, as the inevitable result of the natural sequence of events, i.e. general laws, rather than from the direct intervention of God though I am aware this is not logical with reference to an omniscient Deity— Your last question seems to resolve itself into the problem of Free Will & Necessity which has been found by most persons insoluble.

I sincerely wish that this note had not been as utterly valueless as it is; I would have sent full answers, though I have little time or strength to spare, had it been in my power.

I have the honor to remain dear Madam. | Yours very faithfully | Charles Darwin.

P.S. I am grieved that my views should incidentally have caused trouble to your mind but I thank you for your Judgment & honour you for it, that theology & science should each run its own course & that in the present case I am not responsible if their meeting point should still be far off.

Posted by: JohnnieCanuck | November 25, 2009 1:20 AM

I have a confession to make. You have all just participated in the recent rollout of my latest software release. I see I have a few rough edges to deal with, but altogether I think this has been a great success. My thanks to all who contributed to this trial.

Once I have completely evaluated the interaction potentials, I will be able to begin the next version. Hopefully, in a few weeks, I'll be back with DM II.

Credits go to Randy Simon for his inspiring work in this field. We stand on the shoulders of giants.

Posted by: Rorschach | November 25, 2009 1:41 AM

Oh, and just a thought PZ, any IP address similarities between David Mathews and Lion IRC ?

Posted by: 386sx | November 25, 2009 2:00 AM

Oh, and just a thought PZ, any IP address similarities between David Mathews and Lion IRC ?

I was thinking the same thing since how they both worship all religions or some balonery like that.

Posted by: ElitistB | November 25, 2009 2:42 AM

I understand that this piece on the CNN website is an "opinion" piece, however this does NOT in any way mean that it should pass without fact checking. It may be my opinion that the earth was created last Thursday, that doesn't mean that CNN should publish my opinion without at least verifying that whatever "facts" I present to support that argument are, in fact, "facts".

Opinions are fine. Fake facts are not.

I at least appreciate the "Read a leading Darwin proponent's view that evolution leaves no room for intelligent design theory" link that they put in there, though they really need to put it in larger font and bold it.

Posted by: Quintilian | November 25, 2009 3:45 AM

This is so fucked up it makes me want to puke.

Damn you newsweek!

/Quinti

Posted by: wiley | November 25, 2009 4:34 AM

"He also wasn't a Jew, let's celebrate that!"

Oh great. Dawkins hates USA, and PZ's an anti-semitic bigot.

Posted by: Rorschach | November 25, 2009 4:48 AM

wiley should go where David Mathews went, and take the Lion with him.....

Survivor please !

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 25, 2009 7:34 AM

"He also wasn't a Jew, let's celebrate that!"

Oh great. Dawkins hates USA, and PZ's an anti-semitic bigot.

Good grief you are a fucking moron.

Are you completely incapable of detecting sarcasm even when it's smashed over your head?

You incredibly fucking dense idiot.

Posted by: Cimourdain | November 25, 2009 7:39 AM

I thought wiley was being sarcastic, myself.

Posted by: Shala | November 25, 2009 7:52 AM

So, if my math is right, David Matthews made a comment every 3 minutes for 12 hours straight.

Holy fuck that's creepy.

Posted by: MrFire | November 25, 2009 8:32 AM

Like a freak snowstorm, DM swooped in out of nowhere, sprayed shit all over the place, and residents had to work overtime just to keep brushing their pathways clean. But I guess it was good exercise.

Then the storm mutated into a ice/slush mix of crazy, and it stopped being any fun at all. We don't even get leftovers for snowballs, or anything.

Posted by: robinsrule | November 25, 2009 9:29 AM

So, if my math is right, David Matthews made a comment every 3 minutes for 12 hours straight.

Well hopefully that's 12 hours where he wasn't practicing with a firearm.

Have you not heard bluegrass fiddle? You're naive not to be afraid.

Scares the hell out of me, and I used to play bluegrass.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 25, 2009 9:48 AM

"Insanity" as in "needs professional help right now", that is.

Posted by: KI | November 25, 2009 10:26 AM

Having dealt with the insanity of other people's methamphetamine abuse I would say Dave has gone to crash, it's the usual pattern when someone's gone bug-nuts from a three-day speed freakout.

Posted by: Bosch's Poodle | November 25, 2009 11:52 AM

I traded a few emails with the author of that Newsweek article, and I'm starting to feel a little bad for the lady.

First, she's getting a lot of profanity-filled hate mail right now, so please try to be civil if/when you email her.

Two, I think she's over her head - that was probably obvious from the article.

Three, when I argued (strenuously) against making this debate about personality and religious views, she took the points to heart and I think will come to realize why her approach was so wrong.

Four, she didn't write the headline about "celebrating" Darwin's religious beliefs - she was (misguidedly IMO) attempting to make Darwin "safe" for the religious.

I got the sense that she's used to battling fundamentalists who react to her children's books about evolution and is taking the opposite, nicer approach vs. the more confrontation approach most of us prefer.

As I said, I think her approach is wrong, and told her that getting wrapped up in personality is completely backwards and logically flawed.

Anyway...she seems sincere and nice and is trying in her own way to win this for science so please be civil.

Posted by: Knockgoats | November 25, 2009 12:11 PM

I can't seem to figure out why people fight so hard and argue so intensely to prove that we are glorified monkeys.

Well, you got something right - you are confused. Science is about understanding what the world is like, and how it got that way. That we are descended from animals that would be called monkeys if they were alive today is simple fact, whether you or anyone else likes it or not. One thing rational people will argue and if necessary fight for is to stop creationist liars and idiots sabotaging education. Clear?

Oh, and "glorified" is not a recognised term of science.

Posted by: Faint | November 25, 2009 1:35 PM

God DAMN!! I've just laughed my way through these comments... damn you all for stealing my precious gaming time. *grrr*

Oh, and Jennyxyzzy? I'm an Atheist who doesn't believe there is no god... no positive claim at all, once it's accepted it's just that lack of belief. :)

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 25, 2009 2:19 PM

I can't seem to figure out why people fight so hard and argue so intensely to prove that we are glorified monkeys.

I can't figure out why people fight so hard and argue so stridently that there is a comic-bookesque angry, vindictive, magical sky fairy telling them what to do.

Sounds perfectly insane doesn't it?

Posted by: wiley | November 25, 2009 2:32 PM

[sarcasm alert]

Darwin also wasn't GAY, let's celebrate THAT!

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 25, 2009 2:53 PM

[sarcasm alert]

Darwin also wasn't GAY, let's celebrate THAT!

YAWN

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/PbW94bQ7hfDDpgZIW3U_hMjFlIlrQRqxDkwdPxjeJX9Bt9yQZ6yJi6Qwhij8ldlG#35d13 | November 25, 2009 8:16 PM

What 'Origin' is not

There is no Darwinism. Attacking Darwin the person or his views on natural selection buys into the Straw Man fallacy. Darwin is no longer a proxy for evolutionary biology. Those who criticize Darwin deliberately overlook 150 years of subsequent scientific development.

Darwin had no clear understanding of genetics. He hadn't the faintest clue that DNA existed. The fruitful union of evolution and genetics since 1953 brought forth Modern Evolutionary Theory.

Darwin was a scientist of the highest rank, but he was no god. No one ever 'believed in' Darwinism (or MET today) as if they were infallible articles of creed.

'On the Origin of Species' is not a mythical-magical fictional compilation, like the xian “Bible”. Origin is a classic scientific work which, long outdated, now belongs solely to history.

Darwin’s achievement is the grandest of beginnings in modern biological science. But, no text is sacred. Science is not done by the book.

Posted by: David Estlund | November 25, 2009 9:39 PM

https://me.yahoo.com/a/PbW94bQ7hfDDpgZIW3U_hMjFlIlrQRqxDkwdPxjeJX9Bt9yQZ6yJi6Qwhij8ldlG#35d13(if that really is your name),

It may be outdated, but it sure is an impressive read. Hell, Darwin even predicted (and refuted) most arguments creationists still attempt to use today. Just getting a creationist to read On the Origin of Species would leave them a damn sight better prepared to talk on the subject. Of course there are more convincing books like Why Evolution is True and Greatest Show on Earth that are able to take 150 years of evidence and new branches of science (genetics, anyone?) into account, but let's not diminish Darwin's achievement.

I know you were just trying to strike down the creationist's use of "Darwinist." And you're right, the word does not exist, and IDers use it so they can paint Darwin up with all sorts of ad hominem bullshit, but simply proving that there's no such thing as "Darwinism" would suffice.

Posted by: Phil E. Drifter | November 25, 2009 11:54 PM

Apple/PZ (Posted by: apple | November 25, 2009 2:28 PM)

Sarcasm is completely undetectable on teh int4rwebs, unless you use some kind of tag to show it.

People could be sarcastic, or they could be complete and utter morons. and I never rule the latter out, I've already met too many of them. e.g. Palin, Huckabee supporters.

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 26, 2009 5:40 AM

I'm with you, there is no god, these people are delusional and/or brainwashed, but you do yourself no service when you throw insults instead of cold, hard facts.

Cold hard facts don't stick to a creationist.

I can't seem to figure out why people fight so hard and argue so intensely to prove that we are glorified monkeys.

Evolution says we are "generally" improving, and we will never know the limits of our future bodies and minds.
Christianity says we started off as good as we were ever going to be and are getting worse and worse. Oh and it was our fault.

Which is the more uplifting position? Choose carefully now, its a hard one.

Posted by: Lars | November 26, 2009 5:11 PM

Mixing hallucinogens and central stimulants is never, i repeat, never a good idea. Let DM be a warning to all you primates.