Pharyngula

Posted by: daveau | November 16, 2009 1:19 PM

Dermot Aherne and his blasphemy laws got my attention this year.

Posted by: formosus | November 16, 2009 1:23 PM

Ugh, I feel you. They all deserve the award, but which one will get my vote? I'm leaning towards the "Condoms increase AIDS" pope, but then there's the British Chiropractic Ass. who think that truth can be legislated over, and the racketeer Adan Oktar.

I think I'm going to go for the pope, for the simple reason that I used to be a Catholic and even then couldn't stand his bullshit.

Posted by: Alyson Miers | November 16, 2009 1:27 PM

As much as I enjoy seeing the votes stack up on Pope Palpatine, I voted for Dermot Aherne for enabling that dumbassed blasphemy law.

Posted by: madbull | November 16, 2009 1:37 PM

I'd go for Oktar
Seems outright evil , not just stupid

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 16, 2009 1:38 PM

Bill Donohue is offended at his omission from this prestigious list...

Posted by: MikeyM | November 16, 2009 1:40 PM

I'd write in Rick Warren.

Posted by: Dirty Hairy | November 16, 2009 1:41 PM

Had to go Pope Palpatine, because I am a Jedi.

Posted by: tomhuld | November 16, 2009 1:53 PM

I voted for Oktar, in recognition of his absolutely perfect lying record. AFAIK he has never said anything true. Unlike the American creationists he doesn't have this deep-down feeling that lying is bad which causes them to resort to quote-mining (when possible) instead of just making things up on the spot.

His qualities are actually quite a rarity outside the global-warming-denial camp.

Posted by: chuckgoecke | November 16, 2009 1:54 PM

X 11. All of the above.

Posted by: RebeccaBradley | November 16, 2009 2:03 PM

I voted for Joe the Rat - largely because he's the one in a position to do the most damage on a global scale.

Posted by: Kraid | November 16, 2009 2:06 PM

Sarah Palin won last year? How parochial.

Maybe. Maybe not. Dick Cheney's vile influence as VP was fresh in a lot of peoples' minds, not to mention that McCain is getting up there in years, so Palin as POTUS wasn't completely out of the picture either. Considering her batshit Christian craziness and how close she came to power last year, I can see the award being justified.

As for this year's poll... I'm really torn. Aherne and the CPA are both trying to legally protect woo, which is outrageous. Eagleton/Armstrong bug the hell out of me for bolstering nonsense with the addition of more intricate and sophisticated nonsense. The Pope is an obvious choice. Fundies like Oktar, Choudary, and Blair are not only committed to unreason but dangerous because of their aspirations to power. Very torn indeed.

Posted by: subbie | November 16, 2009 2:16 PM

vanharris, you may be right. I must confess that I don't keep my finger on the pulse of British libel law. I was just going by what I saw on the website.

Posted by: David | November 16, 2009 2:25 PM

To help produce a 10-way tie, start by viewing the results and voting for whomever is in last place.

that's what I did. Though I have to say, it required a lot of effort to not click on il papa.

Posted by: jeronimusprime | November 16, 2009 2:29 PM

Rick Warren seconded. He can take that Prop 8, roll it up tight, and slide it inbetween his ample buttocks. Whadda douche.

Posted by: lose_the_woo | November 16, 2009 2:32 PM

The lunatic wearing the big funny hat gets my vote. It seems to me he has the most capacity to inflict his lunacy at the largest scale.

Posted by: ricardos | November 16, 2009 2:33 PM

My vote went to the BCA. One thing is to say and/or publish bullshit, and another to try to silence any critique to their bullshit.

Posted by: Steve | November 16, 2009 2:38 PM

For feck sake, the Defamation Bill (which includes Blasphemy) hasn't been signed in yet!! This will only remind Dermot

Posted by: Ronaldo Camacho | November 16, 2009 2:45 PM

I just voted for Darth Benedict.

Posted by: Daniel | November 16, 2009 3:25 PM

Apart from taking us into Iraq on dodgy reasons, Afghanistan, civil liberties, being Bush's poodle etc (seriously, lots more) he converted to catholic just after leaving office, then set up some sort of 'faith group'. And he was (is?) a consultant on the middle east. Just thankful he's out of the running for EU president!

Posted by: Sili | November 16, 2009 3:28 PM

Great. Now Ottokar is gonna sue New Humanist for libel to the tune of ONE TRILLION LIRA!

(Can we nominate the ScienceBorg tech team for screwing with the comment box?)

Posted by: shaunotd | November 16, 2009 3:43 PM

Oh, and having one of those faces you just want to punch. But I suppose that's not entirely his fault...

Posted by: shaunotd | November 16, 2009 3:54 PM

That said, I had to vote for Ratzilla, for sheer weight of toxic, genocidal hypocrisy.

If you're going to vote for a Catholic, go straight to the top!

Posted by: sbh | November 16, 2009 4:08 PM

I voted for Adnan Oktar, largely for his attempts to silence opponents through frivolous lawsuits. They're all vile; Joseph Ratzinger I've despised the longest; the British Chiropractic Association and Dermot Aherne deserve shame for their relentless attacks on free speech--and where was Mr. C. League? If he'd been on the list I probably would have voted for him.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 16, 2009 4:27 PM

PZ:

Testing?

Yeah... what's going on with commenting today?

Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 16, 2009 4:39 PM

I just voted by hat-size.

Posted by: Knockgoats | November 16, 2009 5:05 PM

Faced with such a strong field, I finally resorted to patriotism and voted for Tony Bliar! Looks like he's not going to be the first EU President, so he deserves this award as a consolation prize.

Posted by: Jack Rawlinson | November 16, 2009 5:10 PM

I'm voting for Eagleton and Armstrong because I have decided this year that the apologists are currently more of a problem than the out-and-out loonies.

Posted by: Knockgoats | November 16, 2009 5:26 PM

Why are Eagleton and Armstrong fused? Is this a way of telling us they are Two of the Three Persons of the Triune Waffle, of which the third is the Holey Argument?

Posted by: Insightful Ape | November 16, 2009 5:38 PM

I know I'm in a minority but I voted for Karen Armstrong.
Recently there was a positive review on her book on daily kos. I really can't stand this kind of inanity on my side of the political spectrum.
Boo.

Posted by: Sigmund | November 16, 2009 5:55 PM

Dermot Aherne, no question.
For single handedly dragging one part of Europe back towards the dark ages. Actually he didn't manage it on his own, the stupid Irish Green Party also joined in this attempt to outlaw atheism (or at least put it on a don't ask/don't tell basis).

Posted by: Lana | November 16, 2009 6:09 PM

I got to go with the pope. We giggle and point but he still has tremendous influence in the world. His "condoms cause aids" shtick is pure evil.

Posted by: Desert Son, OM | November 16, 2009 6:12 PM

Hmmm, lots of options. I'm inclined to vote for Pope Panzerfaust, but I'm wondering if that means that some of the others on the list might actually be more insidious for being less well known. Blair deserves a nod for rolling over during the Gee Dubya years. Armstrong/Eagleton, while not necessarily innocuous, don't exactly strike me as potent. I think I'll go with His Holiness, The Anti-Tank Weapon, not only because his stance on sex education, HIV/AIDS, and gay rights is morally appalling, but also because his reach is so extensive. For a write-in candidate, I submit The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and Obstruction of Human Rights Issues.

[New complementary close under construction],

Robert

Posted by: MadScientist | November 16, 2009 6:43 PM

It's so hard to choose. I voted Harun Yahya since he has the "crazier than the lot of you with the possible exception of the mooneys" and has a potentially dangerous cult following. (At best his cult is endangered by themselves.) The British Quackopractor Association was a close second.

Posted by: Kaddath | November 16, 2009 6:57 PM

Donohue might not be nominated, but by having Pope Natzinger nominated should be enough to get him an aneurysm... imagine if the Natizinger actually wins the award (which he is leading by quite some margin)... we might have the pleasure of seeing his brain explode.

Posted by: TheVirginian | November 16, 2009 7:13 PM

I also voted for Eagleton and Armstrong. I decided on them as soon as I saw their names, before I read PZ's choice. It's not just for their recent nonsense, but because several years ago Eagleton wrote, in "The Nation," that Nazism was an atheistic movement, which is not just a lie but a slander against one group of Nazism's victims. Hitler hated atheism and vowed to eradicate it in Germany because he blamed Germany's problems on atheism. While he was talking about church-state separation, he also blamed Jews for the existence of c-s separation. So Hitler's hatred of atheism was a major factor in the Holocaust. Eagleton might as well have called Hitler a self-hating homosexual mulatto Jewish atheist. If you're going to blame one group of Hitler's victims, you might as well blamed all of them. Here's one for you, Terry. You deserve a Scumbag of the Year award some day.

Posted by: Walton | November 16, 2009 7:15 PM

Neither Eagleton nor Armstrong belongs in this list. Yes, their works consist entirely of vapid emotional drivel. But unlike most of the other people in that list, they're not actually doing anyone any harm. This point cannot be emphasised enough. That's the essential difference between wishy-washy liberal religion and loony extremist religion; while both are equally irrational, extremist religion is much more actively harmful to the interests of humanity and causes much more needless suffering.

The Pope certainly deserves to be shortlisted - for increasing the number of needless deaths from HIV/AIDS in Africa, for a start. Dermot Aherne is also a worthy nominee, for abusing the power of the state to silence criticism of religion. And though Harun Yahya is too batshit insane to really be taken seriously, he's certainly malevolent enough to merit a Bad Faith Award. Those three belong on the list; the others, not so much. (While I'm not a Blair fan by any stretch of the imagination, his religious beliefs are far from the worst thing about him.)

Posted by: Wayfarer | November 16, 2009 7:50 PM

I'm also fond of Cormac Murphy O'Connor for decreeing that atheists are "not fully human,"

This the first step toward concentration camps and gas chambers.

Posted by: Bribase | November 16, 2009 8:02 PM

Harun Yahya for me. There are creationist frauds but he stands alone. May the trundling behemoth of his denial and piety forever stand as a testament to ignorance.

B

Posted by: Mr T | November 16, 2009 8:26 PM

Pope Fuckstick XVI all the way. The other nominees are formidable, but honestly I can't believe people think some British Chiropractors have somehow outcrazied the Pope. This guy is not just your ordinary kind of unreasonable, crazy, or irresponsible. He's the most evil and powerful crazy person we've got, so that should definitely count for something.

I find it funny - Karen Armstrong may be quite dissapointed to learn that her book 'A History of God' was one of my foundational steps towards atheism.

The funny part is, in my book, Karen Armstrong lies right on the (practically non-existent) border between old-school atheist and Militant New Atheist. The problem is she just doesn't know it yet.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | November 16, 2009 9:11 PM

Good to see all you atheists studying up on the theist nominees before you vote. In fact, I'm pleasantly surprised to see atheists paying attention to these spokespeople AT ALL.

If you look back at the archives you'll discover that all of these folks, except for Anjem Choudary and Anthony Bush, have been discussed at some length. We know who most of these assholes are and what they did to make this listing.

Posted by: Sastra | November 16, 2009 9:17 PM

Walton #72 wrote:

But unlike most of the other people in that list, they're not actually doing anyone any harm. This point cannot be emphasised enough. That's the essential difference between wishy-washy liberal religion and loony extremist religion; while both are equally irrational, extremist religion is much more actively harmful to the interests of humanity and causes much more needless suffering.

No, I think Armstrong and Eagleton do belong on a list of those "deemed to have made the most outstanding contribution to the cause of unreason," and they got my own vote. The award is not necessarily to be given to the person or group who causes the most direct harm, as I see it. Armstrong and Eagleton (Ophelia Benson calls them "Eaglestrong") advance a particularly insidious defense of the value of faith. They make a superficial appeal to its "reasonableness," and thus help to protect it from honest dispute, and promote the taboo against analysis -- among the very people who ought to defend and promote the values of the enlightenment.

What makes religion particularly dangerous is the in-built lack of brakes, the failure of checks and balances, and its presumed immunity from criticism. How rude to ask religious people to back up their claims! And now we've got apologists pushing this meme by blithely insisting that religion isn't really claiming anything -- it's all language games and wordplay and symbols and myth! But it points to a "transcendence" which we can't think of doing without.

In the last year, both Armstrong and Eagleton have stepped up their attacks on atheism. You have to believe. It's a beautiful thing to believe -- even if you're believing in fluffy mush. Nothing makes you so tolerant as believing. The alternative is just too crude.

They're dangerous in a different way than some of the other candidates; they shore up the cult of irrationality from the bottom, so that the nasties have justification and cover for the "extremes." You know what extremists are -- they're the ones who love God as much as Eaglestrong, but they give their religion some actual content.

Bad faith, indeed.

Posted by: Shatterface | November 16, 2009 9:39 PM

Eagleton's personal journey from Marxist literary critic through Lacanaian psychoanalysis to fully fledged god-botherer means he's personally passed through the entire spectrum of bullshit in just 40 years. An impressive achievement.

Posted by: Lion IRC | November 16, 2009 10:30 PM

Hi Nerd of Redhead,

My first evidence was the REAL experience people (not all) have of divinity which I said was analogous with thirst. Real thirst is proof of the existence of real water. Now if you say thirst is not a physical (physiological) reality then you might as well ignore lots of other things we DETECT. Quantifying something physical with empirical measurements or a magnifying glass is not the only way one can verify its existence in reality. In fact I would argue that your inability to detect something which others HAVE detected is something of a handicap on your part. You are effectively saying that emotional pain does not exist because it cannot be empirically measured by the kilogram or the centimeter. You are like a deaf person asking for physical proof that music exists. 100 people say they hear music yet because you hear nothing you doubt the testimony of others who can hear. If my claim was that God is a rock you would be right to ask how heavy is God – but I am not asserting you can weigh God” Your demand for evidence limited that which is physical is extraordinarily narrow minded.
Marijuana affects different people in different ways and some may even claim no effect. You are effectively demanding to know which of these people is telling the truth and you question each persons account simply because they do not ALL report IDENTICAL effects. The physical evidence is a physical human being reporting the real experience. It is not a matter of measuring how big/heavy/long/wide the evidence is. The evidence exists first. Your desire to measure it with a Durometer comes second.

My second evidence of God’s existence is the soul. Proof that souls exist eliminates one terminal barrier to belief in God. A force which I call “soul” can be proven to exist by scientific method. Take a rock and drop it. Physics can predict quite accurately what will happen to the rock. The rock will land on the floor and remain there until…………… I walk over and pick it up. I can lift the rock using my own free will/volition. Physics cannot predict when or if I will pick up the rock. Physics has no name for the unpredictable and VERY REAL force acting upon the matter of my shoulder, my arm, my hand, the rock in the EXACT OPPOSITE DIRECTION of gravity. It is not hormones – hormones are matter. It is not brain – brain cells are matter. Matter has no free will. It is not electricity. A light switch needs someone to turn it on or off. A computer “program” will always be the work of a programmer.
Again - The physical evidence is a physical rock being moved by a force unpredictable in physics. It is not a matter of you measuring how big/heavy/long/wide the soul is. The evidence of the soul exists FIRST. Your desire to measure it with a Durometer comes SECOND.

Lion (IRC)

Posted by: aratina cage of the OM | November 16, 2009 10:44 PM

Lion, that was impenetrably stupid. You have not proved souls, you have observed the behavior associated with organic brains.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 16, 2009 10:53 PM

My first evidence was the REAL experience people (not all) have of divinity which I said was analogous with thirst. Real thirst is proof of the existence of real water. Now if you say thirst is not a physical (physiological) reality then you might as well ignore lots of other things we DETECT.

Cowardly IGNORANT Lyin' Lion. Here's the thing. In order to demonstrate your deity exits, you must provide physical evidence, evidence that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers, as being of divine, and not natural origin. Your thirst idea fails miserably, and should have never been offered as alleged evidence, as you should have thought through the situation in light of evolution. Here's the thing you IGNORANT Lyin' Lion, there is a natural explanation of thirst. The need for the cells of the body to maintain their water when life moved to dry land. This required the evolution of sensors, and means to acquire this water. Which developed through random mutation followed by natural selection. No need of invoke your mythical, fictional and imaginary deity. Massive, massive failure due to your ignorance.

As I indicated earlier, something like the eternally burning bush found in Exodus will be required. Until you have that evidence (put up), you, as a man of truthfulness, honor, honesty, and integrity, will have to stop posting here (shut up). Not putting up or shutting up means you are simply a LIAR AND BULLSHITTER FOR JEBUS™, and nothing you say can be considered anything other than trolling. This is your chance to show us how good of a man you really are. So go away and find that evidence.

Posted by: Mr T | November 16, 2009 11:02 PM

truthfulness, honor, honesty, and integrity

These qualities do not a True Godbot™ make. They do not want to think, but want nothing other than to exert their own delusions upon others.

Posted by: Lion IRC | November 16, 2009 11:11 PM

Yes Nerd of Redhead - I think you have it!

Sensors! People "sense" God - they dont measure.

Need! People feel a need for something they dont even know exists.

Your friend Aratina Cage agrees my "evidence" is OBSERVED. It is proven by human behaviour not measurement of "physical" evidence.

Wowbagger says some people don't need God but they do need water - only if they WANT to live.
Thats the exact same point with God. Thanks Wowbagger - you reinforced my analogy. You can live without water and without God - for a while.

Lion (IRC)
PS - Nerd of Redhead - Go easy with that "physical evidence" paradigm. Physics is moving away from that old fashioned notion.
You have been warned!

Posted by: Frank | November 16, 2009 11:15 PM

Lion - a monkey can move the rock. A bird can pick a rock up in its beak. Do the bird and the monkey have souls?

As for your thirst analogy - is belief in aliens proof of aliens?

Posted by: nejishiki | November 16, 2009 11:20 PM

Quoth the Lion:

Marijuana affects different people in different ways and some may even claim no effect.

I think you've been getting burned by your dealer, man...
I hear Pope Benedict has the dankest weed around. Just write him; I'm sure he'll send you some.
Peace.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 16, 2009 11:32 PM

Sensors! People "sense" God - they dont measure.

Translation: I have nothing but blather.

Need! People feel a need for something they don't even know exists.

Irrelevant blather and sophistry.

. It is proven by human behaviour not measurement of "physical" evidence.

Sorry, it isn't the physical evidence you require as there is a natural explanation, where your imaginary and presupposed deity is not required. Failure.

You can live without water and without God - for a while.

Another baldfaced Lie by The Cowardly Lyin' Lion. There is no need for god. He doesn't exist. Period. Another false presupposition. And Lion, all presuppositional arguments are false.

Go easy with that "physical evidence" paradigm.

Sorry, as a 30+ year praciticing scientist, and a 20+ year practicing skeptic, it is the only way to get rid of the bullshit, including presuppostional bullshit that is your forte. And again, all presuppositional arguments are false. So, time to put up or shut up.

Physics is moving away from that old fashioned notion.

I don't think so. Blake Stacey or A_Ray_In_Dilbert_Space will have the final say. So far, nothing but lying and bullshit.

You have been warned!

What are you going to do, have your imaginary deity zap me with lightening on a clear day? Talk about blather, and a threat. Maybe its time to call the FBI.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 17, 2009 12:20 AM

THATS YOUR JOB. Good luck!

nope. the nonexistence of things is the null hypothesis; unless evidenced otherwise, everything must be assumed to not exist. otherwise we end up with castles in the sky and teapots orbiting the sun.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 17, 2009 12:30 AM

THEISM.

Inane bullshit is a better description, Lyin' Lion. You can't get anything right, because you understand nothing, especially don't understand what physical evidence is. You will still need physical evidence to convince us your aren't a LIAR. So far, all you have done is convince us of your lack of honesty, truthfulness, integrity, and good character. You have the ethics of a con man.

And Lyin' Lion, if you make the claim something exists, like your imaginary deity, you must supply the evidence. And not the blather you are so good at. We are still waiting for your physical evidence.

Posted by: aratina cage of the OM | November 17, 2009 12:34 AM

Lion, believing in free will is like believing that Uri Geller can really bend spoons (it's an illusion). The whole assumption that you need a soul to make rational choices really is baseless if you learn some basic neurology.

Posted by: Kapitano | November 17, 2009 1:18 AM

I'm really shocked that Eagleton's got himself on this list. He's the last person I would expect to drift into accommodationism with the church.

Actually no, the last person I would expect to drift in that direction was Stephen Jay Gould...and he actually did go there, towards the end of his life.

Sad, in both cases.

Posted by: Owlmirror | November 17, 2009 1:34 AM

I note that Lion IRC first posted on October 25th.

On October 28th, I predicted that he would be banned at some point in the future, giving a rough estimate of "a month or so".

It is now more than half-way through November.

I do hope that we will be thankful, by the last week in November, that this insipid, inane, intellectually dishonest weasel with a bad case of Dunning-Kruger will be shown the door.

I'm just saying.

Posted by: F | November 17, 2009 2:19 AM

Lion,

You have it wrong.

Are you voting for the theist with the most VOCAL opposition to atheism / atheology ("unreason" as you call it) or the most EFFECTIVE opposition?

No, we're voting on whose BS has been the most ridiculous, or yes, has had the largest negative impact. For example, I chose the BCA, which has nothing to say about gods or atheism, but does operate well in the realm of bad faith, with their unsupported use of healy-feely manipulations to "cure" conditions which have nothing to do with bone interactions. On top of which, they sue those calling their claims and methods into question, then try to hide concrete evidence of those claims while the defendant appeals.

You can apply this as a template to those who make claims about gods and try to legislate their particular flavors of morality as well. But sure, I'll bet that some atheists may vote according to whichever theist has irritated them the most.

And don't for a minute assume that those in this forum don't know what they are voting on. No brand-new research needs to be done on the candidates, excepting maybe the one or two of which some commenters had previously been unaware. So what?

Posted by: Thomas_Hobbes | November 17, 2009 2:42 AM

Pope Benedict is leading. Do you think they'll invite him to collect his prize?

Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 17, 2009 2:55 AM

I do hope that we will be thankful, by the last week in November, that this insipid, inane, intellectually dishonest weasel with a bad case of Dunning-Kruger will be shown the door.

Shiiiit... It should have been done after his words with Patricia. Inhumane intellectual car wreck.

Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 17, 2009 3:03 AM

Well, speaking for myself, I hope the Lyin' Lion gets to stick around for a while. I mean, c'mon! "I can choose to pick up a rock (or not) proves I have a soul"? Holy shit, I haven't laughed that hard in a long time.

It got tedious real fast when silver fox did it. But I am bias, the silly old goat just annoyed. I fucking hate this guy. But I think most of you guys already know that.

Posted by: Mack | November 17, 2009 3:48 AM

No, no, the Bad Faith Awards are for people using/abusing religion/faith in various ways to fuck up the world for everyone else. Most of the anti-vaxx screech owls aren't against vaccines because of any particular faith or religious creed (although there are religions who forbid vaccines), they're against vaccinations because...well, frankly, they're kinda dim. Or possibly delusional. But not abusive of the general populace using their religion as an excuse.

Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | November 17, 2009 4:34 AM

By the way Lion (and don't you lot go round calling him "Cowardly Lion", Bert Lahr rocked), the music analogy is very, very stupid.

Let's leave the obvious metrics of sound waves aside. If a deaf person asked someone to describe a piece of this so-called music that they didn't believe in, what would happen? You'd get consistency, is what. They would agree on the duration, the song lyrics, the instrumentation, the volume, the performers, the time signature, the speed... with only minor variations for mondegreens and greater or less musical expertise.

What if I ask a few dozen religionists to describe god? Nothing that agrees. God has a son, god could never have a son; god is one, god is three, god is thousands... It's as if they're all making up something different. Odd, huh?

Posted by: Frank | November 17, 2009 7:09 AM

Real thirst is proof of the existence of real water.

Are real furries proof of the existence of real anthropomorphic skunk women? Last I checked, wanting something doesn't make it true.

Back on subject: how does being a Marxist god botherer even work? I mean, I've listened to some of Eagleton's crap and I cannot tell.

Posted by: Walton | November 17, 2009 7:44 AM

Although Lion is wrong, I don't think it's legitimate to fling so much abuse at him. He seems to have good intentions and to be genuinely interested in having a civil discussion. He isn't a troll.

I will ignore anyone who calls me a "concern troll" or smugly says "your concern is noted". I have no personal stake or interest in this whatsoever, and have no particular reason to care. But I'm calling for a bit more differentiation between those who are reasonable but misguided, and those who are just here to troll. The latter deserve abuse; the former don't. If you disagree with this, and you sincerely think that everyone who holds an incorrect point of view deserves to be abused and insulted until they either change their mind or go away, then that's your privilege; this isn't my blog, and I can't do anything about it. But I think we should actually be able to discuss this, and raise concerns about how others are treated, without being labelled "concern trolls".

Posted by: gorunnova | November 17, 2009 8:24 AM

Dermot Aherne for the loss (oh, sorry... win!). The Pope's statements about AIDS are also pretty bad, though... but the Church has always pretty much held that position. On the other hand, Ireland has just had free speech bashed on the head with a shovel in a very immediate way.

Dermot, I'm votin' for ya. -_-'

Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | November 17, 2009 9:01 AM

My religion (like that of the Greek, Roman, Norse etc) is THEISM.

Don't look now, but I think your religion has had a schism or two.

Posted by: Aquaria | November 17, 2009 9:38 AM

Walton:

The tardcat isn't interested in civil conversation. Did you see his remark to Patricia? Unacceptable, in every single way. He actually thinks he has anything cogent to say, anything we haven't heard before. He's stupid and rude. We've heard it. And heard it. And heard it. But he can't seem to stop himself from coming in here and crapping in the punch bowl.

Like most godtards, he's a thoroughly vile waste of oxygen.

Posted by: Q.E.D | November 17, 2009 9:59 AM

Back on topic:

Surely Benny XVI has to win this Bad faith award hands down.

1. He claims moral and spiritual authority of approx. 1.2 Billion people
2. Since most people in the West have stopped listening to him, he finds most of his new adherents in the developing world.
3. A huge number of these people are poor, uneducated and needy. Their countries are ravaged by diseases including AIDS
4. Benny lies to the world's poor, telling them condoms don't work and "aggravate" the spread of AIDS
5. Benny is an educated man with access to the scientific facts about the effectiveness of condoms - so he is telling a knowing, premeditated lie with full knowledge of the consequences
6. Untold thousands of people listen to him and/or have access to condoms denied them. They contract the avoidable HIV. They get sick and die: men, women, children
7. So Benny is willing to lie and let his followers get ill and die because he prefers his dogma to the lives of his followers.
8. Pope Benedicte XVI has the blood of countless thousands of people on his hands, up to his elbows
8. Amongst the nominees on the list provided, the above is Bad Faith on a scale that no one else comes close to approaching.

I wonder how many converts Catholicism would gain if they told it straight: "The leader of our Church prefers that our followers die of a ghastly disease rather than using a condom to prevent the disease"

Q.E.D

Posted by: Strangest brew | November 17, 2009 10:46 AM

Benny is my baby!
Never has such a caricature of 'catolik hate ever been promoted to such a position to actually be the anti-christ that they all dream of being.

Posted by: Owlmirror | November 17, 2009 1:16 PM

Although Lion is wrong, I don't think it's legitimate to fling so much abuse at him. He seems to have good intentions and to be genuinely interested in having a civil discussion.

I disagree that he has either good intentions or is interested in civil discussion. See, for example, his earlier comments, which included a completely over-the-top argumentum ad Naziium.

No, he's smugly arrogant, sneering, and unpleasant, on top of his incoherent presuppositional arguments, willful ignorance, and failure to address arguments or his own inconsistencies.

He has nothing to bring here, and is not able to learn. He is the embodiment of bad faith.

He isn't a troll.

He might not think of himself as one.

But that isn't the point: The dungeon "crimes" are not limited to trolling.

Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 17, 2009 2:50 PM

Posted by: Walton | November 17, 2009 7:44 AM

Although Lion is wrong, I don't think it's legitimate to fling so much abuse at him. He seems to have good intentions and to be genuinely interested in having a civil discussion. He isn't a troll.

I will ignore anyone who calls me a "concern troll" or smugly says "your concern is noted". I have no personal stake or interest in this whatsoever, and have no particular reason to care. But I'm calling for a bit more differentiation between those who are reasonable but misguided, and those who are just here to troll. The latter deserve abuse; the former don't. If you disagree with this, and you sincerely think that everyone who holds an incorrect point of view deserves to be abused and insulted until they either change their mind or go away, then that's your privilege; this isn't my blog, and I can't do anything about it. But I think we should actually be able to discuss this, and raise concerns about how others are treated, without being labelled "concern trolls".

Walton, you are mistaken here. I hope to prove this by comparing him to an an other person I have in my killfile, you.

The reason I have you there is I do not need to read all of the tedious nit picking that you tend to get into. As most people note, threads in which you start commenting gets derailed. I am not interested and I do not need it. But there are many people here who are willing to play along. So I just move on to other threads. As far as I am concerned, the kind of discussions you are having online, you should be having in your dorm rooms with your fellow students.

But, Walton, you are an intelligent person. You are willing to learn, to evaluate and change your mind. Despite all of your faults and your extreme willingness to bemoan your self perceived failings, you are trying to be honest and open.

None of that is true about Lion. He will not answer questions. He will not take other people's ideas into consideration. He is here to preach. He is here to confront. He is here hoping to change this blog into his own evangelical organ instead of starting his own forum.

Also, even though he does not engage in profanity, he is not civil. He accuses others of the desire to kill him. He claims that other people just want to hurt others but that he is above such petty things. Lion is a cheap shot artist, shit tosser and slime merchant. Owlmirror is completely correct about his charges.

As annoying as I think you are, I never felt animus towards you. Walton, you are a much better person than what Lion could ever hope to be. You still have plenty of potential. You are willing to learn and change. Please, defend those who are worthy of it. And Lion is well beneath you. I hope you can come to realize this.

Posted by: Joel | November 17, 2009 4:57 PM

Lots of crummy politics and apologetics...but Papa Joseph is actually killing people with his insanity, so he's my very easy vote.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | November 17, 2009 5:14 PM

Janine etc. wrote (of Lion IRC):

He is here to confront.

I hope he lets us know when he starts doing some confronting. So far he's been about as confrontational as a sack of pig crap tossed under the tracks of a Abrams tank moving at full speed - i.e. not in the slightest.

No objection to banning him from me. I'll keep sinking the boot in for as long as he remains here, but it's not particularly challenging or satisfying.

Posted by: aratina cage of the OM | November 17, 2009 6:01 PM

I would have voted for the pope if it the theme was evilness, but as far as arguing in bad faith with fake outrage goes, Armstrong and Eagleton deserve this dishonor.

Posted by: Lion IRC | November 17, 2009 7:57 PM

Hi Britomart - I enjoy discussions about atheism and theism. I don't "admit" it. I'm proud to talk about my faith and God in the context of life, science, the universe and everything. I don't visit "YOUR ROOM" and discuss “YOUR THINGS” things with "YOUR CROWD" as if you owned some elite or unique private place where these esoteric topics were discussed. Methinks thou spruketh thine undernet channel a bit too much. AGAIN!
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/11/we_have_a_military_based_on_ch.php#comment-2078004
(Aint competition a bitch)
I have been banned from that place about 25 times in 13 years for reasons I understand very well. What I DON’T understand is why some other atheist Ops in that place remove those bans. Of COURSE there are differences of opinion about and within free speech! Of course some people shout SHUT UP and others say LET HIM SPEAK!
Now you’ve made yourself very clear. You are an IRC channel Op of a small obscure country called #atheism on a planet called Undernet in an insignificant galaxy of IRC servers somewhere in a universe called the internet and as such you think your magic banning wand has ruined my life forever. When the ban gets removed again I will re-visit and stay as long as I am allowed chatting with people who use THEIR OWN BRAINS and choose for themselves whether or not to ignore me.

Hi Owlmirror – I think your prediction that PZ Myers will ban me puts him in an invidious position. If/when he bans me he will have to contend with the accusation that you were in some way his puppet master. It’s a bit like a spouse reminding their partner about an anniversary. How can the partner prove they would have bought the flowers anyway even without the reminder? It’s his blog. He makes the rules. Give him some credit. Perhaps PZ Myers doesn’t need to give flowers. Perhaps he doesn’t need reminding to give flowers. Or perhaps where free speech is concerned, like Mao Tse Tung, he prefers to let a thousand “flowers” bloom.

Lion (IRC)

PS – I owe a sincere thanks to Sastra and Walton for their acknowledgement of the possibility that there are some bona fide visitors to this blog who enjoy exchanging ideas.
I enjoy this blog and am grateful to PZ Myers for allowing me to post here - thus far. Janine says to me - go and start your own forum. Isn’t that a bit hypocritical? Using THIS blog to express your “don’t feed the trolls” view (to which you are entitled) that another person should not share their views? I try to stay on topic. I don’t say …”hey, you know that Bad Faith Poll reminds me of an amusing Creationism anecdote I heard the other day”. I never use…”the bible says I am right”. I don’t “hate” anybody or refer to their views as “stool water”.
I hope I am wrong but if Wowbagger is right and “peevishness” is the official reason I will be banned – I can at least say fair enough, shrug my shoulders and move on.

Posted by: Sastra | November 17, 2009 8:17 PM

Lion IRC #148 wrote:

PS – I owe a sincere thanks to Sastra and Walton for their acknowledgement of the possibility that there are some bona fide visitors to this blog who enjoy exchanging ideas.

You're welcome. And I'd like to take the opportunity then to ask a question which I asked you on a different thread, and I don't think I got an answer (though I may have; it was busy).

I asked you whether it was possible that you could be wrong about the existence of God -- that God does not exist, and never has existed?

And, if so, what would have to happen - or what would it take -- for you to realize/recognize this, and change your mind?

Thanks.

Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 17, 2009 8:36 PM

If/when he bans me he will have to contend with the accusation that you were in some way his puppet master.

This is rich because this is the person who wants PZ to turn this blog over the theists to prove the existence of god.

I asked you whether it was possible that you could be wrong about the existence of God -- that God does not exist, and never has existed?

Sastra, he did answer that question. He said that god can make itself not exist.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | November 17, 2009 8:49 PM

Sastra, he did answer that question. He said that god can make itself not exist.

Which tells you pretty much everything you need to know about Lion IRC - he's a cowardly, slimy, intellectually dishonest dipshit not worth wasting the effort on.

Posted by: SebastesMan | November 17, 2009 9:06 PM

I'm an op in Britomart's Undernet #Atheism channel and as far as I'm concerned that ban will not be lifted as long as I'm there. The problems were as most of you have witnessed here:

Evading questions while demanding his be answered.
Logical fallacies followed (usually) by a smug QED attitude.
and the #1 reason: The SAME arguments over and over and over ad nauseam (and yeah, most of us are nauseous)

I've thoroughly explained the pathways from sight to thought to nervous signal to muscle action to the lift rock.. multiple times.

Posted by: Sastra | November 17, 2009 9:12 PM

Janine The Ineffable, OM #155 wrote:

Sastra, I think I rather profanely pointed out that he avoided answering the question.

Yup, I think you did.

I wonder if he will answer it this time. Who knows?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | November 17, 2009 9:47 PM

Lion IRC's smugness is what annoys me most. I admit I can be smugger (is that a word?) than he, but I justify my smugness because I generally know what I'm talking about. Lion's smugicity is unwarranted. He doesn't discuss anything, he makes pronouncements. He misunderstands other peoples' arguments and answers questions nobody's asked while ignoring questions that have been asked.

Another annoying trait is his persecution complex. He whines about being banned before it's happened. He made the quite incorrect statement that one could be banned for quoting the Bible. (He also claimed one could be banned for using foul language, but since that claim was obviously false he hasn't repeated it.) He doesn't hate anyone but we all despise him. He relishes how he's being oppressed by people actually wanting him to justify certain assertions. Poor fluffy, nobody loves him, everybody hates him. he's gonna eat a worm.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 17, 2009 10:04 PM

Lyin' Lion. You could have condensed your post by half, and transmitted your information in a clearer fashion. All godbots are too stoopid to get to the point. Especially when they, and only they, think they are clever. You aren't clever, and your method is stoopid.

We're still waiting for your conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary deity. It must be hard to have to manufacture such evidence.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | November 17, 2009 10:17 PM

Could I exist and think mistaken or true thoughts about God being real if God had not created me in the first place – no. (I need to actually exist first to answer your questions)

Damn, Lyin' Irk, you've managed to answer yet again to answer a question that you weren't asked while ignoring the question Sastra asked you.

(You lucky lazy atheists)

As I said, you're smug without any justification for your smuggery.

Posted by: Sastra | November 17, 2009 10:31 PM

Lion IRC #161 wrote:

Could I exist and think mistaken or true thoughts about God being real if God had not created me in the first place – no. (I need to actually exist first to answer your questions)

No, this wasn't the question.

Consider it this way: we observe the world, and ourselves, together. Now, there are two possibilities:

1.) this was created by God
2.) this was not created by God, but exists through natural means.

Could either one be true?

The only way I could come to the view that there is no God would be for someone to prove to me that He did not cause the universe.

What could, or would, do that? Please give an example.

Posted by: Lion IRC | November 17, 2009 10:41 PM

I asked you whether it was possible that you could be wrong about the existence of God -- that God does not exist, and never has existed?
ANSWER
Could I exist and think mistaken or true thoughts about God being real if God had not created me in the first place – no. (I need to actually exist first to answer your questions)

And, if so, what would have to happen - or what would it take -- for you to realize/recognize this, and change your mind?
ANSWER
The only way I could come to the view that there is no God would be for someone to prove to me that He did not cause the universe.

Lion (IRC)
PS - Sebastesman - I doubt very much if anyone here regards anything I say as a demand. Ever banned a fellow atheist for disagreeing with your definition of science, logical fallacies, not answering your false dilemma questions to your satisfaction? Enough of the channel spamming already! Britomart beat you to it. (Along with claiming undeserved credit/blame for me posting in here. Enough of the "....look at me! I'm an Op in a chat room". You and 10,000 others. I am not an op anywhere and I dont have my own blog. Boo hoo! I wish I was as important as Sebastesman.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 17, 2009 10:47 PM

Could I exist and think mistaken or true thoughts about God being real if God had not created me in the first place – no.

I can't decide whether he really is so stupid that he's incapable of understanding Sastra's question, or whether he's just a slimy weasel unwilling to answer.

It's not your job to convince me. I have to persuade myself. I have the burden of proof to convince myself of an argument I find grossly illogical proposed by someone else who asserts they don’t need to provide any evidence.

same as above: is he that stupid, or that vile?

once more for the tardcat:
parsimony says I can't accept the existence of god just on your sayso. here is copypasta of the explanation you ran away from in another thread

Your argument that your God caused the universe rests on the following steps:

1)Everything natural (as opposed to supernatural) needs a cause
2)The supernatural exists
3)The supernatural doesn't need a cause
4)The supernatural is your version of God
5)Your God is the cause of the universe

that's five assumptions, one of them incorrect*, four of them completely unsubstantiated by evidence.

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

now, here's another argument and its steps:

1)Some things in the natural world come into existence without a cause
2)The universe exists
3)The universe might have developed from something that came into existence without a cause

now, this is three assumptions, the first two are established with evidence, and only the third is an unsubstantiated claim.

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

that makes one false and four unsubstantiated claims for you, and one unsubstantiated claim for me. parsimony dictates that I should go with the explanation with that accounts for available data and has the fewest unsubstantiated premises, so I'm gonna have to stick with mine.

unless you can fix the error in yours, and remove (or show solid evidence for) at least three of your unsubstantiated claims, my argument automatically wins against yours EVERY TIME.

=====================

*Virtual Particles for example don't have a cause

Posted by: Sastra | November 17, 2009 11:10 PM

Lion IRC #168 wrote:

Could I exist and think mistaken or true thoughts about God being real if God had not created me in the first place – no. (I need to actually exist first to answer your questions)

You would have to exist, yes. That's not the issue. It's how you came to be that's the issue. There might be no God, and you could be wrong about how you came to be.

Is that possible?

And if you are wrong, how would or could you discover that?

On such a planet humans could easily think God did not exist …………..IF……..they were able to wilfully suspend their desire to know how they got there.

In your scenario, where God exists, what if people do not "willfully suspend their desire to know" how they came to be? Could they just come to a mistaken conclusion anyway, and consider the universe natural, as an honest error?

Posted by: Britomart | November 17, 2009 11:26 PM

Lion said:

I have been banned from that place about 25 times in 13 years for reasons I understand very well. What I DON’T understand is why some other atheist Ops in that place remove those bans.

Well let me explain it to you, I am the one who removed your bans. I found myself continually amazed at how wrong you can be. I have enjoyed seeing you struggle to find ways to keep on your feet with one ridiculous idea after another. However, you long since ceased to amuse the rest of the folk on the channel and I agreed after the nonsense over Halloween that the time had come to for us to give up. You go right ahead and find new folk to laugh, if it has been indeed 13 years, we have been more than patient with you.

Some day, maybe you will learn logic, learn to listen, and just plain learn. Maybe.

Posted by: Lion IRC | November 17, 2009 11:33 PM

Jadehawk – you are wrong about my views.

Here they are for the record in case you think I run away from an argument. (Though I do get pushed away sometimes – Sebastesman!!!)

1)Everything natural (as opposed to supernatural) needs a cause.
Nope I don’t assert that God is supernatural and I don’t assert that just because one thing is created that its creator MUST therefore have also been caused. I regard that as having no greater foundation in logic or knowledge than saying NOTHING has a creator.

2)The supernatural exists.
Nope I do not accept the assertion that existence should be divided into natural and unnatural/supernatural. I say this is an arbitrary division made subjectively by humans whose store of knowledge has very big gaps and may include falsehoods.

3)The supernatural doesn't need a cause.
Nope I do not accept that assertion or the premise upon which it is based.

4)The supernatural is your version of God
Nope – God is just as natural as emotions, thought, force, free will. I don’t even think it very “miraculous” that God is able to do “miracles”. Yawn! Of course He can!

5)Your God is the cause of the universe
I call the cause of the universe – “God” I call the cause of a house – Carpenter. I call evolution creation in slow motion.

1)Some things in the natural world come into existence without a cause
I say nothing “comes into existence” spontaneously.

2)The universe exists
Agreed

3)The universe might have developed from something that came into existence without a cause
I say nothing “comes into existence” spontaneously.

Lion (IRC)
PS – The best way to get me to keep talking is to ask me questions or accuse me of being afraid to answer a question. Did I mention I enjoy discussing atheism/theism? Thanks to all concerned.

Posted by: Mack | November 17, 2009 11:42 PM

But that takes us back to a claim make many many times before:
If

nothing “comes into existence” spontaneously

Where did God come from?

Posted by: strange gods before me, OM | November 17, 2009 11:52 PM

Where did God come from?

Who, Yahweh?

Posted by: Mr T | November 18, 2009 12:01 AM

Nothing comes into existence spontaneously.

If we put aside objections from physics for the moment, since there's no way to distinguish between "Nothing" and "God", I don't really have a big problem with that claim.

Posted by: Mr T | November 18, 2009 12:06 AM

The best way to get me to keep talking is to ask me questions or accuse me of being afraid to answer a question.

I have no further questions. Your courage in answering questions is legendary.

Now, kindly STFU.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 18, 2009 12:10 AM

and now onto something slightly else. the tardkitteh is contradicting himself:

I don’t assert that just because one thing is created that its creator MUST therefore have also been caused.

and later in the same post

I say nothing “comes into existence” spontaneously.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 18, 2009 12:20 AM

or differently yet: is it possible that answer 1) is correct OR that answer 2) is correct; or does only one of the answers have the potential to be correct, while the other cannot, under any circumstances at all ever possibly true and shouldn't therefore even be considered a "possible answer"?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 18, 2009 12:34 AM

this was not created by God, but exists through natural means.

Until you show physical evidence for your deity, the world existing by natural means is the only explanation. You are a cowardly Lyin' Lion. Well past time to put up or shut up. But you can't do either. Which means your are nothing but a delusional fool, without any personal honor, truthfulness, or integrity. You are nobody we want to talk to due to your moral weaknesses. You are a bad con man.

Posted by: Owlmirror | November 18, 2009 1:16 AM

@ Sastra:

Because there's nothing Lion is doing, that isn't being done, isn't being said, again and again, by major apologists, religious leaders, pop preachers, politicians, friends, family, and the guy at the water cooler. Lion is not stupid, he's not acting in bad faith, he's not lying, and he's not insane.

Well, he's doing something wrong. Perhaps logic? In particular, his arrogant incoherent presuppositionalism. Other apologists end up there, of course -- but he lives there. I think that, in particular, is what irritates me.

Others, of course, may have different levels of irritation.

I disagree that he's not acting in bad faith, too, as I hope you may note from the postings following yours. Of course, I think that when it comes to religion, "major apologists, religious leaders, pop preachers, politicians, friends, family, and the guy at the water cooler" -- and the guy next door -- are also indeed arguing in bad faith.

The problem isn't Lion. It's religion. It really is that inane.

True, but "religion" isn't something that can really be separated from the human adherents thereof.

We might be wrong in calling religious/magical thinking "delusion" or "stupidity" or "bad faith" or "lying" or "insanity", but there is a problem with the very way they think and argue that I think we all recognize -- and they recognize too, when it's in support of something they don't believe in. What else might it properly be called? "Arrogant intellectual laziness"? "Disingenuous presuppositionalism"? "Denialistic denial of denialism"?

You can see his bad arguments, dressed up, and presented by theologians as irrefutable answers to the Doubter.

That's a good point. There aren't really that many arguments; just different ways of rephrasing the ones that there are.

Of course, some theists really are godbotting trolls, and need to be banned. I think that it's only the result of running into really, really bad cases a lot of times, which causes me to think Lion isn't as bad as all that.

Different people have different thresholds of annoyance.

And, too, the fact that there aren't that many arguments means that even if one particularly annoying godbot is banned, another one may very well come along who makes basically the same arguments, but in a less annoying way.

Posted by: Owlmirror | November 18, 2009 1:45 AM

I think your prediction that PZ Myers will ban me puts him in an invidious position. If/when he bans me he will have to contend with the accusation that you were in some way his puppet master.

You mean like my calling you "the embodiment of bad faith" puppet-mastered you into making a bad-faith argument like the above?

It’s his blog. He makes the rules. Give him some credit.

Exactly. I give him credit of being able to notice that you're breaking his rules, as he has enforced them before.

Or perhaps where free speech is concerned, like Mao Tse Tung, he prefers to let a thousand “flowers” bloom.

There are flowers, and there are flowers... What's the Australian equivalent of ragweed? Plantain ¹? You're a plantain flower.

______________________________________
1: (species of the genus Plantago, not to be confused with the banana relative)

Posted by: Owlmirror | November 18, 2009 3:47 AM

@#195:

I answered my own question, after searching on [Australian pollen allergen]. The weed most responsible for pollen allergies in Australia does appear to be called "plantain" (which is the equivalency to ragweed that I was looking for).

I'm the Pharyngula equivalent of a drummer in that sense: I just hang around with the people who do know the important stuff...

Chin up! You hold your own.

Posted by: Walton | November 18, 2009 4:53 AM

Janine @#140:

As far as I am concerned, the kind of discussions you are having online, you should be having in your dorm rooms with your fellow students.

Believe me, I do, very frequently. But my thirst for debate is insatiable. :-) Plus, bear in mind that outside term time, when I'm not in Oxford, I get bored at home with no one to talk to (hence why I commented here a lot more frequently between July and September than I do at the moment).

But, Walton, you are an intelligent person. You are willing to learn, to evaluate and change your mind. Despite all of your faults and your extreme willingness to bemoan your self perceived failings, you are trying to be honest and open.

Thank you. I sincerely appreciate your remarks.

Posted by: Lion IRC | November 18, 2009 9:04 PM

Hi Sastra,
The best way to avoid ambiguity is to avoid linking 2 questions into 1.
I am going to answer very simply.
Is it possible that 1.) this was created by God Answer – YES
Is it possible that 2.) this was not created by God. Answer – YES (Explanation - God could allow that)
Is it possible that 2a) the earth exists through natural means – YES (Explanation God is natural and if you call him unnatural/supernatural refer previous explanation)
Is it possible that the earth was created by no force irrespective of the name of that force? - NO (Explanation – Creator and creature are distinct)
Is it possible that the earth has no creator – YES (Proviso – if you can show the earth to have always existed ie. prior to the big bang/Genesis)

I hope that covers all your contingencies…”you misunderstood my question”…“lets start again”…”what does your answer YES really mean”

Before I leave this thread, I want to say that I do understand your desire to pin me down on “what evidence” would change my mind about God/Creation. I don’t think it fair that you ask me to give you the evidence which would change my mind because I don’t know of such evidence. But I do understand that you would like eliminate the possibility that I am simply trying to be a moving target or an incurable presuppositionalist. I am neither

An aspiring psychoanalyst once said he could cure a patient who thought he was a zombie using empirical evidence. He said to the patient …”zombies don’t bleed do they?” The patient said… “no of course not.” The psychoanalyst pricked the finger of the patient who bled and then declared… “well what do you know – zombies do bleed after all”

You want to do the equivalent with me and be sure the experiment is not a waste of your time – I understand. To assure you I am not a moving target I can give you a couple of things which, if proven, would make me accept atheism as probably true. The following 5 targets are fixed but I can’t give you the ammo to shoot. Take your time. You don’t need to convert me before I die.

1. If matter could be caused to come into existence (created) out of nothing by someone other than God.
2. If the power/mind/will which I assert created the universe could be demonstrated to have a limitation – ie. something God could NOT do if God wanted.
3. If the global population ratio of theists to atheists was reversed. Exclude agnostics. (See http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=742&start=275)
4. If a definition of morality could be given which did NOT derive from a higher power – eg. God, Democratic Vote, Canon of Reason, Superior Military.
5. If an explanation could be given for the claim that God was deliberately invented which does not include inherent self contradictions. – eg. God was invented as a means to enslave people yet church attendance is optional. Or God was invented to alleviate fear of death yet nobody uses imaginary anesthetic or eats imaginary food.

Lion (IRC)

Posted by: Lion IRC | November 18, 2009 9:25 PM

Hi Sebastesman/Britomart,
When/if you read this I want you to know that I couldnt stop wondering about the comment...
"that ban will not be lifted as long as I'm there"
And I thought about it over and over. And I was sound asleep last night then suddenly I sat bolt upright in bed and started laughing.
It came to me in flash. POW! The explanation which made it all clear to me. One word.
ULTIMATUM.
Wanna make a bet about whether or not we will chat again in that place?
Lion (IRC)
PS - Now I have one more reason to add to my "They banned me because" List.

Posted by: IaMoL | November 18, 2009 9:38 PM

Lion:
I'm in awe. Your willful ignorance/delusion is breathtaking. Have you been checked for sleep apnea?

Posted by: Lion IRC | November 18, 2009 9:40 PM

Hi Sven DeMilo,
Many well known theists have said this.
Can't think of any off hand.
If only there was an atheist science blogger I could ask.
Maybe PZ Myers might know the names of some atheists who claim God is an invention.
Lion (IRC)

Posted by: aratina cage of the OM | November 18, 2009 9:43 PM

Wanna make a bet about whether or not we will chat again in that place?

Silly Lion (IRC), don't you know to never admit you are trolling?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 18, 2009 9:47 PM

this was created by God Answer – YES

False, your deity doesn't exist, as you have provided no evidence for it.

Do you think the second case is possible?

No thinking, it is the fact without physical evidence for your deity. What part of that are you having trouble with? Oh, it's not in your script, and you can't think.

If matter could be caused to come into existence (created) out of nothing by someone other than God.

No, that would really imply another god exists, which isn't the case. And you know it. So the Lyin' Lion Lies Again.

something God could NOT do if God wanted.

You haven't shown god, ergo, this statement is a fallacy. Which you, Lyin' Lion, are full of.

If a definition of morality could be given which did NOT derive from a higher power

That isn't needed as hominid have been defining their morality for millions of years, in case you are to stoopid to have noticed.

So a lot of effort for pure ignorance. But that is the Lyin' Lion.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | November 18, 2009 9:56 PM

From his meandering remarks I gather that Lyin' Irk has decided that god must exist and there is no possible way for god not to exist. The concept of a godless universe is incomprehensible to him.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 18, 2009 10:03 PM

God can't get rid of Me.

Wanna bet?

ooooh! fight!fight!fight!

*gets the popcorn*

I love a good dose of Manichaeism in the evening...

Posted by: God | November 18, 2009 10:07 PM

Who would You blame for all the world's evil if I no longer existed?

You, of course. You don't have to exist for Me to blame You.

Posted by: Islander | November 18, 2009 10:11 PM

Lyin' Jerk says s/he will accept atheism as plausible if:

1. If matter could be caused to come into existence (created) out of nothing by someone other than God.

Silly non-sequitur. Atheists do not say matter came out of nothing, and you have absolutely no proof of a god, much less that she can create matter (of course you know that already).

2. If the power/mind/will which I assert created the universe could be demonstrated to have a limitation – ie. something God could NOT do if God wanted.

The stupid burns eternally within you. Watch what I can do: I worship an invisible unicorn who is eternal, can do anything, and created everything. Disprove it, or tell me something my unicorn can't do!

3. If the global population ratio of theists to atheists was reversed. Exclude agnostics. (See http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=742&start=275)

Okay, so whoever has the most heads wins. Since the most popular sect worldwide has fluctuated throughout history, I guess the religion you adhere to is based on statistics and not truth value. Or perhaps you simply lump all who believe in god together; if that's the case then I guess you have to admit that since the number of non-believers is growing, then theism is becoming less true.

4. If a definition of morality could be given which did NOT derive from a higher power – eg. God, Democratic Vote, Canon of Reason, Superior Military.

You haven't been paying much attention to this blog, have you? Morality is derived partly from our evolutionary heritage, partly from our culture. It is innate within us, and if one of these is what you call a 'higher power,' then I reject your nonsensical redefinition.

5. If an explanation could be given for the claim that God was deliberately invented which does not include inherent self contradictions. – eg. God was invented as a means to enslave people yet church attendance is optional. Or God was invented to alleviate fear of death yet nobody uses imaginary anesthetic or eats imaginary food.

Again, you haven't been paying attention. Philosophy and Evolutionary Psychology have given excellent reasons for mankind's invention of religion; Google the 'Intentional Stance' for example. No one has suggested that religion was invented to enslave others, but it certainly has been used as a tool for doing so, and the suggestion that attending church is optional TODAY somehow renders this contradictory is just plain simpleminded. Same goes for your examples of imaginary anaesthetic and imaginary food- we find out quickly that imagining these things is detrimental to us. We can't check to see if we were right about our hypothesis of an afterlife.

No one can be this breathtakingly vacuous without trying. That is why we call you Lyin' Jerk (and various plays off that nickname).

Posted by: AJ Milne | November 18, 2009 10:19 PM

Re Sastra's 'extreme example', I'm not really sure it so much is.

I mean, against the actual claims of many sects, that's pretty much the sort of thing you logically *should* be able to see, and wouldn't really be such an unreasonable standard of evidence to expect. It sounds absurd, it sounds 'extreme', sure, but then, so is what they claim.

Indeed, I could easily go further and say: look, there are prominent religions that claim their god is all-powerful, created the universe, and not especially averse to showing up on this planet and doing cool photogenic stunts involving some allegedly flashy tricks such as splitting seas in twain and so on... a better show really would be a reasonable demand to make--far more in character for this alleged performer than inspiring inbred hicks to rail on about urination, occasionally giving folk warm feelings of bein' watched... It's really only our long familiarity with the absurd juxtaposition of these spectacular claims on the one hand and the utterly unimpressive non-evidence for them on the other that we (and everyone else, including the believers) actually experience that makes an actually quite sensible extrapolation to such expected evidence seem unreasonable...

(/Shorter: religionists benefit from the starkly reduced expectations, long experience of them naturally breeds, here... Like a mechanic so spectacularly and consistently incompetent that we've all pretty much given up on him ever so much fixing the car, and will now call it close enough if he doesn't actually blow himself, the car, and the entire neighbourhood up trying.)

Posted by: Lion IRC | November 18, 2009 10:24 PM

Aratina Cage,

I answered Sastra with simple YES and NO replies.
Still not good enough?

For the record…

"I don't think it is possible that God could not exist"

I’m surprised you find the double negatives helpful in clarifying the matter.

I would be grateful to anyone who could provide me with a thought experiment that could assist me to get my head around the contrary atheist proposition.

Lion (IRC)

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 18, 2009 10:29 PM

Still not good enough?

No, not until you supply conclusive physical evidence for your deity. Unlike your previous failed and fallacious attempts.

would be grateful to anyone who could provide me with a thought experiment that could assist me to get my head around the contrary atheist proposition.

Very simple, show the conclusive physical evidence (like an eternally burning bush) for your deity. If you don't have any, it doesn't exist. And there is no evidence ergo, it doesn't exist. Simplicity itself, but it goes against your fallacious presupposition.

Posted by: aratina cage of the OM | November 18, 2009 10:34 PM

Like a mechanic so spectacularly and consistently incompetent that we've all pretty much given up on him ever so much fixing the car, and will now call it close enough if he doesn't actually blow himself, the car, and the entire neighbourhood up trying. -AJ Milne

Ha! Nice one. That could apply to any priest, proselytizer, or godbot (with the hope they don't get martyr complex). It's like their signs that warn of the Return of G-Buzz; my question to the sign owners would be, "Uh... it has been two millennia, you know. Maybe he's not coming back? Did that ever cross your mind?"

Posted by: God | November 18, 2009 10:41 PM

my Father is tired

I beg your pardon?

I (We)

You are not the boy.

made these commandments for man, not for Myself. I am perfectly at will to smash them and make new ones.

You mean, be a hypocrite? Like any mortal?

Really, Satan is the one who is supposed to be the Tempter.

I'll make this rule: Just as there is no such thing as 'black,' only the absence of all color, and there is no such thing as 'cold,' just the absence of heat, I declare there is no such thing as 'evil,' only the absence of all good.

Augustine of Hippo got that from Satan, originally.

Posted by: Jesus H. Chrizist | November 18, 2009 10:48 PM

You mean, be a hypocrite? Like any mortal?

What about when You first handed out the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" and then told Moses to go commit genocide, like, minutes later?

Posted by: Satan | November 18, 2009 11:01 PM

What about when You first handed out the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" and then told Moses to go commit genocide, like, minutes later?

God's voice and My voice sound exactly the same to mortals.

It's led to some very odd results, of course, that God disclaims all blame for.

Posted by: Jesus H. Chrizist | November 18, 2009 11:08 PM

Lion (IRC),

My son, I have been watching you hard at work, day in and day out, trying to defend my honor. I know I'm not supposed to say this, but will you please stop? You make me look bad. Also, that thing you do on your lonely Saturday nights in the shower is DISGUSTING, and I see it everytime. Stop it.

P.S. I don't know why you always mention Hitchens at random moments, but he's my drinking buddy. Stop that too.

Posted by: Satan | November 18, 2009 11:23 PM

You do understand dont you, that it is a rule to benefit us - humans.

Which is why it still meets your criteria for your point #4, moron. That which benefits humans does not derive from God; it derives from the fact that it is beneficial.

Gods laws dont benefit God.

And God not deriving benefit from any laws is a corroboration that those laws do not derive from God.

Truth exists no matter whether we agree with it or not - no matter whether we have heard it spoken or not.
That rather bears out my point about morality transcending whether or not you have heard it.

In other words, your point #4 is, once again, answered. Morality does not derive from God or require God to exist by your own arguments.

Sorry for the "silly" ad hom. I wouldnt do that to a human - but you are different.

I'm not the least bit sorry for calling you a moron, because you are one.

Posted by: Britomart | November 20, 2009 3:31 PM

And there is Lion, gone!