Now on ScienceBlogs: HeartlandGate: Anti-Science Institute's Insider Reveals Secrets
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
The fact is that camels are far more intelligent than dolphins. Footnote: Never trust a species that grins all the time. It's up to something.
(Terry Pratchett, Pyramids)
« The dead are dead | Main | Science stupid! Science lies! »
More articles by PZ Myers can be found on Freethoughtblogs at the new Pharyngula!
Category: Godlessness • Pointless polls
Posted on: December 10, 2009 2:19 PM, by PZ Myers
New Zealand will be getting signs saying "there's probably no god" slapped onto buses trundling about, and naturally, the newspapers want to hear what you think about that.
Yes 37.2%
No 49.0%
I'm not sure 13.6%
I don't know. I would have thought New Zealanders could do better than that. Maybe if I close my eyes and wish real hard, those numbers will change.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/126880
HTML commands: <i>italic</i>, <b>bold</b>, <a href="url">link</a>, <blockquote>quote</blockquote>
Orac 02.14.2012
Tim Lambert 02.01.2012
Jason Rosenhouse 02.12.2012
Orac 01.26.2012
ERV 11.26.2011
Comments
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
December 10, 2009 2:26 PM
Shouldn't the question be, "is there probably a God?"
I still don't get the point of that qualifier on the signs.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
December 10, 2009 2:36 PM
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
December 10, 2009 2:44 PM
I think all of those signs (and polls) should use more generic language when talking about "god".
Such as:
"Do you think deities exist?" - poll
"Don't believe in deities? You're not alone" - ad
I just think the subtle change in language gets people, especially the religious, to consider the concept from a perspective that does not presuppose the existence of a specific version of god. I know it's subtle and may seem somewhat goofy. However, when speaking in those terms with religionists I seem to have much more success getting ideas through to them as to why I am atheist.
My usual line goes something like:
"I'm not sure there is good reason for anyone to think deities exist"
That one usually seems to put a crooked look on their face. I think it's because for a split second they agree - because in their mind their god is not just some ole deity - but then they hit a brick wall and realize he (she/it) is.
Posted by: sasqwatch
|
December 10, 2009 2:46 PM
Alzo sprach ParaZustra.
Posted by: cypress
|
December 10, 2009 2:52 PM
Um, what about the story link on the side for the "Holy Cow?"
http://www.stuff.co.nz/oddstuff/3147307/Divine-sign-on-cow-born-in-Conneticut
Posted by: skeetar
|
December 10, 2009 2:52 PM
Shit in one hand, wish in the other.
Posted by: athensguy
|
December 10, 2009 2:59 PM
I'm not sure where my admission that I can't be 100% certain there is no god gets Xtians. I can still be 100% certain that their religion is false.
Posted by: Kristian
|
December 10, 2009 3:06 PM
The question was a bit problematic. They asked "Is there a god?" The obvious answer would be "I'm not sure" Whether you are a believer or atheist shouldn't matter.
A better formulation would have been "Do you THINK there is a god?"
Posted by: Desert Son, OM
|
December 10, 2009 3:11 PM
At time of voting, showing:
Yes
1094 votes, 28.8%
No
2244 votes, 59.0%
I'm not sure
463 votes, 12.2%
Still learning,
Robert
Posted by: Treppenwitz
|
December 10, 2009 3:11 PM
Do you have information that shows the existence of gods to be impossible rather than just absurdly improbable?Posted by: jojame
|
December 10, 2009 3:14 PM
Scientist fudging data.
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
December 10, 2009 3:21 PM
The No's are gaining!
Posted by: Givesgoodemail
|
December 10, 2009 3:28 PM
When you ask Jane Q. Public "Is there a God?" in just those words, you're basically filtering faithful Christians from everyone else.
It'd be a lot more fun to filter Christians through the entrance to a large, deep hole, but that's just me.
Posted by: Cyberguy
|
December 10, 2009 3:31 PM
As far as the NZ Atheist Bus campaign is going, it has only been going for one day and it is already a third of the way to its target. This will only ramp up as more people become aware of it.
Posted by: godisatool
|
December 10, 2009 3:34 PM
This seems to be moving in a reasonable direction:
Yes
1378 votes, 26.8%
No
3164 votes, 61.6%
I'm not sure
597 votes, 11.6%
Total 5139 votes
Although, polls such as this are pretty easy to manipulate (you can vote more than once).
Posted by: tsg
|
December 10, 2009 3:34 PM
Not for me. I'm as sure there is no god as I am there is no Santa Claus, leprechauns or unicorns.
I think that's implied in the question. How many people are going to answer "yes, there is a god, but I don't think there is" or "no, there isn't, but I think there is"?
Posted by: jojame
|
December 10, 2009 3:37 PM
Using Mike's Nature trick we can show there being more people disbelieving in God.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
December 10, 2009 3:45 PM
Do you have information that shows the existence of Cthulhu to be impossible rather than just absurdly improbable?
Would you be dishonest if you wrote that Cthulhu doesn't exist?
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Rawnaeris
|
December 10, 2009 3:45 PM
We need either the bus campaign or the billboards to come here to D/FW. I'm really getting tired of every other ad being an "I Am Second" or my personal least favorite a local hospital has "What good is medicine without FAITH?"
And before the Texan jokes start, most of us really aren't bat-shit crazy. It's just that the bat-shit crazies have all the money.
Posted by: UXO
|
December 10, 2009 3:46 PM
Is there a God?
Yes
1526 votes, 26.2%
No
3620 votes, 62.2%
I'm not sure
675 votes, 11.6%
Total 5821 votes
Posted by: tsg
|
December 10, 2009 3:48 PM
"God does not exist" is not the same statement as "god cannot exist."
I don't need to prove it's impossible for an orange coffee cup to be on my desk to know there isn't one there.
Posted by: sam.murthy
|
December 10, 2009 4:07 PM
PZ,
A point that I have subscribed to over reading evolutionary psychology books is that religion is a successful meme because it convinces people to propagate it -- Dawkins put it as something like the god meme is a virus of the brain. I understand the atheists' contempt for religiosity, but are you not falling into the same sort of meme trap by spending so much energy to try to change people's minds about faith?
Dont think I should need to disclose my position to make an argument effectively, but I am actually indifferent to religion / god and am a regular reader of pharyngula.
Regards, smurfy
Posted by: daveau
|
December 10, 2009 4:16 PM
If god did exist, s/he could always win these polls.
Posted by: Fair Dinkum
|
December 10, 2009 4:28 PM
I wonder if someone will lodge an official complaint in New Zealand? 326 did in Britain.
Please no sniggering.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7818980.stm
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/news/news/2009/Atheist+bus+ad+campaign+not+in+breach+of+advertising+code.htm
We didn't have poll though.
But we did do this.....
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/23/god_poll/
Cheerio
Posted by: jams.n.tones
|
December 10, 2009 4:34 PM
I am so glad you've sent people over to this poll. It needed it. The comments section needs some smackdown as well... The believers' comments are hideous and ALL THE SAME... do they not read through the comments section before vomiting their own thoughts into the internet?? Summary here: http://developinggeneticist.blogspot.com/2009/12/theres-probably-no-god.html
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
December 10, 2009 4:45 PM
Posted by: Kraid
|
December 10, 2009 4:46 PM
This is the birthplace of Ray Comfort we're talking about.Posted by: llewelly
|
December 10, 2009 4:53 PM
It's a concession to people who have a pedantic obsession with the fact that no entity can ever disproved with perfect certainty.Posted by: kopd
|
December 10, 2009 4:58 PM
That's only true for logically consistent entities which don't make falsifiable predictions, though.
Posted by: Thomathy
|
December 10, 2009 5:22 PM
#22 'A point that I have subscribed to over reading evolutionary psychology books is that religion is a successful meme because it convinces people to propagate it -- Dawkins put it as something like the god meme is a virus of the brain. I understand the atheists' contempt for religiosity, but are you not falling into the same sort of meme trap by spending so much energy to try to change people's minds about faith?'
It's odd that you ask, since you blatantly contradict yourself by saying, 'but I am actually indifferent to religion / god.'
But, whatever. I don't think the meme analogy is any good. It actually is terrible and fraught with short-comings. Never mind that either.
I don't think there's a chance of atheism (or faithlessness) being a successfully spread idea only because people are convinced to propagate it. That is, I don't think it will be analogous to religiosity and it certainly isn't to faith. It's a bit more demanding of a person to have reasons to believe something than just faith. If religion is easily spread because it's easy to convince people of it (and I'm not sure that it is considering the number of children whose simple questions have always been unsatisfactorily answered by religion), then irreligion is harder to spread because it requires more, critical thinking takes work. I just can't imagine it falling into the same 'meme trap'.
Posted by: kelvin
|
December 10, 2009 5:35 PM
We need some of those ads here in Toronto, Canada. Those bible ads on the public transit piss me off everytime I see'em.
Posted by: raven
|
December 10, 2009 5:44 PM
WTF??? Sam, there is so much wrong with your paragraph it is hard to even know where to start.
1. Because we can't do everything, we should do nothing is a fallacy. In point of fact, xianity is dying in the USA all by itself. We just cheer it on and give it a little nudge once in a while.
2. The religion meme isn't all powerful. Prosperous, free societies shed it quite readily. No one misses it.
3. There is not one religion meme. There are countless religion memes dueling it out for head space. Sometimes they duel it out in the real world with real weapons and rivers of blood flow. Some are much more malevolent than others. I can live with someone who claims to be a Deist. I have a hard time with a xian or moslem fundie fanatic who thinks all infidels should be killed including all the Fake Xians and Moslems.
4. There are a lot of memes that push out the religion one. Science works, freedom is good, killing for god(s) is evil, who would jesus torture and kill is a silly question, being dumb, crazy, and fundie is a poor lifestyle choice, and on and on.
I can see you have caught the "It's hopeless so I'll sit down and get drunk until I die" meme. Whatever, but the hangovers with that meme make it short lived for most normal adults.
Posted by: eddie
|
December 10, 2009 7:44 PM
That's why they tell you to stop worrying.Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
December 10, 2009 7:46 PM
Yes 3009 votes, 23.8%
No 8234 votes, 65.2%
I'm not sure 1391 votes, 11.0%
Total 12634 votes
Posted by: jsteemson
|
December 10, 2009 7:50 PM
Yes! I'm glad this campaign has finally reached our shores. I'm more then a little bit proud to have an actual secular government, with overtly religious political parties not gaining even a toe-hold. We don't have an official "separation" policy here, but we are a relatively enlightened electorate and don't put up with religiously motivated twaddle. The last "christian" party got fewer votes then the size of their congregation...
For example, the centre-right party currently in government has a gay minister in cabiner, we had a Rastafarian MP for a couple of terms and elected our first transexual MP a couple of elections ago.
Incidentally, we also were the first in the world to give women the vote, and can honestly claim the best race-relations in a post-colonial country. *blatant self-promotion*
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
December 10, 2009 7:55 PM
Yes, Australia certainly seems like a nice place.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus
|
December 10, 2009 8:21 PM
Dear Brother/Sister Kraid @27
Noo Zillund is indeed the birthplace of Brother Ray Cumfart. But he is not the only devout Christian missionary to the atheists that the Pacific's triple star has produced. I, Smoggy Batzrubble, God's missionary to the pharyngulean hordes am also a born and bred Noo Zillunder and I swear to you, upon my own Holy Brible, that I am going to mobilise the members of my Church of the Eternal Blow Job to protest this outrage.
I've already written our Battle Hymn:
Onward Christian Suckers,
Do not shut your mouths,
This filth we just won't swallow,
The bus is God's own house.
God's greatness is upon our lips,
The Holy Spirit comes,
And we commune with Jesus,
By munching on his buns.
So keep your slogans off the bus,
We don't care if you're right,
God doesn't want you happy,
His bark reflects his bite.
AMEN
Posted by: spiralist
|
December 10, 2009 9:30 PM
I'm just dissapointed that Australia knocked the bus campaign back. Bloody Kiwis. grumble grumble.
Posted by: Alethios
|
December 10, 2009 11:56 PM
Rather interesting discussion of whether this campaign is necessary over at one of our countries foremost left wing blogs.
http://www.thestandard.org.nz/against-the-atheist-bus-campaign/#comments
I'm against the authors position, but it is an interesting point.
Posted by: Andreas Johansson
|
December 11, 2009 3:13 AM
87% 'No' as of right now.
Posted by: Dean Jones
|
December 11, 2009 4:36 AM
Re: Kristian "The question was a bit problematic. They asked "Is there a god?" The obvious answer would be "I'm not sure" Whether you are a believer or atheist shouldn't matter.
A better formulation would have been "Do you THINK there is a god?" "
Actually, the question wasn't "Is there a god?" it was "Is there a God?" - capital G.
Personally I took that to reference the Judeo-Islamic-Christian deity, because they're the ones who seem to think calling their god by an actual name is somehow insulting him (Allah means 'The god')...and the idea of THAT god is so patently absurd I feel confident in stating categorically that there is no God.
Posted by: Richard Eis
|
December 11, 2009 5:01 AM
-Maybe if I close my eyes and wish real hard, those numbers will change.-
One ruby slippered (its my day off) flying monkey wish coming right up.
and a miracle has occured. Congrats PZ, you just went and proved wishing works. James Randi is going to be awful mad at you.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
December 11, 2009 5:12 AM
Don't like the "probably is not" either.
Better have made it "very unlikely there is", with reference to the unlikeliness of leprechauns, teapots in space and elfs, or something.
Suspect the current one flies over most people's heads, too nice, not confronting enough.
Posted by: blacksteel42
|
December 11, 2009 6:29 AM
When I checked the NZ Atheist Bus site this morning they had 800NZD up in donations. That's about 45USD or 3 chickens, a goat and a piglet in the South Pacific. It's now up to 12,000NZD 12 hours later. Great stuff. See you in Melbourne!
Stewpid MT login wont work
Posted by: Quasarsphere
|
December 11, 2009 8:53 AM
While it is true that NZ is the birthplace of Ray Comfort, when I gleefully related this wonderful news to a great many friends and acquaintances, those who asked "who the fuck is Ray Comfort?" vastly outnumbered those who asked "who the fuck is Richard Dawkins?"
Nobody gives a shit about Comfort here.
Posted by: Andyman
|
December 11, 2009 9:09 AM
I agree with Quasar - personally I never heard of Ray Discomfort till I met Pharyngula.
There is also a discussion on one of the NZ tv channel websites.
http://www.3news.co.nz/Atheist-bus-message---encouraging-conversation-or-hatred-/tabid/1153/articleID/133701/cat/991/Default.aspx
The posting on there may actually surprise you.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
December 11, 2009 10:38 AM
Does this mean I win the million dollars?Posted by: Richard Eis
|
December 11, 2009 10:48 AM
Did you fill in the prerequisite form with notary signatures?
Well, looks like Randi is safe once again. Yay bureaucracy.
Posted by: toth
|
December 11, 2009 12:35 PM
We just need to get Jemaine and Bret to endorse it, and we'll be set.
Posted by: William
|
December 11, 2009 2:31 PM
Update
Is there a God?
Yes
18898 votes, 26.8%
No
49588 votes, 70.2%
I'm not sure
2115 votes, 3.0%
Total 70601 votes
Posted by: Kamaka
|
December 11, 2009 3:11 PM
Hmmm...some Māori I've spoken with would tend to disagree
Posted by: SNAFU
|
December 11, 2009 3:18 PM
The Yes vote is surging back, last night it was down around 11% and the No vote was slightly over 89%.
Is the poll being unpharyngulated?
Go No!
Posted by: Squirel52
|
December 11, 2009 3:54 PM
After only 30 hours we trounced the $10,000 mark, and are nearly at $15K :D
I think the "probably no god" is an important exercise in intellectual honesty - the god-nuts claim complete certainty in the absense of any evidence. We, of course, would argue that complete lack of evidence is a really good reason to *not* believe but to claim complete certainty would be supremely arrogant. The whole point of this campaign is to encourage the belief that living your life on the assumption that sky-daddy is watching you and judging you is not only daft, but damaging. "Probably" does that just as well as "definitely", but leaves the god-bothers without a single leg to stand on when they try to take us down
Posted by: Squirel52
|
December 11, 2009 4:01 PM
Also, i just found my favourite god-botherer comment with the article:
"A.D. #330 10:47 am Dec 11 2009
THERE IS A GOD. SO STOP YOUR CLOSE MINDEDNESS AND MAKE SOME INVESTIGATIONS."
Absolute statement of supreme knowledge impervious to any rational argument, "stop being closed minded".
Do they not even see the irony of their statement?!
Posted by: Kamaka
|
December 11, 2009 6:37 PM
Squirel52 @ 53,
Your post makes sense to me from a logistical point of view and more power to you if you have something to do with the billboards.
The claim of complete certainty is owned by the preachers and their gullible flocks. There is no arrogance in calling bullshit on stuff that is obviously made up...heaven, hell, angels, devils, the shit is supremely preposterous. But, yes, I get it, let's take it easy on the fools.
My billboard campaign would never fly:
GOD Nothing more than an infinite regress.
Posted by: Sarah
|
December 11, 2009 9:35 PM
The lack of solid evidence does some discredit to the notion of God existing,but merely the lack of evidence cannot prove with certainty that God is non-existent. Simply because there is no tangible evidence as of yet does not mean that none will be found in the future. From a logical perspective, God is highly improbable, but not impossible, either. If we were to apporach life thinking that because something is "improbable" that it will never happen, we would never make any progress, and the development of science itself would have never occured.
Therefore the only logical answer to a poll such as this would be "I don't know." How can anyone claim with any amount of certainty anything else?
The close-mindedness talked about earlier in this discussion applies to believers of both sorts - if you choose to decide that God does or doesn't exist without substantial evidence than how can you dare to say that your claim is anything more than personal opinion?
Posted by: John Morales
|
December 11, 2009 10:09 PM
Sarah:
Replace 'God' with anything mythological (e.g. Thor, Santa Claus, Cthulhu, Sirens, Leprechauns) in the above quote and it's every bit as compelling.
Does that tell you anything about your argument? ;)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 11, 2009 10:25 PM
Yep, but in order to make things parsimonious, the default position is that dog doesn't exist. Therefore, physical evidence is required so that the existence of dog is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Just like a man is supposedly innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of doubt in a court of law. Do you have that evidence, or just blather?Posted by: Sarah
|
December 12, 2009 2:26 PM
What you say may be good enough for most people, but for me, the 'default position' you speak of is still based on assumptions. Also:
That can go two ways; how about God being innocent until proven guilty? Although there is no solid evidence, and you no doubt believe the bible and everything else is extremely fictitious, I haven't seen or read anything yet to convince me on solid, empirical evidence that these things are lies. Of course I don't have evidence proving he is; otherwise I wouldn't say that "I don't know" whether God exists. I'm pretty sure if I had solid evidence I'd be saying "yes he does"
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
December 12, 2009 2:42 PM
Sarah, the mistake you are making is the assumption that the creator god is the god you worship. There are many thousands of gods to worship, how do you know that your's is the right one. This is not a fifty-fifty propasition. Do not assume that all of those gods are automatically your's.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
December 12, 2009 3:20 PM
Sarah,
Let's assume in arguendo that your god exists and is well described in the Bible. Accordingly, we discover Ol' Yahweh is is a really nasty, petulant bully with the emotional maturity of a spoiled six year old. In Exodus various plagues are inflicted on Egypt because Pharaoh's heart was hardened towards Moses. Why was Pharaoh's heart hardened? Because Yahweh made it so. Innocent Egyptians suffered because Yahweh was playing silly games.
There are lots of other examples where Yahweh fucked over people just because he could. For instance, at one point the Prophet Elisha was wandering around and got insulted by a bunch of boys for being bald. "He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths." (2 Kings 2:24 NIV). I can hear Elisha whining: "Lord, those kids are being snotty to me, time to do some smiting." Yahweh sure taught those brats a lesson. That was probably the last time those 42 children were ever rude to Elisha.
Your "loving, benevolent" god is an asshole. It doesn't say much for you that you feel the need to worship a sadistic bully.
Posted by: Sarah
|
December 12, 2009 3:20 PM
I think saying "I don't know" whether God exists kind of points out that I don't worship any God. I don't know which one is the right one, or if there is a right one, or if there is nothing. I don't make any assumptions because I admit that I know nothing.
As far as believing in a God of any sort goes, I don't see why people are so quick to shoot it down; ignorance is bliss. If people want to believe then why not let them? It doesn't do any harm except give people hope and direction to believe in a God.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
December 12, 2009 3:32 PM
If all they wanted to do was believe and let the rest of us go our separate ways we'd have no problem with the goddists. Unfortunately, certain goddists want the rest of us to comply with various parts of their superstition.\
There are folks out there who not only believe in creationism but insist that the rest of us believe as well. There are a bunch of homophobic priests and pastors who want to deny gays and lesbians basic rights because "God thinks taking it up the ass is icky!" The Pope, who's a professional virgin, lies about condoms and AIDS because he thinks God thinks condoms are sinful.
Posted by: SC OM
|
December 12, 2009 3:32 PM
This is curious. So if a compass gave people "direction" to drive off cliffs it would be useful and harmless? You wouldn't want it recalled?
Posted by: negentropyeater
|
December 12, 2009 3:52 PM
@sarah,
Do you really need examples of how people can do a lot of harm (to others and themselves) for a bit of hope and direction, whether it comes from religion or a political ideology ?
Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas
|
December 12, 2009 4:15 PM
Sarah,
True - which is why, stricto sensu, I'm an agnostic. But I would also quote Marcus Aurelius:
"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."
He sums it up well. Of course it's possible that there might be a god or gods; you're correct that we can't positively prove the contrary. But we also can't disprove the existence of fairies or leprechauns; does this mean that we should live our lives on the assumption that these things exist?
For most atheists, atheism doesn't mean "a cast-iron belief that there cannot possibly be a god." That's a straw-man version of atheism. If someone showed me evidence that the Judeo-Christian God, or any other god or gods, actually exists, then I would gladly convert in a heartbeat.
I agree with this up to a point; I see no reason to go around trying to "convert" people to atheism. If other people want to believe in gods, and it makes them happy, it's not for me to prevent them doing so.
At the same time, I believe that truth is important, and I'm honest and open about my lack of belief. I also believe it's important for non-theists (and theists, for that matter) to campaign actively for secular government and for the separation of church and state; this benefits people of all religious persuasions, since it prevents the majority imposing their preferred sectarian views on the minority.
Posted by: echidna
|
December 12, 2009 5:39 PM
Oh Sarah,
you are being disingenuous.
The bible contains many assertions that are not true. One absolutely crucial one:
There was no one standing in front of Jesus who was still alive at the second coming.
The solid and empirical evidence you seek is that the world did not end 1900 years ago.
Posted by: Sarah
|
December 12, 2009 6:35 PM
There are a lot of people in the world who tend to misinterpret things.
For example, war games on Xbox or PS3's - just because some people get the wrong idea of a game and may turn out to hurt/kill other people, does it mean that the game is at fault?
I have no doubt there are people who take things too far, but usually there are many other things that contribute to a person causing wrong.
For the majority of people, religion is a way of continuing to live their lives in the best way possible. Whether religious or not, everyone must have their own way of dealing with life's problems. Some people choose to do it through believing in a God. If it works for them then why destroy it?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 12, 2009 6:52 PM
It's irrational, which is never a help, since their imaginary deity doesn't exist. Period. End of story.Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
December 12, 2009 6:57 PM
Sarah #68
I'm trying to decide if you're naive, disingenuous, or a troll.
In my post #63 I gave several examples of people "who take things too far." You're blithely waving these away.
The Mormon and Catholic Churches are actively involved in a campaign to deny civil rights to gays and lesbians. Large numbers of fundamentalists are working hard to have superstition taught in public schools in place of science. A Catholic archbishop would prefer a nine year old rape victim die in childbirth than have an abortion. The justifications for these actions are religious.
As I said before, if they want to believe but don't inflict their beliefs on the rest of us then there's no problem. It's when they insist that we follow their beliefs even though we don't believe that we complain.