Pharyngula

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 14, 2010 9:55 AM

they [the good old atheists] knew that inside us we have a deep desire for fulfillment, truth, goodness, justice…in other words, for God.

Yep, that pretty much invoked the reaction you thought it would.

Apparently the good Father hasn't read his bible either because I find many instances that directly contradict those definitions of God.

Posted by: otrame | May 14, 2010 9:59 AM

I've gotten this occasionally: "I can't believe you are an atheist. You seem to enjoy your life so much."

My usual response is: "The truth will set you free."

Posted by: Ben Goren | May 14, 2010 10:06 AM

What never ceases to amaze me is how all these god-botherers always assume that the gods we don’t believe in are their own gods.

That’s the beauty of the Stephen F Roberts quote. If Barron were ever to realize that, to us, his pantheon (Jesus, YHWH, Satan, Jonah’s sea monster, Moses, Adam, the rest) is as silly as the Hindu pantheon is to him…well, if he were, he’d be able to take off that silly god chain ’round his neck.

It’d also be really nice if some of them could pass Logic 101. “Your hunger for food proves that food is real; therefore, your hunger for existential meaning in your life proves that my imaginary friends are real; ergo(t), you should eat this cracker.” Dude. What the fuck?

Cheers,

b&

--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''

Posted by: Tim Harris | May 14, 2010 10:14 AM

What a very silly, superficial and self-important little man. And he thinks he is in a position to judge Sartre, whom I have no particular liking for but who was no fool, and Camus.

Posted by: Tulse | May 14, 2010 10:15 AM

Apparently longing for truth, goodness, and justice didn't prevent this Catholic priest's peers and superiors from hiding evil acts from secular law enforcement, contradicting all three of those qualities. Why are we to believe that religion offers fulfillment of this "deep desire" when its most ardent adherents fail to demonstrate these qualities?

Posted by: Scott | May 14, 2010 10:17 AM

I'm so fucking sick of the argument that comfort is a good reason for believing in a god. It is true, at least for me, that having an unquestioning faith is easier than facing up to the occasionally harsh realities of life, but so what? We get NOWHERE with that kind of thinking.

Posted by: lykex | May 14, 2010 10:19 AM

But hey, their weird insecurities ain't my problem.

Yes, they are. They'll make damn sure of that.

As have already been pointed out, the problem is that this guy
a) has based his entire world view on a foundation of god
b) is completely incapable of understanding that there might potentially be any other way to see the world

I bet you he's also one of those guys who think we secretly believe in god, but just deny it because we want to sin.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 14, 2010 10:21 AM

They

grumble

Posted by: Femion | May 14, 2010 10:24 AM

Dude has clearly never had a dog. Dogs aren't some noble creature without greed. Dogs will eat until they puke and then eat some more.

Posted by: steve | May 14, 2010 10:30 AM

Or as Pat Condell once said ...buddhism - a religion with no gods, like a prison with no walls.

Posted by: palaeodave | May 14, 2010 10:30 AM

Tulse at #9 gets a small round of applause from me.

Numenaster at #14 hits the nail on the head, as far as I'm concerned. Father Barron's dog analogy is ridiculous on its own terms as he allowed the dog's happiness to include being surrounded by a loving family and then omits it from an atheist's life! Although that's hardly surprising if he's a Catholic priest, since they aren't (normally*) allowed to have their own families, so it makes sense to me that his sense of love and fulfilment would have to come from religion. No sane minister with a family would try to make that argument.

* Anglican priests (complete with wife and kids) can become Catholic priests.

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | May 14, 2010 10:35 AM

I've never felt life was pointless, hopeless, or without wonder. Why do religious freaks feel a need to project their own fear of death onto me? I am happy, fulfilled, inquisitive, friendly, charitable, kind, helpful, and loved. And even if I do say all of those things myself, they are true from my own point of view, and they are sufficient. (Although that list is hardly an exhaustive roll of my personal virtues - obviously not!)

Why do these pricks all assume that we arrive at atheism via religion? I am not and never have been religious, I have never had that god-shaped hole in my life. The more sophisticated intellectual arguments for atheism came later, and simply confirmed my own mind, but I didn't need to actively reject a religion.

The childishness of the fanaticism which prevents religious folk from understanding that I'm not rejecting their god, but that I simply don't believe there is any real thing to reject, is frustrating.

There are things which have not been even imagined by humans that I do not believe in, and the effort to do so is no more than that required for me not to believe in gods. They assume that atheism takes some kind of effort, whereas I know that it takes no more effort than the literally infinite number of other beliefs which I do not hold.

Posted by: louis.ressler | May 14, 2010 10:35 AM

I wrote a thesis on Camus in college so to see his name mangled like this is painful. Despair was not the end of the line for Camus. Just a couple of his quotes:

"If there is a sin against life, it consists perhaps not so much in despairing of life as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this life."

"In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer."

Posted by: justawriter | May 14, 2010 10:37 AM

It's especially amusing to me because of my path of drifting from Catholicism to Universalism to atheism. I could never accept that billions of genuinely good people would never find joy in an afterlife because they sat in the wrong building on the wrong holy day. How can someone not be joyful at the realization that everyone you love and respect will not spend an eternity of torment at the hands of a vengeful and sadistic deity?

Posted by: amphiox | May 14, 2010 10:40 AM

The equation of fulfillment, truth, goodness, and justice with god is what theists do

I think it is often more than just an "equation". For most theists, especially the self-identified "moderate" ones, "truth, goodness, and justice", etc, is actually their definition of "god". And whatever passages in their preferred holy text that contradict this personal definition, they are happy to consider metaphorical (if they even realize such passages exist), while those that confirm this definition, are, of course, the literal TRUTH(tm).

And that is why they are so discombobulated by atheists, because in their worldview, "goodness" and "god" cannot be separated, and to them rejected either one is rejecting both.

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | May 14, 2010 10:41 AM

I hate this kind of 'atheism needs to be justified to be considered valid' bullshit.

No it fucking doesn't. No more than not accepting astrology is capable of telling us anything about ourselves or the future needs to be justified, or not believing in leprechauns needs to be justified, or not liking Céline fucking Dion needs to be justified.

And don't start me on theists (or faitheists) blathering on about Camus. Loyal Intersection Lying Suckhole Anthony McCarthy does that so I've decided it's the hallmark of a true pissant.

Posted by: Androly-San | May 14, 2010 10:54 AM

I posted a few comments (hate the 500 character limitation on YT):

"So fulfillment, truth, goodness and justice are unattainable without a god? What an absolutely moronic thing to say. Imbeciles such as "Father" Barron are the reason religion is ridiculed.
Sorry Barron, but in the age of information, your babbling holds no ground and your petty religion is doomed to die (as have so many others in the past). There is simply too much evidence against everything you stand for (including the church's tainted morals).
Oh, and btw, your god is undeserving of worship."

"
11 minutes ago
What a truly pathetic human being he who finds life absurd without the comfort of an imaginary being. How completely undeserving of the amazing chance that life is.
By existing, you have defied great odds. A remarkable sequence of events took place to produce you. 13.7 billion years of preparation got you to this moment and here you are concerned that your imaginary friend in the sky might not exist.
I feel sorry for you and those who share your belief."

"We need no higher purpose in life. We need no pre-determined mission. We make our lives worth living. Our only mission in this beautiful planet is to make the best of the little time we have. We work to understand what got us here, not to make up irrational explanations for what we don't understand.
Your disgusting belief system has held sway for far too long and humankind is finally awakening from a long slumber.
Scientists are a million times more deserving of our appreciation than your god."

Posted by: destlund | May 14, 2010 10:57 AM

Hunger proves the existence of food? La vie est absurde.

Posted by: Standard Curve | May 14, 2010 11:01 AM

Yes, the hole in my heart is precisely god shaped...

No god, no hole.

Posted by: attorney | May 14, 2010 11:08 AM

I grew up in an xian fundamentalist environment in Indiana (think: "Jesus Camp"). I was always taught that all those evil people outside the church were not happy, that they pretended to be happy but inside they were miserable because the had a natural need to be in fellowship with god. I was so lucky to have been born into the church!

I learned better when I grew up and moved far away. I have to admit that when I stopped going to church and such, I did initially feel an angst that can be described only as existential: Life DID seem pointless and useless if there wasn't a god. For a time, I felt despair, as the only meaning in the world had vanished.

But eventually, I learned to appreciate the REAL meaning in life, the things that actually exist, such as good friends, love, intellectual pursuits, challenges and triumph. It has been years since I felt any of that angst for the absence of god. In fact, I am GLAD there is no god, because the life of slavery and self-denial prescribed by people who believe such things is so empty (and would be even if god existed) that it would be pointless.

My point is, the existential angst that some people may feel based on the absence of god is a LEARNED behavior. I had been taught my whole life that without god, life was meaningless, so when god vanished, life seemed meaningless. Eventually, reality intervened, and the false teaching I had received gave way to experience.

This is why the people consumed by religion can state with such certainty that people without god will be miserable, whereas people who have never been in religion see that statement as ridiculous. The church people (for lack of a better term) are repeating something they have been taught, and to them, it seems self-evident. As they attempt (or have been brainwashed) to draw all the meaning in life from god, it seems to them that without god, life would have no meaning. So those people out there without god must have empty, meaningless lives. QED. And if a religious person leaves the church, for a time she may feel an emptiness and meaninglessness, just as she expected to. But it will pass, if she experiences the real world for a while.

Posted by: Zaphod | May 14, 2010 11:09 AM

ah, justice.

That particular "attribute" of their God always confused me. In fact, I've put forth this little example to most Christians I talk to about this particular "deep desire" I apparently can only fulfill from God:

For this analogy, imagine you have two things: 1.) a spouse that you care about* and 2.) a next-door neighbor.

One day, you are sitting with your spouse at the kitchen table eating dinner, and your neighbor breaks down the door, runs into the room and decapitates your spouse with a chainsaw.

Now, for the moment we will forgo the very real possibility that you would retaliate right then and there with whatever equally lethal powertool you happen to have available and instead explore the notion that you choose to call the police and have your neighbor arrested.

You find that he has confessed to the crime, pleads guilty to first-degree murder, and you are there at the sentencing hearing when your neighbor gets sentenced to 25-to-life imprisonment without possibility of parole.

The next morning, as you are leaving to go to your spouse's funeral, you see your neighbor sitting on their front porch reading a newspaper and waving. You rush over and demand to know why he is at home, free as a bird, when you JUST SAW him get sentenced to 25 years in prison.

His response: "Oh, that? Yeah, funny thing is, just as I was about to be carted off to prison, some 6 year old boy got up in the courtroom and told the judge that he'll be serving my sentence for me."

At this point in the story, I usually ask the Christian if justice has been served in this case, and surprise surprise, they almost ALWAYS say no.

And this "Father" thinks we atheists should mourn for the loss of "justice" in our lives? From their God?!

What a fucking dolt.

(* I have to add the 'that you care about' as I got a couple people actually revelling in the thought of their current spouse getting decapitated with a chainsaw. Gotta love it)

Posted by: attorney | May 14, 2010 11:13 AM

Sorry, this is OT:

Does anyone else have this experience when posting at Pharyngula? Every time I go to post, the sign-in page refuses to recognize my password. I have to click on the "forgot password" link, get the resulting email, go through the setting up of a new password (using the same password I use every single time), and only then will it log me in and allow me to post.

And the next time, it refuses to recognize that same password once again, and I have to do it all over again.

Anyone?

Posted by: Zaphod | May 14, 2010 11:22 AM

#43

maybe it knows you're an attorney...

;-)

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | May 14, 2010 11:29 AM

What's dishonest about these people is their presumption that belief is so damn fulfilling to begin with. If this is the case, then why does google show nearly 23 million hits for the phrase 'crisis of faith'?

Or are there just that many dyed-in-the-wool New Atheists?

Posted by: Hirnlego | May 14, 2010 11:30 AM

Why is Father Barron not sad because he doesn't have a relationship with Allah?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXxtvAy4Rzs

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | May 14, 2010 11:32 AM

I've never believed in god, so I can't comment on whether or not I'm happier without god than a typical believer with god.

All I know is, I'm pretty damned happy. Since I can't force myself to believe in something for which there is no evidence whatsoever (despite thousands of years of searching), I reckon I can't compare.

Oh, well. I am sufficiently happy anyway.

Posted by: dpattersonmonroe | May 14, 2010 11:35 AM

I remember the exact moment that I, a Midwestern girl raised Baptist, first took seriously the idea that there might not be a god. I was utterly terrified.

For about 10 seconds.

Then I felt an overwhelming sense that THIS IS IT, this life is all you get and there is nothing else, so I'd better make this the best damn life I possibly can for myself and everyone around me, because that's all that matters. My life has been immeasurably richer ever since.

Posted by: gr8hands | May 14, 2010 11:43 AM

Religion is like driving a racecar using tissue paper for seatbelts. While you may "feel" safe, and you may "believe" that the tissue paper seatbelts are providing you protection, reality has a different opinion.

This is why people are so devastated when tragedy hits. "Why did God allow this to happen?" Because a tissue paper seatbelt doesn't actually protect you in an accident.

I've been to many many funerals (as a musician), and I've never heard someone get up and say "I'm so glad my child is dead and in the arms of Jesus" with a smiling face, beaming at the prospect of the great joy they felt. Somehow, they're always sad -- which flies in the face of their belief of immortal life in Heaven with God.

Funerals demonstrate the hypocrisy and self-delusion of theists.

Posted by: adam cosper | May 14, 2010 11:49 AM

PS Religion is the opposite of an opiate for the masses? So it's the methamphetamine of the masses?

Posted by: tyomero | May 14, 2010 11:53 AM

My usual response is: "The truth will set you free."

I coudln't have put it better.

Posted by: William R. Dickson | May 14, 2010 11:59 AM

I think a lot of these guys are of the impression that atheists are mostly people who were raised religious and somehow lost faith later in life. There are quite a few atheists like that, and some of them did feel like it was an important part of their lives and that something is missing when it's gone. Many such people, like my mother, wind up going to Unitarian Fellowship meetings so they can have all the trappings of community and ritual without the actual deity.

But I think an ever-increasing number of atheists are people like me. I was raised by two parents who, while nominally theist (at the time) in both upbringing and belief, just weren't particularly interested in religion, so they didn't bother teaching me anything about it. My first exposure was in second grade when we learned something about Greek, Roman and Norse mythology. By the time my friends and playmates started talking to me about what they believed and what they did in church and why they couldn't play on Sunday mornings because they were in Sunday School, I was old enough to start drawing connections between things I had learned. "Oh," I thought to myself. "That's like how people used to believe in Thor."

It took me a couple more years to realize that people actually really truly believed in these [i]other[/i] stories, [i]today[/i], and that they weren't just engaging in ritual out of a sense of tradition. Of course I was too young to put the thoughts into these terms at the time, but the impressions remain clear 35 years later.

So long story short, I was born an atheist and was allowed to remain one. I don't grieve the loss of deities and religion because, first, I never had them in any deeply personal sense, and second, because they still exist in the same sense that all the Norse gods and Greek gods still exist -- in our literature, where they belong.

I think there will be more and more atheists like us in the years and decades to come -- people who grew up without [i]ever[/i] feeling that religion was important in their lives as anything other than a window into the culture history of various cultures throughout human history. And people like Father Barron and Damon Linker will steadily decline in number as they get older and die off, and fewer people are raised in a manner that will produce replacements.

Posted by: frisbeetarian | May 14, 2010 12:01 PM

Typical religious bigot, he hasn't even read his bible. Who would not feel more free by not believing in this organized freak show? An invisible creature that is so demented that it could do any vindictive torture it wants based on a thought I might have? In fact, having grown up on a small farm, I developed and continue to develop my moral convictions from animals for the very reason they don't have the bullshit from religious morons persuading them into acts of perversion.
This smug fool also doesn't know anything about dogs. My dog appears to have the same desire I do to make a connection with another living creature. She has other human friends, has many dog friends and litter mates nearby and she seems to prefer some friends over others to spend time with. In fact, one of my goals in life is to be happy and content with what I have and not spend time racing around for the next job or fancy car or other (to me) foolishness.
So he can stick his fear of his made up god up his god-shaped hole in whichever body part is most appropriate.

Posted by: MS | May 14, 2010 12:02 PM

Completely different context, of course, but these stanzas from My Fair Lady seem apropos:

There'll be spring every year without you.
England still will be here without you.
There'll be fruit on the tree,
And a shore by the sea.
There'll be crumpets and tea without you.

Art and music will thrive without you.
Somehow Keats will survive without you.
And there still will be rain on that plain down in Spain,
even that will remain without you.
I can do without you.

Without your pulling it the tide comes in,
Without your twirling it the Earth can spin,
Without your pushing them, the clouds roll by,
If they can do without you, ducky, so can I

Posted by: Bill Door | May 14, 2010 12:08 PM

I miss the good old theists like William James who new that, for some people, the idea of god would have no meaning.

Posted by: raven | May 14, 2010 12:19 PM

For a really, miserable view of life and reality, nothing can beat some of the xian ones. The priest probably doesn't even buy this one because AFAIK, the RCC isn't into Rapturism. (Posted earlier on a thread falling into the Event Horizon.)

Some groups of xians have one of the most pathetic worldviews there is. The Rapture monkeys, End Timers. They just sit around in a depressed, catatonic daze, hoping and praying god shows up Real Soon and kills them and everyone else.

It is deeply hoped and believed that god will show up any minute, destroy the earth, and kill 6.7 billion people. Most will end up in hell being tortured forever, as xians aren't even 1/3 of the world's population.

This is an amoral and immoral dogma and it is about as destructive as it gets unless we discover UFO aliens. Then the fundies can hope god kills them too. For kooks who really believe it, there is no reason to worry about anything, the earth, the environment, your kids, your job, your self. Why worry about Peak Oil, AGW, endangered species, or even get out of bed? God is going to end it all. Any day now, please god.

Of course there is another problem. The Happy Day of Mass Murder was scheduled 2,000 years ago. It has been predicted every few months ever since. After a few millennia it is obvious it isn't going to happen.

It isn't hard or tragic to be an atheist. Anyone taking a hard look at modern US xianity finds themselves there soon enough. Most of those are...EX-XIANS who decided it was all a weird and gruesome game of Let's Pretend.

Posted by: a.f.diplotti | May 14, 2010 12:22 PM

Speaking of this, how can homosexuals be gay? They can't! They sure must be sad and frustrated that they never have sex with a member of the opposite sex!

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | May 14, 2010 12:30 PM

scott @32

Facepalm.

You start out with one set of falsehoods and it builds a conspiracy theory. Oh, okay, there are people who believe otherwise but they must be miserable. Oh, some of those people say they aren't miserable, they must be lying. Oh, a whole bunch of people say otherwise, they must all be lying. As the number increases, it's a global conspiracy attacking Christianity, maybe on the behest of the Devil himself. One lie breaking one further and further from reality to protect it from the icy hands of reality. As I said on the other thread, they're still trying to pretend the dog is at a farm after the kid has discovered the grave site.

I can also understand where he's coming from. Catholicism is evil.

And I don't just mean their long history of being on the wrong side of nearly everything, but rather how fucking hard it is to leave the church and the abusive shame it instills in young members. From what I've seen of many many ex-catholics, it almost takes two generations to fully clear out the baggage of leaving the church, the feelings of guilt if you dare think of say women's autonomy or your own sexual fulfillment or other basic human desires and rights.

My partner is struggling with that as well as admitting her own atheism (she's still going with agnostic and wondering if she should "make more of an effort" to find a church to "make the effort"). The damage of being raised catholic makes it one of the most painful religions to leave and I'm counting a good number of cults and the mormons. And I think it comes from having the double-whammy of perfecting cult-techniques for centuries with also having the weight of numbers to master the art of passive-agression and shame to oppress and dominate their followers into accepting anything because leaving will be such an emotional hell.

Luckily for me, my ancestors long left the catholic church and went through that crap so that I could grow up nice and secular and without the ghosts of old white men haunting my psyche and trying to force their God down my throat.

I'm sorry that the good Bishop was not so lucky.

Posted by: Dahak | May 14, 2010 12:37 PM

He told some commenter that "I know there's nothing to fill the deep hole in your life" or something like that. I told him that it was conceited, to prove it, and then "I don't need your god to deliver happiness any more than I need Santa to deliver presents."

Posted by: ecurve | May 14, 2010 12:38 PM

My strongest experience with faith was fear. I was raised vaguely Catholic by my lapsed Catholic family, but ran across a book of catechism once and was terrified into a period of devoutness. (I was 7 or 8, and it was a pre-Vatican II catechism, of the hardcore GO TO HELL GO DIRECTLY TO HELL DO NOT PASS GO DO NOT COLLECT $200 kind.) I found the idea that the creator of the universe had it in for me personally, terrifying: I kept envisioning this grim looming figure, like a particularly strict and humorless teacher, with its finger perpetually poised over a giant red button marked "HELL".

By the time I was supposed to be confirmed (which was age 12 then; I hear it's 16 now), I was already an unbeliever. I can't help but think that my flirtation with religion hurried that along--it must have sparked some process of reflection, some embryonic bullshit detector, that was yet latent in me. So, yay for religion's role in helping me ditch religion!

Posted by: Seifer | May 14, 2010 12:46 PM

You were right PZ, this is a terrible. This guy tries to sound so sophisticated, and yet he only comes off as pompous dishonest buffoon. When will people get atheism is not a belief system? It is merely a response to a claim. Trying to argue that atheism equals absurdity, meaninglessness, etc. is merely sophistry. I love how he phrases it as "just pretend there's no God." As if God is a default position, that everyone knows is true and atheists are merely lying to themselves about it. Why did I watch this? Now I am off to go lobotomize myself.

Posted by: tytalus | May 14, 2010 12:51 PM

I wonder how much of this is really intended to attack or even accurately (in their minds) describe atheism. Another possible motivation could be to scare the flock back into line. If they can make atheism look bad...

Posted by: SteveM | May 14, 2010 12:54 PM

So, I didn't watch the video (can't here at work, but I probably wouldn't have even if I could) But it sounds like a combination of projection and a failure of imagination. It sounds like he is just projecting what he would feel if he learned that there was no God, in the same way as if he learned that his father had just died.
This just reinforces my notion that theism is just a way to return to (or remain in) the childlike state of protection by omniscient, omnipotent (in the eyes of the child) parents. Theists are stuck in this state and can only imagine atheism, not as a rejection of the whole "God idea" but as the "death" of their parents. To them "atheism" is not lack of belief, but belief in a god that is "gone". Like someone who's parents are dead who is now "a-parent-ist" but mourns for his loss, as opposed to someone who simply does not have parents [somehow, it's an analogy] and lives free of that mourning.

Posted by: TGAP Dad | May 14, 2010 1:01 PM

I leave it to George Bernard Shaw:

The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than
the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.
George Bernard Shaw, Playwright, critic, political activist (1856 - 1950)

Posted by: tsg | May 14, 2010 1:06 PM

Oh dear, he is surprised that a slogan on a billboard is so shallow and "flip." I suppose we should have chosen something that wraps around the bus, and has proper footnotes on the bumpers.

Wouldn't those be endnotes?

OW! What was that for?

Posted by: AJKamper | May 14, 2010 1:12 PM

Maybe someone posted something like this earlier, but I was a LOT happier once I became an atheist. It wasn't because of fear of hell or the afterlife or whatever--I never really believed in that to begin with. But being a theist was miserable: the world is a crappy place where crappy people do crappy things to each other and the idea that there was some divine power which knew all of this and let it happen was awful. I went through a couple of strange and bitter theisms till I realized, "Hey, wait--I don't have to believe this anymore. I have no reason whatsoever to actually think it's true. It just doesn't make sense."

It was an INCREDIBLE relief. Ultimate liberty. The idea that my atheism should be miserable is so entirely foreign to me that I can't even comprehend what this guy is thinking.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | May 14, 2010 1:17 PM

I notice that, whenever apologists scornfully list the inadequate experiences of this world, they dwell on things like "pleasure, honor, money, power"

Odd. Whenever I contemplate the Vatican, those are about the first things that spring to mind as well.

Posted by: TimmyC | May 14, 2010 1:28 PM

Re #48:

Nietzsche definitely thought that the death of God was a cause for great alarm, and you don't have to read too far to see this. Right after the Madman in the famous passage (The Gay Science, sec. 125)announces that God is dead--to the atheists, not the theists, by the way--he says the following:

"Where is God gone?" he called out. "I mean to tell you! We have killed him, you and I! We are all his murderers! But how have we done it? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the whole horizon? What did we do when we loosened this earth from its sun? Whither does it now move? Whither do we move? Away from all suns? Do we not dash on unceasingly? Backwards, sideways, forwards, in all directions? Is there still an above and below? Do we not stray, as through infinite nothingness? Does not empty space breathe upon us? Has it not become colder? Does not night come on continually, darker and darker? Shall we not have to light lanterns in the morning? Do we not hear the noise of the grave-diggers who are burying God? Do we not smell the divine putrefaction? - for even Gods putrify! God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him!"

This shows, to me at least, that you can be happy and encouraged by some event (like the passage #48 quotes) and still think that it is deeply unsettling. E.g. I'd be happy and encouraged if the authoritarian North Korean government was overthrown tomorrow, but still be worried and alarmed about how there is going to be any order among the millions of people living there. P.Z. and the priest both paint a false dichotomy-- you can feel happy and liberated and also be deeply troubled on account of the same event. This is why more people should read Nietzsche if they want to know about atheism, and less people should read, well . . .

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | May 14, 2010 1:34 PM

The idea that my atheism should be miserable is so entirely foreign to me that I can't even comprehend what this guy is thinking.

He's probably not thinking this at all. He's likely lying, for the reason tytalus described:

I wonder how much of this is really intended to attack or even accurately (in their minds) describe atheism. Another possible motivation could be to scare the flock back into line. If they can make atheism look bad...

The idea that all (or even most) believers are contented, drawing succor and sustenence from the faith that feeds doesn't jibe with any Catholic I've ever met (priests included), nor many of the ones I haven't, if the ubiquity of memes like suffocating Catholic guilt are any indication.

I know we should be treating this man's arguments as if he were genuine, but consider that his entire job revolves around lying to people that he talks to an entity that there's no evidence exists at all. Lying to protect his house of cards is his profession.

If a con man is trying to sell you a bridge, he's probably not the best source of information about the dangers of boating.

Oh, @ stvs #78: nice collection of quotes!

Posted by: H.H. | May 14, 2010 1:51 PM

If you listen to the conversion stories of most theists who became atheists, you'll find that almost without exception what drove them was an unquenchable desire for truth.

Evid3nc3, whose fantastic series of Youtube videos about his personal deconversion has already been posted on this site, explains how truth is greater than god, since god is impotent if he is fictional:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoiW4KO_Om4

Father Barron dishonestly relabels truth as "god," but those two words are not synonyms. An honest inquiry into god's existence will lead to the conclusion that he is invented. When truth and theology conflict, truth wins. Father Barron loses.

Posted by: TimmyC | May 14, 2010 2:12 PM

@ #96:

I took PZ to be saying that atheism is primarily a cause for joy, and not sorrow, whereas the priest is saying that for atheists it should be primarily a cause for sorrow, and not joy. This is pretty much how most of the commenters seem to be taking it anyway. I just think it's worth pointing out that it could be both. And it seems to an atheist like me (and Nietzsche, Camus, Sartre, Woody Allen, etc) that it should be both. As atheists we recognize that human beings are the highest authorities in the universe, that no one else besides us is going to determine right and wrong, justice and injustice, etc. There's surely a great joy that goes with that, but isn't it also quite a bit unsettling as well? Sartre called it "forlornness." Nietzsche compares to wiping away the whole horizon. Woody Allen (or at least some characters in Crimes and Misdemeanors) wonders if an event like the Holocaust has any meaning at all in a world without the moral structure God provides. They and I take our atheism to be the greatest responsibility in the universe--not something that is wholly a cause for joy. And honestly, when I hear other atheists say they are perfectly happy being atheists, and that's it, I feel like a genuine Christian must feel when he hears some preacher talk about the "prosperity gospel"-- like they have missed the point of what it is all about.

Posted by: Aratina Cage | May 14, 2010 2:15 PM

Oh My Spam! He used Lion(IRC)'s argument that one's hunger proves that food exists. ROFL. What a maroon.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | May 14, 2010 2:22 PM

There's surely a great joy that goes with that, but isn't it also quite a bit unsettling as well?

I don't find it either joyful or unsettling- merely (trivially) true.

As a matter of plain fact what you do with your life and what meaning you give is always up to you, always has been and always will be, because even if you believe in an invisible celestial authority it doesn't, you know, actually exist.

Posted by: naddyfive | May 14, 2010 2:25 PM

This guy thinks atheists are unintelligent, while his entire argument is based on the assumption that "religion=morality". Really, that's what his argument boils down to- the "human need for a better world" IS religion. Atheists can't be moral. Which is why they all live in an existential sinkhole, wishing they could believe.

He thinks this is fresh and dazzling?

Celtic_Evolution @74 sez:

"I was terrified of that thought for quite some time."

Funny, as a kid, nothing terrified me more than when the people at my church would talk about Eternal Life in Heaven as if it was some kind of grand prize rewarded for a life of Jeebus service. The idea that I'd have to live forever in some weird alternate dimension with a creepy non-interventionist God used to paralyze me with fear and dread. (Part of how I imagined heaven to look was based on a video I saw, where it was depicted as a foggy, eerie landscape with New Agey images of wild horses running around. Yeeuck.)

It's actually been since I realized that was all bunk at about age 5 that I felt at peace with the idea of dying. Ceasing to exist > creepy God land.

Posted by: Steve N | May 14, 2010 2:34 PM

Faith is not a rational thought process. So the "faithful" feel no obligation to be rational. Just as the rational among us feel no obligation to be delusional when communicating with them. I choose to accept that he may honestly believe his own prattle, and thereby spare my monitor a beat down.

Posted by: Sastra | May 14, 2010 2:58 PM

TimmyC #99 wrote:

As atheists we recognize that human beings are the highest authorities in the universe, that no one else besides us is going to determine right and wrong, justice and injustice, etc. There's surely a great joy that goes with that, but isn't it also quite a bit unsettling as well?

What I find unsettling is uncoupling the concept of God from what humans view as right and wrong, and thinking this makes everything more secure. It wouldn't. If God is "good" in a sense we don't recognize, we wouldn't want to worship it.

The meek idea that God is the "highest authority in the universe" and stands over and above us lowly humans, hides an underlying requirement that we must first stand in judgment over God, in order to make, and then accept Him as our authority -- and not just some big cosmic thug.

The universe is not fair. It's not on our side. Things are not meant to "work out" to our ultimate satisfaction. Not everything happens "for a reason" -- if, by that, we mean for a moral reason, teaching lessons and guiding us safely along a happy but rocky path.

But the universe isn't against us. It's not "unfair," like a schoolyard bully. It's morally inert. I suspect that people who believe in God think it must be one, or the other. Their view of the world, which is supposed to be so humble, is egocentric in the extreme.

Posted by: daveau | May 14, 2010 3:16 PM

That sounds just like the bullshit that used to spouted at women: "oh, you know you need a man to make you complete, honey!"

So, a being without god is like a fish without a bicycle? (If you forget for a minute that bicycles actually exist...)

Posted by: Vicki, Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief | May 14, 2010 3:27 PM

Yes, I'm selfish. Maybe even 1/10 as selfish as the sort of sexist man who thinks my life should be dedicated to him (while he dedicates his own life to himself, or maybe to some outside cause, but not to me).

Posted by: Guy Incognito | May 14, 2010 3:30 PM

Food doesn't need hunger or long-winded arguments from William Lane Craig to "prove" its existence. Its appearance on my plate roughly thrice daily is more than enough. Hear that, God? And no, piggybacking on my tortillas is NOT going to cut it!

Posted by: jcmartz.myopenid.com | May 14, 2010 3:43 PM

What happened to the 'old' atheists?

Posted by: Magic Pants | May 14, 2010 3:55 PM

If you reject the premise that we all naturally yearn for a God, or the conclusion that such a 'natural yearning' would constitute evidence that there must be a god, this priest has nothing to stand on. That was exactly where he gave himself away (as PZ says). Take that assumption away (as any open-minded person would do) and he has nothing except his 'apparent' authority because he uses words clearly, seems to know a little about some old books, and has goofy collar.

Posted by: Sastra | May 14, 2010 4:06 PM

naddy5 #112 wrote:

Religionists like to paint people into a corner in the same way sexists like to paint women into a corner.

I'm most vividly reminded of this when they trot out theodicies which explain pain and suffering as necessary in the scheme of things, in order to bring people back to God. Horrible tragedies help to vividly remind us of our dependence, and the futility of relying on man's ways, or putting one's hopes in this world. Humanity's rebellious spirit must be broken, if we are to have a chance of eternal happiness.

"He only hits you, because He loves you. You were getting too uppity, and forgetting your place." Why, thank you, Lord, honey.

Posted by: naddyfive | May 14, 2010 4:17 PM

Just like an abuser will separate their partner from any of her own social support mechanisms to make leaving harder, many religions will try and tie family and friendships entirely to the religion so that leaving a religion means leaving all your friends and family behind and having them guilt you, berate you "to save your soul.

I've heard people compare the difficulty of leaving a cult to the difficulty of leaving an abuser, but it never quite struck me how apt the comparison is until I read this comment.

God hit me and it felt like a kiss! If you don't feel his love, you just aren't submitting hard enough. You haven't learned to be longsuffering yet. Maybe suffering longer will learn ya a thing or two.

(Please excuse the grammatical mistakes in my comments, if you can. I do know how to use the subjunctive voice and the past perfect tense, I swear...long week...)

Posted by: Brian | May 14, 2010 4:20 PM

One thing I love about this lame criticism of New Atheists by comparing them to atheists like Camus and Sarte is they never bring up the other side of the existential coin: The theistic side. Kierkegaard (however you spell that ) thought that obeying God's commands was just as absurd a way to get to morality and just as terrifying as an atheism.

They want the side of existenalism that they think supports their position, and not what doesn't.

Posted by: Diane G. | May 14, 2010 4:26 PM

#40 Posted by: RijkswaanVijanD | May 14, 2010 11:09 AM
would look nice on my dog though..

Then I reflected on the almost certain reality that some dogs so adorned would bear the brunt of of the religiobots' hatred, and suddenly it seemed like a very bad idea...

#57
Posted by: adam cosper | May 14, 2010 11:49 AM
PS Religion is the opposite of an opiate for the masses? So it's the methamphetamine of the masses?

#63
Posted by: frisbeetarian | May 14, 2010 12:01 PM
...In fact, having grown up on a small farm, I developed and continue to develop my moral convictions from animals for the very reason they don't have the bullshit from religious morons persuading them into acts of perversion.

...This smug fool also doesn't know anything about dogs. My dog appears to have the same desire I do to make a connection with another living creature. She has other human friends, has many dog friends and litter mates nearby and she seems to prefer some friends over others to spend time with.

In fact, one of my goals in life is to be happy and content with what I have and not spend time racing around for the next job or fancy car or other (to me) foolishness.

--Diane

Posted by: MarkL | May 14, 2010 4:44 PM

Ok,
Can I say that if Father Barron doesn't make your gaydar go off, you must be as straight as John Wayne.
Second, I listend to about one minute before I couldn't take anymore.
He loses me---in fact, he should lose any INTELLIGENT listener---when he begins by saying that the bus's ad is deeply unintelligent.
Um, no, it's not, and no, that's not a good way to begin your case.

Posted by: ecurve | May 14, 2010 4:56 PM

Mattir@80 "carnal Jews of today"

It does sound like one-stop shopping for sin, doesn't it?

Posted by: Knockgoats | May 14, 2010 5:07 PM

And existing, even in eternal damnation, is still a more palatable thought to most than simply not existing anymore at all. - Celtic_Evolution

I don't believe that. If it were true, people would not wish to die rather than continue to suffer the pain of (for example) bone cancer or trigeminal neuralgia (the latter certainly won't kill you but has been called the "suicide disease").

I certainly want to go on existing, but only so long as that existence is, on balance, enjoyable - or I have reason to believe it may become so again, or I feel I ought to stay alive for the sake of others. The thought of my future non-existence certainly isn't frightening or deressing - after all, I didn't exist for nearly 14 billion years, and as Mark Twain put it "never suffered the slightest inconvenience" from it.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | May 14, 2010 5:21 PM

The thought of my future non-existence certainly isn't frightening or deressing - after all, I didn't exist for nearly 14 billion years, and as Mark Twain put it "never suffered the slightest inconvenience" from it.

How flippant Mark Twain is. Theologian Barron would argue assert that you and the esteemed Mr. Twain both suffered due to the existence-shaped hole in your, well, something for all that time. Oh, how I long for the glory days of the real existentialists, who cried ethereal rivers of ethereal tears throughout their ethereal pre-existence.

Posted by: Camus Dude | May 14, 2010 5:24 PM

Not even gonna watch it. The last thing I need to see is some ignoramus theist bloviating about Camus. Camus was not a sad or despairing atheist. Yes, he believed we live in a universe with no inherent meaning, but he loved life.

For that matter, so did Nietzsche. Have any of these anti-"New Atheists" ever fucking read Nietzsche or Camus? (I don't particularly care if they mangle Sartre, since he was an apologist for Stalinism.)

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | May 14, 2010 5:55 PM

I still think we should simply respond to stupid people yammering about how miserable atheists are without god by invoking theological noncognitivism. Big words for saying that the word "god" has no meaning and thus can mean anything one wishes, from the trees in my backyard to sexual desire to the mean old man in the sky advocated by the likes of Mr. Barron. And it's always fun to watch theists' ears start to steam as the brain overheats from too much thinking...

Posted by: Birger Johansson | May 14, 2010 6:09 PM

Here is a "rationalist anthem". Veterans of Scienceblogs.com may already have heard it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAYVY2eLMck&feature=player_embedded

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 14, 2010 6:17 PM

If he were an actor, he would be the old man in this clip:

"No, I'm a good man, I'm just a very bad wizard."

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 14, 2010 6:29 PM

Camus and Sartre build on Psalms and all the other new ideas developed during the intervening years in order to make sense of their lives

you actually need to listen to HOW he compared them, before making inane comments like this.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnV9m0XZFyBJD1XXjpSl__qxR4GdrLdOpw | May 14, 2010 6:38 PM

"Email about to be sent"

"I watched your video with interest you stated that our hunger for and desire for God proves that God is out there.
All my life (at least as all as I remember) I have deeply hungered for and desired a pink flying pony. So my question is where is the catholic church hiding the flying ponies and how much will cost me to get one?"

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | May 14, 2010 7:18 PM

And there it is again, the crazy complaint that the New Atheists aren't serious enough, that they're playing at atheism, because they just don't express the existential anguish that apostates are expected to feel.

Maybe going one God further is a big jump. Since I never really believed I never had anything to lose.

Posted by: Teshi | May 14, 2010 7:59 PM

Ah, the final fear of the believer as he or she stands at the precipice of atheism: "If others can find joy and beauty in a life that omits the thing I perceive as bringing joy and beauty, does this thing need to exist?"

Also, when he introduced the dog thing, his argument totally fell apart and I may be quite mistaken, but I felt like he realised it when he said: "We're not like that... if, as the atheists claim, we are just dogs with big brains, we could be like that..."

Also, it drives me crazy that this guy is speaking from personal experience but using "we". Who is "we"? Not me, certainly. How dare he presume to speak for the whole of humanity when really he just means himself?

Posted by: Stan Pak | May 14, 2010 8:12 PM

This dog-collar-man said something like this: "existence of hunger proves food's existence, etc.".

This is of course logical fallacy (appeal to emotions, which can be easily falsified by following counter-example:
"our desire for aliens landing on my backyard is a proof for existence of aliens" or similar constructs.

I found that this is old L.C.Lewis' argument from desire.

It is just sad that such apparently eloquent man cannot see this.

Posted by: irksome.infidel | May 14, 2010 8:27 PM

I assume it is a blogging faux pas to re-post a quote which was recently ignored, but here again is Carl Sagan in Demon-Haunted World,

In the way that skepticism is sometimes applied to issues of public concern, there is a tendency to belittle, to condescend, to ignore the fact, that, deluded or not, supporters of superstitions and pseudoscience are human-beings with real beliefs, who, like the skeptics, are trying to figure out how the world works and what our role in it might be. Their motives are in many cases consonant with science. If their culture has not given them all the tools they need to pursue this great quest, let us temper our criticism with kindness. None of us comes fully equipped.

And yet, the chief deficiency I see in the skeptical movement is in its polarization: Us vs. Them—the sense that we have a monopoly on the truth; that those other people who believe in all these stupid doctrines are morons; that if you’re sensible, you’ll listen to us; and if not, you’re beyond redemption. This is unconstructive. It does not get the message across. It condemns the skeptics to permanent minority status; whereas, a compassionate approach that from the beginning acknowledges the human roots of pseudoscience and superstition might be much more widely accepted.

That is the problem with New Atheism.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | May 14, 2010 8:33 PM

@Kel

As an aside, I've got to say I've found much more comfort and insight into the human condition from understanding evolution than I ever have from any metaphysical ideal that any religion has put forth to explain it.

Amen!

Posted by: raven | May 14, 2010 8:36 PM

and the idea that Ecclesiastes was right about how there's a god

I wouldn't bet on Ecclesiastes saying there is a god, originally. The inerrant, infallible bible has been continuously rewritten and edited since day 1. In fact, an obvious example is on page 1 with two different creation myths and two different gods.

A lot of the god in Ecclesiastes looks a lot like post facto editing somewhere along the line.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | May 14, 2010 8:52 PM

irksome.infidel #155

I disagree with Sagan's opinion given in the quote. Playing nice with the goddists has done exactly zip point shit in having them play nice with us. George H.W. Bush doesn't think atheists should be citizens. Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor blamed atheism for war and destruction, and implied it was a greater evil even than sin itself. Notice I'm not talking about Fred Phelps or Pat Robertson but an ex-president and the ex-Catholic Primate of England.

So you'll excuse me if I think that, in this instance, Carl Sagan is full of shit.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 14, 2010 8:58 PM

So you'll excuse me if I think that, in this instance, Carl Sagan is full of shit.

Posted by: realinterrobang | May 14, 2010 10:21 PM

I was raised without religion and it never "took" on me, so how the hell am I supposed to have existential angst about losing something I never had to begin with? I can understand people who grow up in profoundly religious cultures or households feeling like they've lost something when they figure out that they don't believe anymore, but I was raised in a completely religion-neutral environment, where it neither mattered if other people believed or not, but I was also never forced into it, so I have all the sense of loss of a congenitally blind person over their sense of sight. (Much like someone with a congenital inability to perceive something, I find the notion of religion to be kind of weird and inexplicable and not really within any common frame of reference I have with the religious.)

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | May 14, 2010 10:54 PM

I find the concept of the abrahamic god to be frightening and horrifying, a blood thirsty tyrant who acts without ethics. But I also find the concept of a creator deity to be one of the most unlikely possibilities. So I spend no time worried that an angry will punish me nor angry that it exists. And I am grateful that the universe does not care if I exist or not. It beats either being an eternal sycophant or facing eternal punishment.

Yet this bobo insists that I am supposed to be sad that god does not exist, a fictional being that I find repugnant? I would rather be "shallow" than to life this bobo's fantasy of what an atheist should be.

Posted by: MrPeach | May 14, 2010 11:30 PM

Oh noes, i r not a seeriuz atiest. I r so mad I gonna

Oh shiney.

Posted by: writermonky | May 15, 2010 12:47 AM

Even when I was a Christian, I don't recall ever having any desire for God. He was just this intangible force dude guy who had made everything and you prayed to him when things went wrong. And when your prayers weren't answered, well god has a plan.

Posted by: Crudely Wrott , Drinking Solo Since Death's Back On The Wagon | May 15, 2010 1:55 AM

A man, a plan, a canal, Panama. A familiar palindrome that reads the same forwards and backwards. Perfect. Let's try it again!

A god, a plan, a canal, Panama. Nope. Doesn't work and here's why. "A man, a plan, a canal, padoga" doesn't read the same backwards as forwards and thus there is nothing to worry about.

Can't say that I'm inspired to relinquish my humanity in return for word games. Maybe I'm just tired. It has been a long and tiring week.

Wait! . . . Pagoda?

Posted by: Knockgoats | May 15, 2010 3:34 AM

As atheists we recognize that human beings are the highest authorities in the universe, that no one else besides us is going to determine right and wrong, justice and injustice, etc. There's surely a great joy that goes with that, but isn't it also quite a bit unsettling as well? - TimmyC

No.

Next question?

Posted by: John Scanlon FCD | May 15, 2010 4:25 AM

So are we allowed to copypasta comments from the Linker thread? Mine fits better here anyway:

It was a bit of a disappointment, but also a relief, to find out that the spiral stair at the back of the church only went up as far as the organ loft, and down to a small crypt*; that all the miraculous stuff in the old book was hearsay, with no standing as accurate history or even eyewitness accounts; that most of it was insane drivel with no philosophical value anyway (Ecclesiastes is OK, but toss the rest!); that the Vatican showed its lack of faith in the Turin rag by refusing (as it did for so long) to submit samples for carbon dating; that God was nothing to be afraid of**. Without heaven, hell, or any kind of miraculous intervention to fear, we can appreciate life and reality for what they are and can be, not write them off as a prelude or a fake like the religious do (or pretend to, except when their real fear shows). Not missing anything, thanks for asking.

*(if it's not clear, that's no metaphor: when you're told from infancy that heaven and hell are real places, not magical imaginary fairylands, you expect there to be some actual means of transport)

**(if the God of the bible were real, fear would be the most appropriate attitude; but I saw little evidence of it in the professed believers I grew up among. That's one reason I think most of them are just pretending to believe)

Posted by: bastion of sass | May 15, 2010 5:21 AM

When I was trying to be a good Catholic girl, trying to believe things that didn't make sense to me, trying to embrace a faith which often seemed to me unjust, trying to live a sinless life (even though early on, I wasn't really buying into the whole heaven/hell business), I was profoundly unhappy, stressed, hated myself. The mental dissonance was terrible.

But when I gave up religion, I almost immediately became much much happier. Such a weight was lifted from me. I was free! Free to live a life without superstition, irrationality, injustice, and inane rules. Free to live a life of rationality, justice, peace, and real joy.

Posted by: QED | May 15, 2010 11:38 AM

...they [the good old atheists] knew that inside us we have a deep desire for fulfillment, truth, goodness, justice…in other words, for God.

Apply Occam's razor:

Atheists [like most people] have a deep desire for fulfillment, truth, goodness and justice

no "other words" or gods need be posited.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 15, 2010 12:08 PM

I'm an atheist but I'm not happy... maybe it's just because I'm a grumpy bastard.

Strange because I'm and atheist and a grumpy bastard, but strangely very happy.

Posted by: pittige | May 15, 2010 12:34 PM

don't forget that in a religion the organisation
is not for the believers but in the contrary the
believers serve the organisation (read priests).
They use fulfillment, truth, goodness, and justice
as advertisement for their parasitic existence.
talk evolutionary : because they can't dominate
women biological they trie to dominate psychological. It is know that despite of the fact
that the church don't want to recognize the existence
of half of humanity, women are the strongest believers in their celibatarian gods.

Posted by: irenedelse | May 15, 2010 1:38 PM

Ooh, I've had an epiphany!

If all those theistic apologists can only comprehend atheism as full of angst and pitiable suffering, maybe, just maybe it's because... they apply to all atheists what they observe in those atheists who (I surmise) they may most easily observe: those who have lost their faith but haven't let go of the church!

Now, these people are likely to tie themselves in knots to keep the two parts of their minds together just a little bit longer, instead of letting go. (Of course, since some of them are priests, letting go would lead to losing their jobs, too. And what with the economy being what it is, this is not something to be considered lightly. No wonder the good father is ready to understand their plight...)

Posted by: irksome.infidel | May 15, 2010 3:19 PM

Mr T #186 --

I'm afraid you've chased a red herring there. You saw the word "emotionalism" and went down a pretty meaningless path, as if I suggested that we should be as Vulcans.

No, when I said emotionalism it referred to its use as potent fuel for tribalism and Us-vs-Them-ism.

Since that puts your last comment to rest, perhaps you could explain what you think Sagan was referring to. [Hint: it's not the adoption of Vulcanism.]

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | May 15, 2010 4:25 PM

irksome.infidel #180

The point Sagan was making is that we should resist falling into the trap of emotionalism, Us-vs-Them, and tribalism. That is the signature of religion, paranoia and otherwise delusional thought.

I don't disagree with this.

Rather, we should advance rational, intellectually forceful positions which do not have the obvious weakness that allows the opposition to say, "Look, atheists really are crazy kooks!"

Ray Comfort has had the evolution of sex explained to him several times. He even admits this. However every few months he comes out with a bunch of shit convoluted story about evolution teaching that males and females of each species evolved separately. In a similar way Rick Warren, who claims to have a good understanding of TOE, has said if given a choice between science and the Bible he'll pick the Bible every time. Rationality does not work with folks like that.

Posted by: redrabbitslife | May 15, 2010 4:43 PM

I reread that- sorry, that was gross. I've seen a lot of diabetic feet this week.

Posted by: Crudely Wrott , Drinking Solo Since Death's Back On The Wagon | May 15, 2010 5:02 PM

By that standard them so am I.

Did you see that Rev. BDC? You, too, are part of a larger set.

[grimace]

Posted by: Crudely Wrott , Drinking Solo Since Death's Back On The Wagon | May 15, 2010 5:14 PM

I rephrase that as, "We two are part of a larger set."

Posted by: redrabbitslife | May 15, 2010 7:02 PM

Thanks CW.

That's why I'm here: to experience about the good company.

That, the bat sex, and the bacon.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | May 15, 2010 7:37 PM

However I often observe in New Atheists the same kind of Us-vs-Them craziness which is the hallmark of creationists and such. Presenting atheism as a worldview alongside opposing worldviews is to cede the unique position of skepticism, which always includes self-skepticism.

No matter how you say it, there's going to be that great indignity. Sagan was very sympathetic, it comes off strongly in his writings and work the empathy he had for those who believed. And he is held up as the idealised form a skeptic should take - one who shows that they care, that they understand. But I wonder if he was really that effective? If we had another Carl Sagan today, would he be anything more than an exemplar we could point to? Would he actually be more effective, or would he just be one we could look at having a civil yet fruitless conversation?

What I worry about is that we're creating an atheist saint, as if it's the tone of the delivery that is the problem with the message itself. I'm sceptical about that...

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | May 15, 2010 8:09 PM

irksome.infidel #198

But responding with steady, rational arguments can work for their followers. I've seen it happen.

Maybe with one or two in a hundred, but the followers are as brainwashed as the leaders. Ever see the creationists who come through here? These folks try to argue to people who actually know something about both evolution and the Bible. The creationists tell us things like:

● "Evolution is on its last legs. Today the majority of biologists don't accept evolution."

● "The universe is 6000 years old."

● "Dinosaurs rode on Noah's Ark."

These folks actually, honestly, really believe that sort of stuff. They're told it by Ken Ham and "Dr"* Kent Hovind. They know that Ham and Hovind** wouldn't lie to them.

However I often observe in New Atheists the same kind of Us-vs-Them craziness which is the hallmark of creationists and such. Presenting atheism as a worldview alongside opposing worldviews is to cede the unique position of skepticism, which always includes self-skepticism.

Okay, please explain how we should deal with someone who thinks fossils were planted by Satan. Be specific, since your knowledge on how to deal with the deluded is obviously much superior to "New Atheists."

In other words, atheism is a conclusion while skepticism is a process. [emphasis in original]

And sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Do you have any other trite truisms to toss out? Is the ocean still full of water? Is the Moon not made out of green cheese? Does your chewing gum lose its flavor on the bedpost overnight?

No amount of argumentation whatsoever will get another person to accept your conclusion, no matter how right you insist you are or how loud you say it--that's exactly the fallacy of the religious.

But didn't you say, in the first paragraph, that you had seen "steady, rational arguments ... work for their followers." Isn't this a contradiction? Or is it only Old Atheists who can use this ploy and us New Atheists will automatically fail if we try?

But emphasizing skepticism as a process of examining claims can be effective, though it takes patience and lacks the our-side-is-awesome bravado that many enjoy.

I tell you what. You use your methods and let us use ours. Since your "steady, rational arguments" are as effective as our unsteady, irrational arguments with the likes of Ham and Hovind, you can continue doing your ineffectual, pathetic posturing and let us do the heavy lifting. Go talk to Karen Armstrong and Bishop Sprong while we deal with Ham and Hovind.

*Hovind got his doctorate from Patriot Bible University, a school whose main (and only) building is the size of two double-wides.

**Hovind is a convicted felon presently serving time in federal prison for tax fraud and money laundering.

Posted by: Topaca | May 15, 2010 8:48 PM

Well, I don't know if this has already been said, but when I hear priests or other of that kind say "there is a desire for god, so be serious about, don't dismiss it, try and satisfy it with us" I always think that it sounds like basic advertising: you have a craving for fat food, so here at McDonald we have it: come and eat it!

The fact that we have craving for things does not mean that things are good for us.

Just advertising :-)

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | May 16, 2010 2:28 AM

That's better than 0%, which is the exactly number obtained by giving them the finger.

read "Mistakes We Made" by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson

Posted by: consciousness razor | May 16, 2010 3:33 AM

Even granting your estimate, 1%-2% means millions of potential mind-changers. That's better than 0%, which is the exactly number obtained by giving them the finger.

Please feel free to finger yourself on the way out. Thanks again.

Posted by: irksome.infidel | May 16, 2010 7:51 AM

Kel, Jadehawk, and Mr T:

I already gave you the evidence--and I said it was empirical, scientific evidence: the book "Mistakes Were Made". It's based on clinical trials, with proper controls and all.

Carol Tavris will be speaking at TAM.

Posted by: irksome.infidel | May 16, 2010 10:08 AM

John Morales, I'm not talking about New Atheism as a whole, but only the particular Us-vs-Them mentality which has cropped up in various individual followers of New Atheism.

I read through the first two pages of testimonies in your link to Dawkins' site. Most are reactions to the God Delusion and Dawkins' other books like Unweaving the Rainbow. None said anything like, "After someone came up to me and told me how stupid I was, I immediately saw that he was right!" or "Those derogatory names he called me--they cut to the heart and made me see the truth!" Though theoretically not impossible, such a case would be interesting because it would contradict the many years of clinical research outlined in Tavris' book.

Also, PZ is no Dawkins, and a random Internet commenter is most certainly no Dawkins, so the comparison isn't even appropriate to begin with.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 16, 2010 10:43 AM

Irksome, changing peoples minds consists of two parts. First, getting their attention. That is where the vocal atheists come into play. Paraphrasing one of the vocal gay memes, we're here, we don't believe, and we aren't going away, so learn to deal with it. Gets their attention. Then the quieter atheists can persuade them that they don't need to be be loud if they lose their belief.

This blog is a vocal place. We tend to break through the inattention many folks use to cling to the old ways. Then they might complain to their neighbor, who says I'm also an atheist. That makes it a one-two punch. And might get them thinking.

Take your concern elsewhere. We don't give a shit.

Posted by: irksome.infidel | May 16, 2010 4:21 PM

People,

By all means, have a jolly old time among yourselves. Nobody is all that concerned. Who knows, maybe this a kind of support group.

Creationists have their support groups too. That doesn't stop me from dropping by a creationist forum and politely asking someone to explain ring species http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species (always a fun exercise; get them to define species first).

The only reason to bother creationists (or pharyngulites) is when they make claims which are incompatible with evidence. Otherwise who cares, let 'em have their support group.

So yuck it up to your heart's content. However when it claimed that such revelry is effective in influencing faith-heads, that's when someone may be tempted to step in and say, "Um, no, that's not how the mind works."

Like creationists, you may be tempted to formulate counter-arguments by spinning your own theories. What that strategy lacks is scientific evidence, in this case evidence based on clinical trials. But even before that, the important task is to become familiar with the existing evidence. (Think of a creationist who presents an elaborate theory based on the recession of the Moon, while he doesn't even know some basic facts about geology.)

So learn the evidence first; that book is a good start.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | May 16, 2010 5:27 PM

I already gave you the evidence--and I said it was empirical, scientific evidence: the book "Mistakes Were Made". It's based on clinical trials, with proper controls and all.

1. 0%? Seriously, 0? That technique never works - not short term, not mid-term, not long-term? If it's empirical scientific evidence and it's at 0%, then surely alarm bells ring. Are you sure you're interpreting the data in the book correctly?

2. Yesterday I went to a talk about science communication. He (the speaker) was saying one of the problems with science communication is that the data is just not there to see how effective a communicator has been. There's plenty of data checking output, but not much data at all about how effective it was at getting people to take on ideas in the mid and long terms. Now perhaps this book has data about this such thing, but I'll reserve judgement until I read it.

3. I've talked to people who were once believers who converted because of books like The God Delusion. So to me, saying 0 has to be factually incorrect because I know people who have said it. Now they might have been lying to me, or that they are misrepresenting (unintentionally) their own recollection of events. But I keep hearing about people who were once theists or creationists who have been shaken away from that belief by confronting someone hostile then over the ensuring months they gradually lost their position.

I really hope the book shows what you're saying it shows...

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 16, 2010 5:39 PM

Makes notations in certain lists for #220.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | May 16, 2010 8:25 PM

Even granting your estimate, 1%-2% means millions of potential mind-changers. That's better than 0%, which is the exactly number obtained by giving them the finger.

Besides an off-hand reference to a book which, from what I can determine from Amazon reviews, doesn't discuss either religion or atheism, what other evidence do you have?

I understand why you don't like New Atheists. We're strident, we're raucous, most of all we're noisy. Well guess what, we don't care if you don't like us. The goddists don't like us either because we force them to acknowledge that atheists exist. That is the first step to any dialogue. Without us you'd be whispering in the closet just like the goddists want you to. You don't have to thank us for our efforts. In fact, both of us realize you're too much of a pompous prig to do so. But it would be nice if you weren't such a prissy prude in your condescension.

I am definitely not a "framer" or an "accomodationist".

If you're not an accommodationist you're making an excellent impression of one. You're so good at playing the accommodationist role that you completely fooled me. Either that or you're fooling yourself.

Posted by: irksome.infidel | May 16, 2010 9:01 PM

Besides an off-hand reference to a book which, from what I can determine from Amazon reviews, doesn't discuss either religion or atheism, what other evidence do you have?

Books aren't the same as peer reviewed literature either, and are a lesser form of proof.

These quotes are like a creationist saying, "Well you mentioned The Greatest Show on Earth, but what other evidence do you have?" What the creationist doesn't understand is that any good book on evolution would do. It's not the book itself, but the decades of cumulative research from which it pulls.

Tavris' book summarizes the results from clinical psychology over the past several decades. It lists 261 references, so you could disregard the book and just read the references, if you like.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | May 16, 2010 10:17 PM

This is not a moralistic argument. Again, I don't care about people having fun with personal attacks. Just don't delude yourselves into believing claims which are well-refuted by evidence.

From what I've gathered listening to Carol Tavris talk on the matter, she's putting forth a case for the difficulties one encounters in terms of cognitive function. Perhaps there is more in the book (I'll find out for myself in a couple of weeks) and if so then I'll change my tune. But right now I'm finding that many people are responding positively to what are called the "new atheists", which makes your statement that it works for 0 empirically false.

Guess I'll find out in two weeks whether you're overstating the case made in the book, or whether I'm underestimating what's in there.

Posted by: irksome.infidel | May 16, 2010 11:13 PM

But right now I'm finding that many people are responding positively to what are called the "new atheists", which makes your statement that it works for 0 empirically false.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | May 17, 2010 12:32 AM

Moreover, in a bizarre evidence-ignoring self-assessment, the strategy is believed to be effective. [..] My point is about a specific mode of argumentation which is believed to effective while simultaneously proven to be ineffective.

As a general rule on here, I don't pull out the insults and ridicule until the argument has fallen into futility. Do I believe it effective? No! Do I do it because Myers does it? No! I do it because at that point there is no more point in trying to have a rational discussion.

Myers' "mutation" is what I described earlier as the habit of slipping a "get out of jail free" card to opponents, while somehow not recognizing the craziness of this strategy.

See the third paragraph of #222.

Posted by: John Morales | May 17, 2010 7:21 AM

irksome.infidel:

Pharyngulites have Myers as their direct ancestor, and so are likely to have this specific mutation from Myers.

Your metaphor is feeble, and fails utterly at this point.

I was a Pharynguloid well before Pharyngula existed; that I found this a congenial place in due course doesn't mean my attitude was formed from it.

Myers' "mutation" is what I described earlier as the habit of slipping a "get out of jail free" card to opponents, while somehow not recognizing the craziness of this strategy.

Your opinion is noted, but not shared.

The "tone" excuse is just a way to save face.

This is not a site for proselytising; it's a site where open discussion can take place. There're plenty of other web sites where respect is automatically granted to all others, regardless of merit. When you speak of strategy, you seem to be imagining that we're here to deconvert delusionists. Not so.

In short, this is an atheist, liberal, scientific hang-out, not a theist-friendly place. Theists come here at their peril, and that's how PZ and regulars like it.

(You might note that there are a couple of Molly-winners who are theists.)

Posted by: llewelly | May 17, 2010 8:14 AM

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnV9m0XZFyBJD1XXjpSl__qxR4GdrLdOpw | May 14, 2010 6:38 PM:

All my life (at least as all as I remember) I have deeply hungered for and desired a pink flying pony.

Posted by: ButchKitties | May 17, 2010 9:10 AM

Hmm... looks like Mr. Barron went on a comment deleting spree.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | May 17, 2010 6:00 PM

I notice the accommodationist didn't try to show he wasn't an accommodationist.

The way I see it, if an accommodationist can't even recognize what he is, then he's poorly equipped to determine the effectiveness of non-accommodationist tactics.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | May 17, 2010 7:15 PM

I suspect that Father Barron really, really, really wants for god to exist. Otherwise a major part of his life has been rendered meaningless. Plus he's annoyed that "New Atheists" are walking around, enjoying life, smelling the flowers, and otherwise being happy without god in their lives. It's not fair. They should be miserable, just like Barron would be if he discovered he'd spent all those celibate years for nothing.

Posted by: John Morales | May 18, 2010 5:43 AM

irksome.infidel:

As for PZ, if being effective is indeed not his goal then I withdraw all my comments. There's no problem with having some fun; just don't make non-evidence-based claims on top of it (cf. #217).

You're equivocating. PZ is effective at getting his POV out and engendering discussion; he doesn't pretend to do anything else.

As for "non-evidence-based claims", off the top of my head I can point to an ex-theist who abandoned his wishful thinking via Pharyngula (the regular commenter Walton).
Hence, there is at least one counter-example to your claim of zero effectiveness of "new atheist commentary" as a motivator for a theist to re-examine their beliefs.
(cf. 34 Unconvincing Arguments for God.)

You are free to design and conduct your own clinical trials in order to find refuting evidence, but until then you are obliged to accept the existing evidence.

I hardly think your putative evidence refers to Pharyngula. How is it relevant?

Again, I'm talking about the expected failure rate of an instance of particular argument directed at a particular person.

Which "particular argument", which "particular person"? I only see generic claims, and a straw-man version of "new atheism".

Be specific.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 18, 2010 7:04 AM

Yawn, an anti new atheist tone troll lying? What next? The sun will rise in the east? The bear will shit in the woods?

Posted by: Shala | May 18, 2010 8:09 AM

Irksome, if it weren't for Pharyngula I would still be a theist.

We need "strident" people to reach out to others like these folks do in their own way.

Not everyone wants to listen to people that just make them feel good. Being challenged is what makes some people change their minds.

Posted by: John Morales | May 18, 2010 8:21 AM

Thank you, Shala.

Posted by: irksome.infidel | May 18, 2010 9:54 AM

And you base that on what? Please don't cite that book again, especially if it has no data beyond a psychological model.

These quotes are like a creationist saying, "Well you mentioned The Greatest Show on Earth, but what other evidence do you have?" What the creationist doesn't understand is that any good book on evolution would do. It's not the book itself, but the decades of cumulative research from which it pulls.

Tavris' book summarizes the results from clinical psychology over the past several decades. It lists 261 references, so you could disregard the book and just read the references, if you like.

#244, #246:

Like I've stated repeatedly, I've seen it happen.

One name: Walton.

#242:

It would be absurd to extrapolate a global claim like "Nobody who reads Pharyngula ever gets converted" (cf. #229). Namely, the controls aren't there.

I presume that you don't need me to explain the difference between testimony based on anecdotal stories and experimental results of clinical trials. If you can demonstrate such behavior experimentally (read: with controls), then you have really got some interesting data.

There seems to be a consistent misunderstanding that behavior claims are free to be proposed or rejected without reference to empirical evidence from controlled studies. That's not how science (in this case, clinical psychology) works.

Posted by: irksome.infidel | May 18, 2010 5:21 PM

There's not much anecdote to be had when Walton's entire deconversion is basically documented on this blog, you know.

This and previous comments convince me that readers have a misapprehension of what "controlled experiment" means. That relevant quotes have been consistently elided makes it ever more convincing. With bolding for convenience, #251:

If you can demonstrate such behavior experimentally (read: with controls), then you have really got some interesting data.

There seems to be a consistent misunderstanding that behavior claims are free to be proposed or rejected without reference to empirical evidence from controlled studies. That's not how science (in this case, clinical psychology) works.

Again, I'm talking about the expected failure rate of an instance of particular argument directed at a particular person. It would be absurd to extrapolate a global claim like "Nobody who reads Pharyngula ever gets converted" (cf. #229). Namely, the controls aren't there.

The times when people slowly changed their mind through interaction with the comments, it was the comments that didn't give the finger.

This is another way of saying that removing the controls does not make sense.

Now every experiment needs to be controlled, meaning that we must do everything in our power to remove or limit confounding factors. It helps to limit the scope of the experiment, in this case conducting an isolated encounter under controlled conditions. In fact such a limitation is the only way a reasonable measurement could be recorded, and why extrapolating global predictions is out of the question.

Think of all the uncontrolled interactions which take place before, during, and after a comment on a blog. It should be clear that the process of blog commenting is not a controlled experiment. Imagine your reaction to someone who insists that comments on a homeopathy blog serve to demonstrate that homeopathy works. "Look, people got better! The evidence is right there in the blog comments!" Even assuming all participants are impeccably honest, it still cannot count as evidence.

Another point which as been consistently elided from the conversation is the red herring of 0% which was addressed in #213, #242. In both comments I made clear that while disconfirming evidence is a theoretical possibility, none has been found thus far. It is in this sense (as previously explained) that we are confident of the 0% outcome, and if you like there are theoretical error bars, but we can't measure them because we have no instances of errors, like rabbit fossils in the pre-Cambrian.

It appears that misunderstandings continue to appear (or persist) at a rate faster than I am able to address them, given my limited time (which is expected in high-dissonance/high-conflict conversations). If anyone wishes to continue in good faith then feel free to email me at irksome.infidel@gmail.com.

Posted by: John Morales | May 18, 2010 6:41 PM

Shorter irksome: theory trumps observation.

“Eppur si muove”

--

Imagine your reaction to someone who insists that comments on a homeopathy blog serve to demonstrate that homeopathy works. "Look, people got better! The evidence is right there in the blog comments!" Even assuming all participants are impeccably honest, it still cannot count as evidence.

Bad comparison; belief is not a physiological disease or injury, nor is hostile argumentation a medicine.

(Note that it's quite possible that a psychosomatic disorder will be amenable to homeopathic treatment.)

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 18, 2010 6:59 PM

please, AK* I shudder every time I see the word "mendacious" used anymore.

there are plenty of good synonyms, yes?

:P

*After Kwok

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 18, 2010 7:06 PM

Ah, a psychologist claiming to be a hard scientist. Excuse me while I run off to have a fit of giggles, or worse...

there are plenty of good synonyms, yes?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 18, 2010 7:27 PM

Ichthyic, Montebank of Deceit?

Posted by: holyheretics | May 19, 2010 1:27 AM

Dear PZ Myers

I have been enjoying your blog. Thanks!

Posted by: John Morales | May 19, 2010 7:10 AM

Walton, I linked to one such thread @243.

Apparently, irksome finds it non-evidential, inasmuch as it was not a "controlled study".

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | May 19, 2010 5:14 PM

Now every experiment needs to be controlled, meaning that we must do everything in our power to remove or limit confounding factors.

While it's desirable to have an experiment with such rigorous standards it's not always possible. Indeed, medicine uses observation studies and astronomers can't exactly conduct controlled experiments with stars (at least presently). Yet both medicine and astronomy are considered sciences.

My statistics prof basically had this nice rule of thumb:

no data < anecdote < observational study < controlled study

Posted by: John Morales | May 19, 2010 9:07 PM

irksome:

When you make a claim about the effectiveness of a certain form of argumentation, you are making a scientific claim about how the mind works.

But it was you who originally made the claim that "a certain form of argumentation" did not "work" — i.e. that it will never change minds.

A counter-example was provided in response to your claim.

There are decades of research from clinical psychology.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 19, 2010 9:14 PM

Don't let the same happen to you.

no worries.

btw, "irksome" as a handle fits you well.

I'm thinking one of these synonyms might fit even better though...

http://encarta.msn.com/thesaurus_561577998_561577998/nextpage.html

anyone have a favorite?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 19, 2010 9:17 PM

Don't let the same happen to you.

When you make a claim about the effectiveness of a certain form of argumentation,

Don't let yourself fall into it.

to scientific data,

There are decades of research from clinical psychology.

You could look up all 261 references and discard the book, if you prefer.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | May 19, 2010 9:22 PM

I notice that Irksome.Accommodationist complains we don't have any "scientific data from controlled studies." However I notice a distinct lack of the same for his claims. (No, Irksome.Accommodationist, I do not accept some random book which at first glance has absolutely nothing to do with whether "New Atheism" converts the masses or not as proving your claim.)

We've heard this same shit from accommodationists before. They claim "you guys are being mean to the goddists and they don't like it, so you should stop." Irksome.Accommodationist differs only in claiming some book supports his whining. Other than that, it's the same tone trolling we get from accommodationists all the time.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 19, 2010 9:29 PM

Irksome, you made your point 30 posts ago, Kel, who we trust, is looking at your idjit book, and the rest of us see you as nothing an accommodationist troll. So why not retire? Further trolling of that book will not convince us. In fact, it will convince us you have nothing, and are trying to be the "authority". Just like every other accommodationist, creobot, godbot, and IDiot who comes trolling here.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 19, 2010 9:51 PM

furthermore, I know of many sociological studies that have looked at the value of ridicule in marginalizing bad behavior.

Is our resident concern troll unaware of any of these?

or does it think them irrelevant, I wonder...

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 19, 2010 10:05 PM

It's not possible to make a controlled experiment for "contributing factor in their eventual decision".

how many published studies in psychology are based on interview data?

well?

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | May 19, 2010 10:23 PM

Irksome Accomodationist wrote:

It's not possible to make a controlled experiment for "contributing factor in their eventual decision". And the claim does not follow from the results of limited, controlled interactions; that would be an inappropriate global extrapolation, as I mentioned.

I don't believe it's possible to make 'controlled experiments' on the issue of losing religious beliefs, period. For starters, how would anticipate recruiting subjects? And even then that's only going to happen after you get down some clear definitions of 'religious beliefs' and how to accurately measure it beforehand.

But we can gather satisfactory data on behaviour change via means other than controlled experiments, and extrapolate from that. Heck, it's key aspect of marketing.

Of course, if you could provide relevant studies to the contrary, you'd have a point - but, because you can't, this is nothing more than accomodationism via a form of greedy reductionism.

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | May 19, 2010 10:46 PM

Irksome Accomodationist wrote:

I assume you understand that interview data is unlike a controlled experiment, so I wonder what you mean. I didn't mention interview data, and I don't see a purpose in guessing a number. Could you clarify your reasoning here?

You've got to be kidding. Poe?

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | May 19, 2010 10:54 PM

When you make a claim about the effectiveness of a certain form of argumentation

I have a few complaints about how you've handled your argument on here, as I've laid it out above (#246) I won't make the case again. I don't think you've argued in good faith, you've made general statements which you've backtracked on to make specific statements, which by the end I'm not actually sure what you're arguing against anymore. Clarity is your friend, not something to skirt around when pressed.

What you believe to be true based on personal conviction and personal experience is not necessarily, in reality, true. You don't need me to tell you this. Homeopathy quacks are mired in that fallacy.

When it comes to posting here, I can only rely on my experiences. I have no idea how others post here, but I do it by hitting the submit button. When it comes to an individual changing belief, I can look to see what causal factors present themselves through my interaction with them. When it's over a long time in online conversations, I can see how a person's position changes over time. It's not perfect, there's a degree of interpretation and self-reporting - but this is better than nothing. As for your interpretation of Tavris' book, I think you are overextending what's in the book because you're narrowly focusing on a particular methodology of data and from that extracting certainty, at the same time as I'm being told by people working in parallel yet relevant fields that the data simply isn't there.

So for all those cases, what can I do? Be sceptical! For the keyboard input post, I can see that my post actually appears and that others are responding to it. Pretty much signifies that I'm doing something right. No need to rub a feather over the computer before hitting submit. For the self-reporting, keep in mind that self-reporting isn't the most reliable means. I haven't made any claims about it being effective other than 0 offends my sensibilities on empiricism and that I've had sufficient examples to show that ain't the case. It's not enough to warrant to say it's effective or that it's the most effective, but that discounting the possibility of it working at all is premature (remember that homoeopathy does work - as a placebo). As for Tavris' book, all I can do is read it and see what's in there. I'm not qualified to say what's in the book is wrong, but my concern is not the book's contents but your extension of the ideas apparently contained within to give you such certainty.

So yes, I could be wildly misguided on a lot of things. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc is something that one should always be on the lookout for. My claim here has always been that you're overreaching in your conclusion, and for what? How can you be sure you're not making the same mistake with interpreting the data or interpreting the claims or atmosphere of people here?

Kel, who we trust, is looking at your idjit book

In this case, I think one should be sceptical of the way the book is being used to prop up a specious claim. In a couple of weeks I can give an account of the book, but the argument the book is being used to prop up has many things wrong with it other than that the book is being used to prop it up. Don't kick the book out from under it, the book isn't so thick that it puts the argument beyond kicking height ;)

I know of many sociological studies that have looked at the value of ridicule in marginalizing bad behavior.

Posted by: irksome.infidel | May 19, 2010 11:04 PM

You could look up all 261 references and discard the book, if you prefer.

A book isn't the same a peer reviewed journal article.

As if we care about your alleged studies. You are brainwashed, we aren't.

Further trolling of that book will not convince us. In fact, it will convince us you have nothing

You won't let you make up our minds for us. You are too stoopid for us to give you that authority.

Could Ned be the first Pharyngula-targeted Poe? That is, someone whose intent is to ridicule Pharyngula?

If not then Ned: take a deep breath, read #268, and watch Dawkins' interview with Wendy Wright.

What happens when each side concludes the other is Poe? Does it create a singularity?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 19, 2010 11:12 PM

Yawn, loser troll still trying to make the decision for us. It won't work. And as a real (not social) scientist, your concept of constitutes peer review doesn't match mine. Guess what, get off your one- note chant of us looking, and actually present on of those references to us. Full citation, and a summary of the paper. If you are capable of it. Which I doubt.

Posted by: Owlmirror | May 19, 2010 11:18 PM

my concern is not the book's contents but your extension of the ideas apparently contained within to give you such certainty.

Yeah, this.

irk sounds very, very certain about having understood the exact claims made by Tavris, and sounds very, very certain about presenting those exact claims here.

And yet, irk does not really have the sort of expertise that demonstrates actual understanding and experience -- especially given the absolutist sort of claims made.

I find myself wondering if irk might not perhaps be a perfect example of a "skeptic" with the exact sort of cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias that Tavris is trying to highlight.

Wouldn't that be ironic?

Posted by: Owlmirror | May 19, 2010 11:27 PM

That having been said, I am not sure that Walton (Hi, Walton!) is useful as a counterexample.

The whole point, as I understand after an admittedly sketchy survey of the sort of thing Tavris appears to be saying, is that the sort of mindset that embraces and "resolves" cognitive dissonance by creating a new idea that justifies retaining false beliefs, is exactly the sort of mindset that Walton does not have. Someone who is willing to acknowledge the reasoning and evidence offered in counterargument, and examine his beliefs in light of that reasoning and evidence, and change his mind after being presented with that reasoning and evidence -- no matter how many gratuitous insults were sometimes offered with it -- is pretty much the opposite sort of mindset.

Posted by: John Morales | May 19, 2010 11:44 PM

Owlmirror, it is a truism that those whose mindset is not amenable to change via confrontation and ridicule aren't amenable to change via confrontation and ridicule, but Walton still exists; as such, he suffices as a counter-example contrary to irksome's claim (as expressed in such contentions as "No amount of argumentation whatsoever will get another person to accept your conclusion" [#198] and "0%" [#206]), which is an absolute (i.e. universal) one.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | May 19, 2010 11:59 PM

I find myself wondering if irk might not perhaps be a perfect example of a "skeptic" with the exact sort of cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias that Tavris is trying to highlight.

Posted by: Owlmirror | May 20, 2010 12:46 AM

but Walton still exists; as such, he suffices as a counter-example contrary to irksome's claim (as expressed in such contentions as "No amount of argumentation whatsoever will get another person to accept your conclusion" [#198] and "0%" [#206]), which is an absolute (i.e. universal)

True. OK, point granted.

Walton, you're still exemplary!

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 20, 2010 12:52 AM

Rufus: I'm telling you, man, this ceremony is a big mistake.
Cardinal Glick: The Catholic Church does not make mistakes.
Rufus: Please. What about the Church's silent consent to the slave trade?
Bethany: And its platform of noninvolvement during the Holocaust?
Cardinal Glick: All right, mistakes were made.

Posted by: consciousness razor | May 20, 2010 1:52 AM

I've been too busy with work and music-scribbling to check in again until now. My apologies. It looks like I've missed loads of bullshit fun from irksome...

Irksome's claims are ridiculous, so they deserve ridicule. That doesn't necessarily mean he or she deserves anything in particular, just that the claims themselves are not worth taking seriously. If people aren't willing to separate themselves from their own claims, then they are still not thinking critically, no matter how patient or polite anyone is about it. It would not be "critical thinking," "free-thinking" or "skepticism" at all if it depends on the arguer's tone or whether the argument is filled to the brim with expletives. As mother always used to say, "Two plus motherfucking two equals four, you son of a bitch!" These factors (as well as other biases) also must be discarded from rational thought because they are always irrelevant.

How effective ridicule is as a mode of communication is another question. Contrary to irksome's weird insistence on its impossibility, ridicule is effective, but I admit that all of the reasons are not entirely clear to me. It does seem to be the case that we are more likely to remember things which have made an emotional impression. It also seems to be inevitable that people will ridicule things which are absurd, with or without the approval of accomodationists.

And it does in fact change minds by making it clear how absurd something is on the face of it, how utterly unworthy of serious contemplation an idea is. This has a superficial resemblance to how creationists will mock evolution by saying "I didn't come from no monkey", but they are only deluding themselves with a strawman. If the actual claim being made is that remarkably stupid, then there is no good reason to be shy or polite about it. One doesn't need to go into a long philosophical treatise to explain the intricate process by which one might determine the relative absurdity of the transubstantiation (but presumably "absurd" only if and only if I'm not being offended in the process). One can simply say, "It's a frackin' cracker!", and move on to something more interesting. This expresses the message, wastes no time on a silly topic which deserves none, and it fucking works.

Posted by: irksome.infidel | May 20, 2010 3:03 AM

I think we can agree that Tavris herself is absolutely not an accommodationist.

Delegating dissonant views to out-group generalizations is Janis' fourth symptom of groupthink. Something to contemplate. http://www.psysr.org/about/pubs_resources/groupthink%20overview.htm

Posted by: Owlmirror | May 20, 2010 4:03 AM

It's funny to see this "insult" since the position does not follow from anything I've said.

The problem is that what you've said has been internally inconsistent, possibly contradictory to your source of information, and often unclear.

Accommodationists are often that way as well.

While calling you an accommodationist may well be the result of an incorrect inference from confusing or incomplete data, I think it's a not entirely incomprehensible mistake.

Any responses to #302?

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | May 20, 2010 4:49 AM

I'm not at all keen on the dichotomy of "accommodationism" versus "New Atheism". I think there's a place for both.

On the one hand, on a lot of issues, atheists and agnostics should be forging alliances with liberal and progressive religious people: evolution, science education, LGBT equality, gender equality, aid to the developing world, and so on. Driving a wedge between non-believers and liberal believers on these issues would just be silly; we should work together to combat fundamentalism, ignorance and pseudoscience, and to build a better and fairer world. I have a lot of respect for Christians like Barry Lynn who are on the right side on these issues.

On the other hand, I think it's also a good thing for atheists and agnostics to be candid about the fact that we don't believe. When it's appropriate to discuss religion, a non-theistic point of view should be heard in the debate; and we shouldn't show some sort of faux-deference to religious ideas which we consider to be entirely wrongheaded. There's a difference between respecting a person and "respecting" his or her ideas, and if an idea appears to be totally irrational and non-evidence-based, it's fine to say so, in religion as in any other field.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | May 20, 2010 6:21 AM

Something to contemplate.

The only way I can make sense of your position is that you're an exercise in scepticism. Trying to show by example that the particular strategy doesn't work. Because what you're saying and how you're saying it are an expression of cognitive dissonance. Mistakes were made but not by irksome.infidel it seems.

I've been here for nearly two years now. And I'm not surprised that people have called you an accommodationist. I don't think you are, nor that they're using the term correctly. As far as I can gather, an accommodationist is one who advocates for compatibility between science and religion. You're not doing that, and whoever is labelling you as one is wrong.

In those two years I've seen many people come on here and proclaim this place an echo chamber, or that anyone who posts here is merely a slave to the intellectual dominance that is PZ Myers. It's a means to dismiss the opinion of many people telling you you're wrong, as if someone can't see that 2+2=4 without having a professor first point it out to them. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc and whatnot. And all for what? As far as I can see, it's an easy way to deal with consensus opinion without having to be substantive. Like those who would dismiss atheists as having bad relationships with their father, it doesn't mean the arguments they have for belief in God are any good but they can take on the negativity by trying to find an underlying motive for holding a belief rather than checking the veracity of the rationality behind it.

And this is why I don't think you're arguing in good faith. You've made grand claims, then skirted around that claims while never admitting fallibility. Given what the book's contents are, surely admitting you're wrong is the best path forward. Perhaps everything you've said was right and it's people here who can't see it. Who knows? Mistakes were made, but not by pharyngula regulars ;)

Posted by: Ratio | May 20, 2010 11:40 PM

Hi guys. I hate to spoil the fun here, but don't you think that the real culprit who is stealing our joyful life is getting away? The doggone Gods are laughing at us now it seems. Can we focus to the issues at hand here?

Posted by: John Morales | May 21, 2010 6:55 PM

Ratio: which god/ess?

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | May 21, 2010 9:09 PM

Who is God?

For arguments sake, let's say that God is the prime mover. Now what could we know about the nature of God? We have no grounds to ascribe agency to it, merely reflect it as the "uncaused cause". That tells us nothing about God except that it is an uncaused cause. We can't really derive anything about the nature of God, the placeholder is merely an expression of the unknown. Though take a version of God that interferes in world events. Causes earthquakes and heals the occasional terminal cancer patient. IF we're implying that God is more than merely an expression of uncertainty, then we're implying agency in the world. God is a conscious decision maker. This would mean that God - as far as we can derive is a natural finite and contingent being like we are.

The nature we ascribe to God, if it means anything, can only come from reflection of what God is meant to explain. The question is not "who" but "what". What is God? Until that's quantified, asking who is putting too much into assumptions - it's anthropomorphising reality!

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | May 22, 2010 3:12 AM

If we are unable to 'quantify' what is God as the 'unknown' being, scientifically, can we deduce that we have no apparatus to judge the unknown.

This is in the sense that it first needs to be quantified before it is meaningful to even discuss. Dark Energy is a placeholder for a specific phenomenon in which we know nothing. It's not just some random thing that could possibly mean anything, otherwise the term is not meaningful at all.

Or probably science is just not the right tool?

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | May 22, 2010 4:04 AM

We didn't know anything about blackholes and quasars until science re-discovered it for us.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | May 22, 2010 7:08 AM

If God is non-existent, how does it all started. How does the first of all matters/dark matters comes to existence?

As for how matter came into existence, remember e=mc². Matter formed from energy. And to anticipate your next question, where did the energy come from? The total energy of the universe is 0! I'll let Lawrence Krauss explain it.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | May 22, 2010 7:26 AM

If we look at the historical record then we see many different gods with many different attributes. For instance the Christian god comes in multiple peculiarities and flavors. Fred Phelps' god is very different from James Spong's god.

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | May 22, 2010 7:49 AM

If God is non-existent, how does it all started. How does the first of all matters/dark matters comes to existence? Can there be any explanation to this phenomenon of sudden existence from a non-existence?

There are many theories out there, but we don't know for certain at this point. We got many people working on it.

However, from that you CANNOT say 'nobody knows, therefore God'. We may not know what the answer is but we can rule certain things out. The God hypothesis is one of these things. It completely lacks evidence. It only pushes to the problem to 'well, why God?' It anthropomorphize the universe in a way that it's not justified. I think the only really thing it tells us about is human psychology.

Posted by: Ratio | May 22, 2010 9:38 AM

God is the answer to the hard problem of existence.

I have no problem with the universe being created out of nothingness. Whether it is a 'big bang theory', resultant 'multi-universes' with many babies bubbling throughout nothingness or even with the 'theory of something', there is no arguments on that. The resultant effect is that matter/dark matter was created by something.

Wouldn't it be fulfilling to know scientifically how that 'spark' of energy can be generated from absolute zero? Is there any method of quantifications here that we can grasp. Or can we just leave it to psychology?

Krauss mentioned, ... if you have nothing in quantum mechanics then you will have something... then he goes on implying about 'balancing'. Its something like nature is performing a balance. Why is the need for balance necessary? Can the universe with all its content be chaotic and annihilate each other out of existence? Is there a 'code' that has lead to the direction for this expanding universe? Like the DNA stuff.

I agree with Krauss that how little is known about the phenomenon of infinity and yet infinity is real.

Posted by: Maldoror | May 22, 2010 4:18 PM

I wonder how this windbag would feel about a truly joyful atheist and blasphemer like Benjamin Peret.......

speaking of spitting on priests

http://www.aj3d.dds.nl/div/imgdiv/BPeret.jpg

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 22, 2010 4:23 PM

Yawn, still no need for a dog, and still no mechanism for the creation of said dog, and still no solid evidence for said dog. I think someone has a problem, and it isn't the regulars...

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | May 22, 2010 9:39 PM

If you mean philosophy instead of psychology, you might have a tentative point. Consider the notion of a designer. Evolution as an explanation for life didn't really take off until 1859, there were evolutionary models put forward but it took Darwin to make the case that life had evolved. In the subsequent 150 years, how life came to be is almost exclusively a scientific endeavour. There are still philosophers who work on the foundational conceptions of evolutionary theory but it would be misleading to say that it is anything but science.

But before there was a scientific discipline of biology, there were philosophical arguments concerning life itself. In 1779, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion was published. The dialogue is between three characters: an orthodox theist who argues from first cause, an experimental theist who argues from design, and a philosophical sceptic. In part 5 of the dialogue, the argument from design is absolutely savaged.

I bring this up to show the role of philosophy in thought. If a matter is philosophical in nature, it doesn't mean it always will be. While it's beyond the reach of science, yes philosophy has something to say. But it doesn't mean that philosophy will always be the main tool to use in any given situation. It would be absurd to think that one could discuss how life came to be without science, but at one point there there wasn't the science to adequately discuss it.

A great book to read is Bertrand Russell - The Problems Of Philosophy.

Posted by: Ratio | May 24, 2010 12:48 AM

Science loves mysteries...loves the not knowing... (Richard Krauss).

We can call it a day here like Columbus and Vespucci or we can travel with Magellan into the Sea of Darkness to venture further with more gains.

Billions of people believe in God's existent. Science have reached billions of light-years to the edge of the known space and has never failed to stop pushing to the limits.

Should we write-off the existence of God now? Or keep to the spelling as doG?

Ironically isn't it. Lars Vilks must have something worth pondering. A walkaround dog that walks in circles.

Posted by: Ratio | May 24, 2010 1:12 AM

Oops I meant Lawrence Krauss...not Richard. Sorry.

An anology of the the Humanoids. The creator (human) being annihilated by the creation (intelligent bio-robots).

Posted by: Ratio | May 24, 2010 3:10 AM

I wouldn’t want to go further into the details and fallacy of religion and rather side with the logics.

God is unquantifiable and if we can, then God is just another physical element like the ‘unseen’ zero. God will then be ‘captured and manipulated’ into the human brain. Many religion has actually fallen into this trap of representation of God through physical means. Evil and good is but man’s own doing.

As in the analogy of the creator having the upper-hand, a logical explanation would be to ‘blank-out’ the capabilities of the created subjects to knowing the creator’s attributes and physical properties.

I hope this is just a discussion that we can ponder on. Maybe we have reached a dead-end or maybe not. I don’t plan to agree or disagree forever. Religious people do live a joyful life and so does atheist. I am just another ‘third-party’ who is not with us nor I am against us looking at a different point of perspective.

If I were to post this question of existence of God into a religious-biased blogsite and insists that God does exist with whatever sciences or philosophy that I can throw in, I will most probably get a pat on the shoulder with words of praises. But that would be fooling myself. Knowledge will be lost and the walls of divide will only be thicker.

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | May 24, 2010 3:35 AM

Ratio wrote:

God is unquantifiable

How can something be observable but not quantifiable?

Posted by: consciousness razor | May 24, 2010 4:06 AM

Wow, this thread just doesn't want to die....

I am just another ‘third-party’ who is not with us nor I am against us looking at a different point of perspective.

I'm not sure what you think you're with or against. It's not as though one can partially believe in something, or that one can believe a fraction of a deity exists. One might claim that some part of an idea is correct, but at least for the past several millennia, the god-soaked have uniformly failed to discover even things which are "partially true" about their bullshit myths. It's quite simple: there is at least one god, or there are zero gods. On the one hand, there is a ton of bullshit disguised by smoke and mirrors; on the other, there is reason and evidence.

But that would be fooling myself. Knowledge will be lost and the walls of divide will only be thicker.

There is no such thing as "knowledge" about "a god," or "The God," or any sort of any number of "gods". The only exception to this: we do have some knowledge that there is zero evidence that any god exists. Of course, depending on what one means by "god" (which is always a subject best avoided by the credulous), there's often not even the slightest reason to think such a thing can possibly exist.

Posted by: John Morales | May 24, 2010 4:37 AM

Ratio:

Religious people do live a joyful life and so does atheist.

The which proposition implies religion is not necessary for a joyful life; furthermore, I submit that the existence of unhappy religious people implies that religion is also not sufficient.

I suggest you consider the implication of religion being neither necessary nor sufficient for a joyful life...

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 24, 2010 10:44 PM

Yawn, sophist philosophy is boring. Nothing but mental masturbation. Just like religion....

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | May 24, 2010 11:28 PM

Do I exist here? Can anyone describe how I look physically but yet no one has seen me?

Do you exist? The physical phenomenon we are trying to explain is a series of interactive posts under the name "Ratio". So does "Ratio" exist? Yes "Ratio" does. Ratio in this case is the placeholder for the cause that underlies the effect of posts on this blog entry. Next question.

Can anyone describe what "Ratio" looks like physically? To an extent, yes. Because chatbots aren't sufficently advanced to carry on what "Ratio" is doing, it means that "Ratio" is probably human. A few lines of evidence support this. Firstly you're communicating in English. So that rules out all other animals in the animal kingdom. Language in its advanced form is an entirely human characteristic. You'd also have to be of a particular age, over the age of 5 no doubt. Given the kinds of ideas you're talking about, you're probably at least a teenager. Gender? Not sure. Would guess male but that would be a bias on my part. Ethnicity? Not sure. English appears to be your first language given your fluency.

So if I applied my criteria, I would say yes you exist. Ratio is a label for the underlying phenomena of the posts and interactivity of which we are trying to explain. And from our understanding of such phenomenon and the data available, you're a human who is at least of pubescent age who has been exposed to English from a young age.

How close am I?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 24, 2010 11:37 PM

Ratio exist due to physical evidence, his imaginary deity doesn't have any physical evidence. Philosophical meanderings is not physical evidence, just random noise, ergo meaningless.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | May 25, 2010 12:06 AM

Kel, I am intrigued, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter and learn to better understand and seek a personal relationship with Quixido.

As soon as you're making the assumption of the ability to have a personal relationship, you're making a statement about the nature of Quixido. This is where Ratio has made an error in a failure to quantify God, he's made the assumptions about the nature of God but won't put them forward to be scrutinised. It's like a game of whack-a-mole where no moles come out and then the maker complains that the score remains at 0.

Posted by: Usagichan | May 25, 2010 12:27 AM

Kel,

You're making the assumption that Quixido is something you can have a personal relationship with.

No, no, no - you're doing it all wrong! What you say is "Sure, Quixido will solve all your problems if you only Believe - He wants you to send me ten dollars a month, and I'll send you his Truth (revealed to me and me only) in a monthly Newsletter. A personal relationship can be arranged for the minimal fee of a hundred dollars."

Well, it worked for Lafayette R H didn't it?

Posted by: Usagichan | May 25, 2010 1:47 AM

I have touched into your brains and hearts without the need to show myself physically.

But you have shown your opinions physically - You have demonstrated your existence, without showing yourself. There is nothing mystical or magical in what you have done. In fact, you can see how easy it is to prove the existence of something, even when that thing cannot be perceived directly, by way of evidence.

I doubt any of the posters here have any problem accepting the existence of things they cannot directly perceive, where there is evidence supporting the existence of these things. The question continues to be, why accept the existence of anything for which there is no evidence?

Posted by: Owlmirror | May 25, 2010 3:39 AM

I exist and yet no one here can come close to describing my physical appearance, my gender, my age and my first language.

But we have your genus and species down cold, right?

I have touched into your brains and hearts without the need to show myself physically.

There are more than a million comments on this blog from hundreds of commenters who have done exactly the same thing as yourself.

Yet I am here.

There are more than six billion humans on this planet. Is there some kind of point to you demonstrating that you are one of them?

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 25, 2010 4:16 AM

pixels aren't physical? what are they, magic?

pixel pixies!

yay!

oooh, sparkly...

:P

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | May 25, 2010 4:36 AM

I have touched into your brains and hearts without the need to show myself physically.

You quite clearly physically exist. You've given that away by posting here, just as you've given away you're human and that you speak English. Yet what can you say about God? Nothing! You won't say anything because the moment you define it, you lose your ability to avoid criticism of your position!

Posted by: John Morales | May 25, 2010 4:52 AM

Ratio, does Kuatu exist? :)

(Kuatu says 'Hi!", by the way)

Posted by: David Marjanović | May 25, 2010 5:56 AM

I exist and yet no one here can come close to describing my physical appearance, my gender, my age and my first language. I have touched into your brains and hearts without the need to show myself physically. Yet I am here.

And yet, no miracle is involved, and thus no evidence of anything supernatural.

So you point is...?

Yes, on the internet, nobody knows you're a god.

*eyeroll*

Thread won.

Posted by: Owlmirror | May 25, 2010 1:51 PM

pixels aren't physical? what are they, magic?

Fuckin' pixels; how do they work?

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | May 26, 2010 12:53 AM

what the fuck was the point of that word-salad?

near as I can tell, that was a bunch of "atheists are mean, heartless and intolerant, because they won't accept the bullshit I just pulled out of my ass as the clever and deep thought I'd like to thing it is"

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | May 26, 2010 3:40 AM

I apologise if I had caused any discomfort here, no offence intended.

One thing I hate to engage in is a game of theistic whack-a-mole. I'm not a mind reader, I can't understand what your conception of God is without you telling me. If I make any positive claim about the nature of God, you can always conject that I'm attacking a straw-man. That is worse than useless. Instead it's important for you to articulate your ideas and conceptions in order for other people to understand them as clearly as they possibly can. Otherwise you will never be understood and people will become frustrated with you.

Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy | May 27, 2010 6:02 PM

Nevertheless, I remain convinced that Quixido favors my people and wishes me to proclaim his name to the world.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | May 28, 2010 2:52 AM

What’s the point of a joyful life when we cannot share it, when we have lost our compassion and consideration of others.

all we have lost is our tolerance of bad IDEAS.

which is the kind of nonsense thinking that makes me want to speak out in the first place!

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | July 25, 2010 3:25 AM

Finished the book, time to evaluate irksome.infidel's claims...

Even granting your estimate, 1%-2% means millions of potential mind-changers. That's better than 0%, which is the exactly number obtained by giving them the finger.

It is indeed a verifiable, empirical scientific fact that you will not influence them if you challenge their intelligence.

Regarding (2), there is much data showing that cognitive dissonance will absolutely determine the decision between an enormous sunken cost (like religion) and the rejection of an argument because it contains a silly personal attack (such as an accusation of being unintelligent, which is probably not even the case).

Tavris' book summarizes the results from clinical psychology over the past several decades. It lists 261 references, so you could disregard the book and just read the references, if you like.

It is 0% in the same manner that we expect the probability of rabbit fossils in pre-Cambrian to be 0%. Like I said in #213, it is theoretically not impossible, but such a finding would contradict decades of accumulated research.

In particular cognitive dissonance is among the most predictable aspects of human behavior.

I presume that you don't need me to explain the difference between testimony based on anecdotal stories and experimental results of clinical trials.

It is in this sense (as previously explained) that we are confident of the 0% outcome, and if you like there are theoretical error bars, but we can't measure them because we have no instances of errors, like rabbit fossils in the pre-Cambrian.