Pharyngula

Posted by: Pigdowndog | August 20, 2010 8:44 AM

Don't sit on the fence PZ. Tell him what you really think.

Posted by: Alice Bluegown | August 20, 2010 8:49 AM

There just had to be a 'Meyers' - it's like the cherry on top of the bullshit cake...

Posted by: Doug Little | August 20, 2010 8:50 AM

Please, no more, I can't take it. When are these fuckheads going to learn that evolution is not a random fucking process.

Can someone point this fine fellow toward a basic library of Cosmology, Biology, Physics, Chemistry, Computer Science, Logic and Mathematics books.

That would be a good start.

Posted by: Imsety | August 20, 2010 8:52 AM

Well, at least he didn't go on the old "Look at the trees, and the clouds" route.

Though to be fair, that was the craziest watchmaker analogy ever.

Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM, CR | August 20, 2010 8:52 AM

I don't wish to be rude
(but I do)
To a scientist dude
(such as you)
But I thought
(so you see)
That you ought
(just like me)
To be covered in crude
(which I spew)

Posted by: speedweasel | August 20, 2010 8:57 AM

Epic post. Like a skeleton poking out of quicksand, this guy can only hope to serve as a warning to more intelligent travellers.

Posted by: Zeno | August 20, 2010 8:58 AM

Abell needs to pray more. The Holy Spirit is supposed to provide words of wisdom to the believer who has none of his own. In Abell's case, the Holy Spirit is not answering the phone. (Perhaps no one is home.) More prayer! (And fewer idiotic messages to nonbelievers.)

Posted by: Ogvorbis, Parenthetical Death | August 20, 2010 9:03 AM

For some people, authoritarianism beats questioning every time. And they cannot (or will not) understand why some people resist recieved wisdom.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | August 20, 2010 9:06 AM

Crafty rejoinder, as usual...I don't know how you can stand to reply to the same twaddle over and over again. I would lose my mind.

Posted by: MadScientist | August 20, 2010 9:09 AM

I guess Ray Comfort still gives 'em course credits.

Ah, the letter is so full of that christian love ... it's almost as much fun as being waterboarded.

Posted by: Snikkers | August 20, 2010 9:16 AM

I think Mr. Cranky Pants needs an early night tonight!

I believe in reality, and hard work, and the redeeming power of knowledge; I don't believe in magic.

I have added this line to my email signature with appropriate reference. I hope that's okay; seems cranky people write well.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | August 20, 2010 9:18 AM

If you landed on an alien planet and discovered something that looked like plastic, had buttons and a screen. You would say it looked like a computer. You would also have to deduce that some kind of intelligence made this.

This especially bugs me, because...no on an alien planet, that ain't necessarily so. I can easily imagine a world with a ecosystem based on drastically different chemistry, Silicon or ammonia or etc, having life forms that would possibly LOOK like machines. If you found a planet filled with life made out of metallic and plastic looking materials would you presume it was designed or not?

Posted by: karlfrankjr | August 20, 2010 9:25 AM

What would you think if you stumbled across an alien planet and found not a computer, but the Christian bible? Would you assume it is divine just because the contents said so? When God said "Let it be," did he say it in English? What language did God use when he spoke to Adam and Eve and how did they understand him? Better yet, how did that talking serpent know the same language?

I think Mr. Abell would enjoy the 104 questions I have about creationism over at daddyhogwash.com. maybe he could answer them for me.

Posted by: O Pioneer | August 20, 2010 9:27 AM

I think that's the first time I heard someone try that Uni-Verse thing, so points for originality, I guess...

I love these responses, but it makes me jealous that PZ never responds to my love letters =(

Posted by: koyote_ken | August 20, 2010 9:29 AM

Well played, PZ, well played.............

Posted by: Def-Star | August 20, 2010 9:32 AM

His faux etymology of universe was, ofcourse, ripped straight out of one of those idiotic Hovind videos.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkqQXrl7yEsdEmCGIJY6e4vK85szmL2lf8 | August 20, 2010 9:35 AM

Another reason why any US readers out there have to get out and vote to keep folks like this and politicians that pander to folks like this away from
office.

Posted by: Becca Stareyes | August 20, 2010 9:38 AM

Things like this make me want to write something like...

'Okay, you convinced me that something can't come from nothing. I am re-evaluating my atheism...

... and have decided that the only logical position to take is the Hindu view of a universal cycle of rebirth and destruction. The universe has always existed, because a Creator who works from nothing, instead of the ruins of a previous existence, would just be *silly*. And where did he come from? Something can't come from nothing, after all.

Praise the gods! Bet you weren't expecting *that*, right?'

(Well, or delve into my extensive collection of fictional religions to claim adherence to. I already sign my holiday cards 'Happy Hogswatch and a Glorious Perihelion of the Earth'.)

Mostly because I like pointing out that 'theism' versus 'atheism' is different from 'my religion' versus 'atheism', or even 'the set of religions that has a monotheistic god' versus 'atheism'.

Posted by: syntaxiko | August 20, 2010 9:42 AM

Wow, I can only imagine how annoying it must be to have your inbox filled with taunts like that every morning.

Posted by: fordiman | August 20, 2010 9:43 AM

Daaaaang

Posted by: Mello | August 20, 2010 9:48 AM

Well, we know one thing about this guy. According to Terry Pratchett's law for multiple exclamation point usage, there's little doubt that he's wearing his underpants on his head.

Posted by: Chip | August 20, 2010 9:49 AM

"your god is a delusion for broken people"...oh snap...that is perfect

Posted by: GravityIsJustATheory | August 20, 2010 9:56 AM

Also: If, through some miracle, ranting like this were to convince me to grab a deity and repent my sins, YHWH would rank pretty damn low on my list of possible deities. He's a vindictive, charmless hack with an over-inflated sense of self importance.

Also, so much of Christian/Abrahamic theology just doesn't work, and/or doesn't mesh with what the world actually looks like.

A universe ruled by an all-knowing, all-powerful, ever-present Loving God, who doesn't let a single sparrow die without his say-so* and cares for us infinitely more - wouldn't have all the shit happening in it that it does.

YHWH as dexcribed in Job is a bit more consistent with reality, but hardly seems like someone worthy of respect ("Can you make a universe? No? Then sit down and STFU. I'm God and I do whatever I want").

The Ancient Greek mythology (the world is run by what are essentially the guests on Jerry Springer with superpowers) seems to me to be a better explanation of why the world is the way it is.

Personally, I've always thought Thor seemed a pretty cool guy. I wouldn't mind worshiping him, if he actually existed. Alternatively, the Hindu pantheon rather appeals to me, given that several of their goddesses are basically hot chicks with swords

Posted by: jasonjason | August 20, 2010 10:05 AM

wow. what a dickhead.

Posted by: daveau | August 20, 2010 10:12 AM

I'm pretty sure everything you just said went over his head. But we got a laugh out of it, anyhow.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmVT1LBhwmO9ej9LNg7a5e9d-AVJ8ezfmE | August 20, 2010 10:19 AM

"If you want to ask cosmology questions - as a physicist. If you want to ask questions about rocks and fossils ask a geologist or paleontologist. I'm a biologist. Oh, and - it doesn't take specializing in a field of study to tell you what an idiot you are, and why.."

Is there a science of studying the mouth-froth of imbeciles? Someone needs to get a doctorate in creationist studies or something. I have an academic friend who writes learned papers about the zoot suit and zoot suit riots - are there academics who study religious idiots' writings? If it weren't for the fact that this idiot's spew is 100% stereotypical, maybe he'd be good material for a paper. Toilet paper, that is.

Posted by: quasirob | August 20, 2010 10:20 AM

Oh dear, *wipes away tears of laughter* I might have to print that and frame it.

To all theists who may be reading this - please send more sincere, preachy emails to the PZ, preferably so he gets to read them just after waking up.

Posted by: toadslick | August 20, 2010 10:24 AM

A most enjoyable morning read.

Posted by: PrometheusUnchained | August 20, 2010 10:28 AM

Sorry Greg, but your god doesn't exist. If someday you'd like to abandon your childish fairytales and grow up, you'd be more than welcome to join discussion with the adults here. Here's hoping to see you back in the future. Cheers.

Posted by: alickn | August 20, 2010 10:31 AM

A small point - please don 't confuse the Buddah (who proposed a philosophy) with the religion Buddism, which was invented after his passing. He most definitely was not a holy con-man. The philopsophy he promoted requires no belief in a deity, and is compatible with any or no religious belief.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlQSz9hbSbVieB9fDNLiDDVs5L0LtTAB2U | August 20, 2010 10:35 AM

I love the smell of smackdown in the morning.

It smells of...WIN!

But the tone of PZ, the tone...

/faux concern trolling

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | August 20, 2010 10:38 AM

That phrase was "Let there Be"

Slight typo there; the appropriate phrase is Let it be. The Beatles are more popular than Jesus, after all.

Posted by: boon.kees | August 20, 2010 10:47 AM

Why aren't you harrassing Vic Stenger or Neil deGrasse Tyson or Lawrence Krauss or Sean Carroll about these subjects, instead of me?

Posted by: daveau | August 20, 2010 10:49 AM

Hey, Greg, if you're out there: sign in and refudiate these comments. Your cromulence is in question.

Posted by: davem | August 20, 2010 10:53 AM

I think that's the first time I heard someone try that Uni-Verse thing, so points for originality, I guess...

I wanted to ask a professional scientist how something can come from nothing?

Posted by: Steven Dunlap | August 20, 2010 11:07 AM

If you landed on an alien planet and discovered something that looked like plastic, had buttons and a screen. You would say it looked like a computer. You would also have to deduce that some kind of intelligence made this.

This especially bugs me, because...no on an alien planet, that ain't necessarily so. I can easily imagine a world with a ecosystem based on drastically different chemistry, Silicon or ammonia or etc, having life forms that would possibly LOOK like machines. If you found a planet filled with life made out of metallic and plastic looking materials would you presume it was designed or not?

Oh! Oh! Great lead-in for a book recommendation: Solaris by Stanislaw Lem (do not see the crappy movie with George Clooney - it hardly does justice to this concept Ing #24 raises, but the book does). Lem has one of the most incredible creative minds I have ever encountered.

Posted by: Mark F | August 20, 2010 11:23 AM

Even though it is "way outside your expertise" I think you did an awesome job of answering his question.

As for something from nothing, that's so 20th century. They really need to read something from Brian Greene. I have found his writing to be so clear and consice that even they should be able to understand it. They will see that most physicists/cosmologists now hypothesize that the universe always was, in some form or another.

Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy | August 20, 2010 11:26 AM

"I hate to be rude but you really need to get over yourself and grab ahold of the only possible way of escaping a place that has no love because God is Love, This Universe is Filled with His Love."

Capital Letters are God's Own Penis Extensions.

Man, I hate to be an echo in the chamber, but that really was great. This might just be a one-stop anti-proselytizing shop. And if it offends the more liberal believers, then so be it. You all have the same message. All of you. The only way yours is different is that you either dress it up in more obfuscating terms and play fast and loose and slippery with the definition of God, or you water it down to the point where it's stuff that I believe anyway, and don't need any supernatural hocus pocus on top of it.

I'd way rather be the guy with the smarts than the flailing e-mail writer. I don't care if the blog writer's prose does occasionally look a tad cranky. All you believers out there, don't pretend that you don't get cranky now and then, that's just another point against you. You deny being human.

Posted by: darvolution proponentsist | August 20, 2010 11:29 AM

Plus you have hands and fingers and senses and you are telling me that this just happened as if I could destroy a watch with a hammer, throw the pieces in a bag and if I were able to shake the bag long enough, eventually I would get a watch??????

Old stinky canard is misapplied ... and old ... and stinky.

(also, dog bites man, news at 11)

Posted by: darvolution proponentsist | August 20, 2010 11:32 AM

Crap, quote tag fail, you get the picture, my bad.

Posted by: Barry | August 20, 2010 11:34 AM

Goddamn, that made me cheer! You need to get pissed more often, PZ.

Posted by: Justin Rosario | August 20, 2010 11:37 AM

And another frothing Creationist is left confused. "But my arguments were so strong? HOW did he not bow before my superior intellect?!"

Whatevers.

But since we're on the topic of biology. I have a question I have failed massively to find an answer to.

It has to do with the evolution of prodigies (musical, mathematical, chess). What would the evolutionary advantage be of specializing in a completely man-made activity before that activity even existed?

This is assuming that prodigies of this kind previously existed, which is impossible to verify (how do you check for a chess prodigy in 10,000 BCE?), but not unreasonable to assume.

I can't find any articles discussing this in any way. It doesn't help that half of the searches for "prodigy" turn up links for the (awesome) band by the same name.

If anyone can put up a link or the name of a book that is not too technical (I is a college graduate, but still...:) that would be awesome.

Posted by: Rocketman | August 20, 2010 11:42 AM

This is why we will inevitably lose out to these people. There are too many of them and they are immune to an intelligent arguement.

I recently had to experience the whole "you can't prove god doesn't exist" arguement with two friends. This horrified me. It was later in that same argument that my best friend attempted to pull "Pascal's Wager" on me. A doctor. A very smart doctor.

I am convinced that the only way that we are going to get out from under the terminally stupid is to begin systematically teaching children logic as soon as possible. Teach them the fallacies--it is possible.

My wife is an elementary school teacher. We had a conversation about curriculum for thinking skills for her grade five students. I suggested that she get a list of logical fallacies and send each student home with two of them--have them try and find fallacies within advertising on television.

They were asked to provide one example for each of the fallacies. The average, when she got them into class, was five examples for each one.

It was later that day that another teacher stormed into her class and demanded to know why her students were challenging her with using false arguments. Then the phone calls from the parents started.

She was asked not to teach that particular topic again.

People enjoy being stupid. They enjoy it because stupid is their comfort food. Intellectual inertia is the natural state of being.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | August 20, 2010 11:47 AM

that codes only come from codes.

Oops, that was supposed to be "codes only come from intelligence." Whatever, they both make as much sense.

Glen Davidson

Posted by: rippingrich | August 20, 2010 11:47 AM

I wish these loonies would write to me asking about biological events within the last half-billion years, where I might be able to give a pretty good answer

Okay I wanted to ask this, and now I guess is my chance.
At the first ever public event for the new okanagan CFI group, Professor Chris diCarlo mentioned that one reason for the development of our larger size brain is from eating meat. Is this true? I have done some searching and was not able to find much. I did find some stuff on omega 3 and 6's. But very little about meat.

So PZ, did our brains develop like it did because of mans switch to eating meat?

Posted by: tytalus | August 20, 2010 11:52 AM

If you choose to reject God in this life by not accepting the fact that He sent His Son to be The sacrifice for our unrighteousness, then God will give you what you want and He will remove Himself from you which is what Hell is.

Ah, what a twit for Jesus. A right enjoyable response, thanks PZ. I can't help thinking that, if this is what hell is supposed to be, I'm already there.

Posted by: lose_the_woo | August 20, 2010 12:08 PM

0^0=1 0!=1 There you have it, something from nothing.

I've also seen this information used supporting the argument that there simply is no such thing as nothing. It can be strongly argued that the state of nothingness is not supported by existence (the construct we refer to as reality). It can't be expressed mathematically, experimentally, or even in thought (philosophical or otherwise). Of course, our brains (and emotions) seem to have a problem with the concept that something, like nothing, is unimaginable. But as soon as it's imagined, it becomes something, which is not nothing. The concept of nothing not being real seems to be universally irreducible.

Side note: It should be noted that the concept of 0 took a bit of effort to achieve historically (as did negative numbers), but still does not act as nothing. The idea of "pure nothing" by definition is inexpressable.

Posted by: llewelly | August 20, 2010 12:15 PM

rippingrich | August 20, 2010 11:47 AM:

Professor Chris diCarlo mentioned that one reason for the development of our larger size brain is from eating meat. Is this true?

It's best viewed as well-informed speculation. (a) Meat is usually much more energy dense than plant foods. (b) Large brains require lots of energy. (c) Humans eat far more meat than any other living primate, and any extinct primate for which we have a well-characterized jaw. (d) The shift to a more meat-intensive diet seems to have happened at roughly the same time as the shift to a much larger brain.

The weakness of (a) is that energy density is only one of many factors that determines the energy obtained/energy expended ratio. Energy dense prey requires the expenditure of energy to hunt, (prepare), eat, and digest. If the hunting part requires a lot of energy, it might be possible to get a better ratio from eating plants, which at least do not run away (but sometimes require more energy to digest). The weakness in (c) is that as a group, primates have larger brains than most other mammals, yet, with the exception of humans, they tend not to be meat-eaters. The weakness in (d) is that there are a host of other causative relationships which could have resulted in that correlation.

Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human (excellent book) makes the comparably speculative argument that the most recent increases in human brain size are due to the adoption of cooking, which enabled humans to prepare calorie dense and easy to digest meals, thence enabling us to shift to a smaller, less complicated gut, freeing up resources which could then be used for greater brain development. Which then enabled more sophisticated cooking. Wash rinse repeat.

A good many likely-sounding stories (most of them not mutually exclusive) could fit into the "What made our brains so big" slot, but most of the tests that can feasibly be applied to these ideas seem rather weak.

Posted by: opposablethumbstoo | August 20, 2010 12:20 PM

No, no! You shake up a broken watch in a bag, you get ... a Boeing 747, of course.

Posted by: Cepheid Variable | August 20, 2010 12:30 PM

#91

Damn, llewelly, you just had to remind me of one of the many, many reasons there are to dislike and reject religion - victim blaming!

Victim blaming is also a key component of woo, especially crapola like The Secret.

Posted by: llewelly | August 20, 2010 12:32 PM

Rocketman | August 20, 2010 11:42 AM:

My wife is an elementary school teacher. We had a conversation about curriculum for thinking skills for her grade five students. I suggested that she get a list of logical fallacies and send each student home with two of them--have them try and find fallacies within advertising on television.

They were asked to provide one example for each of the fallacies. The average, when she got them into class, was five examples for each one.

It was later that day that another teacher stormed into her class and demanded to know why her students were challenging her with using false arguments. Then the phone calls from the parents started.

She was asked not to teach that particular topic again. My wife is an elementary school teacher. We had a conversation about curriculum for thinking skills for her grade five students. I suggested that she get a list of logical fallacies and send each student home with two of them--have them try and find fallacies within advertising on television.

They were asked to provide one example for each of the fallacies. The average, when she got them into class, was five examples for each one.

It was later that day that another teacher stormed into her class and demanded to know why her students were challenging her with using false arguments. Then the phone calls from the parents started.

She was asked not to teach that particular topic again.

Posted by: lose_the_woo | August 20, 2010 12:35 PM

No, no! You shake up a broken watch in a bag, you get ... a Boeing 747, of course.

I got in a similar discussion with my sister recently (who is highly, shall we say, academic). She started her premise from the notion that evolution "creates" perfection (fish are perfect for water, birds for air, etc.)...yet there are all kinds of "imperfections" (like her bunions). I tried correcting her perception by saying that evolution simply *seeks, and only needs to *seek, the "good enough" answer, not perfection. I think that resonated with her a tiny bit.

*I understand that evolution does not have the ability to seek as humans might typically characterize. I needed to use basic language though, so the main idea of "good enough" could take hold.

Posted by: Citizen of the Cosmos | August 20, 2010 12:43 PM

Religion is such a waste of brains.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | August 20, 2010 12:56 PM

Why aren't there any obligate carnivores that are as intelligent as us?

Who says? I had a cat that believed in neither the divinity of Jesus, that YHWH expelled Adam and Eve from Eden, nor that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

Posted by: ritchie.annand | August 20, 2010 1:00 PM

One correlation I remember from SciAm (I believe) once upon a time made an impression on me. Howler monkeys and spider monkeys that inhabit essentially the same region have a significant difference in brain size, spider monkeys having almost double that of howler monkeys.

The correlation they discovered was that the eating habits of spider monkeys involved finding in-season fruit on the rather sparse trees with edible fruit. Howler monkeys, on the other hand, ate leaves more or less exclusively.

It was also neat because it went into the way that howler monkeys had a functional, alkaline cecum for leaf fermentation, and the spider monkeys did not.

Posted by: roystonjohn | August 20, 2010 1:11 PM

In the beginning there was nothing. God said, Let there be light! And there was light. There was still nothing, but you could see it a whole lot better.

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | August 20, 2010 1:22 PM

God is Love, This Universe is Filled with His Love

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | August 20, 2010 1:37 PM

This Universe is Filled with His Love

I hope He remembered to pinch the reservoir tip on the universe before putting it on and filling it with His Love. All it takes is a broken universe...

The cosmos is not ready to be a parent.

Posted by: Manny Calavera | August 20, 2010 1:57 PM

I hate to be rude PZ but you really need to get over yourself and unquestioningly accept every unsubstantiated assertion I make as the gospel truth.

Posted by: Flex | August 20, 2010 2:39 PM

Justin Rosario @84 wrote,

It has to do with the evolution of prodigies (musical, mathematical, chess). What would the evolutionary advantage be of specializing in a completely man-made activity before that activity even existed?

I'm simply a layman who is interested in biology, but I'll take a crack at answering this question in a general sense.

First of, prodigies are an example of a phenotype, i.e. an observed trait. While the unit of heredity, in a physical sense, is the genotype, i.e. genes.

The phenotype is related to the genotype in a simplified manner thusly:

Genotype + Development = Phenotype.

Now, development is a big term. It includes all environmental influences. It includes the chemical signals which regulate tissue formation in the womb, i.e. how your genes know which proteins to make to form fingers in the right spot. It also includes the changes that are happening in your memory right now as you read this comment.

When talking about prodigies, or any mental trait for that manner, we are speaking of the observed trait, the phenotype. So your question isn't entirely about genetics. In fact, a lot of evolutionary pressure, the process of selection, doesn't operate on the genotype directly at all. It acts on the observed trait, the phenotype.

In most life, development is strongly regulated by genetic expression. Even in human bodies the amount of variation allowable in development is surprisingly small. There are superficial traits, like skin color, eye color, and the like which can have wide variation, but your genes maintain a rather tight control on a lot of things.

Which brings us to the nature vs. nurture discussion. These days the discussion isn't so much about which is 100% true, but about the amount of influence nature or nurture has on individual traits. And every trait can have a different ratio (and at different times too). I submit that 100% of the reason we have a circulatory system is based on genetics. The location of your heart in your chest may be 90% controlled by genes and 10% by environmental factors. While the location of individual blood capillaries may well be in the 10% genetic and 90% environmental range.

There are very plastic parts of our bodies. The immune system and the brain are incredibly plastic, and the amount of variation between individuals in these systems can be quite high, even if these individuals are genetically quite similar.

Now, to get to your prodigies, most of the people who are considered prodigies appear to have traits which were not expressed by their parents, or their children. That is, while there is some evidence that may be some heritable component to success in music, math, etc. prodigies do not occur because of the transfer of genetic material.

Which, to some extent, makes your question moot. Prodigies are very likely to be due to a combination of developmental factors rather than be based in genetics. Since they are unique it is hard to determine exactly what developmental difference caused a prodigy. Something as trivial as a chemical signal pathway which was turned on at the wrong (or right?) developmental time could have been the cause. We may mourn the undoubted loss to human knowledge of a potential chess champion born during Neolithic times, but their existence (or lack of one) had nothing to do with evolutionary biology because they are not created due to genetics and do not transfer this trait to their off-spring.

Now, I recognize that I'm not an expert in developmental biology. I don't work in the field, I'm an electrical engineer and politician. So, for further understanding I'd recommend picking up a few books on the subject.

Posted by: john.marquis.osborne | August 20, 2010 2:43 PM

If someone smashed up a watch, put it in a bag, shook it around and a watch came out, it would be proclaimed a miracle of God and NOT proof of evolution,

I am so designing that magic trick.

Posted by: The Otter God | August 20, 2010 2:49 PM

Lee Socks @109

Thank you for running this blog. It keeps me sane.

QFT

Posted by: Justin Rosario | August 20, 2010 3:08 PM

KG- post # 95

I understand what you are saying, but that doesn't really explain what the alternate function of musical genius would be. It can't be just a variable like height. There are plenty of tall people (I'm one!) but few child chess geniuses (it HAS occurred to me that might not be true, how many people go their entire lives without ever seeing a chess board, much less playing the game? Millions, billions? It could be much more prevalent than we suspect, although I tend to doubt it).

Also, while being supremely talented in one thing might have a positive effect on mating potential, that would only work if the talent can be displayed. I'm not an expert (by a loooong stretch) on prodigies, but I'm not sure if being Mozart has any other applications. If he had been born 3000 years ago, would his genius have found another way to express itself or would it have gone to waste?

Posted by: lykex | August 20, 2010 3:26 PM

OK, so, the Big Bang couldn't have come from nothing, therefore there has to have been a god to create the universe.

But where'd god come from?

Because He was always...

If the answer is "He was always there," then why couldn't the whatever it was that became the Big Bang have always been there?

Oh. Um... 'cos it's totally different. You see, God it MAGIC! And the universe isn't.

And you're a wicked sinner and your questions make Baby Jesus cry.

Posted by: m.espositoii | August 20, 2010 3:31 PM

@loss_the_woo #94

We do have a concept of nothing in programming. It's called a NULL value. In a digital computer it is represented by a true binary 0 and a set flag, but on the conceptual level it's nothing.

Just like when 4chan tries to DDoS someone, if they reroute the traffic to /dev/null then 4chan's attack is for naught.

Sure, it's not a true "nothing" value, but it's a representation of the concept of nothing.

Posted by: Leon | August 20, 2010 4:00 PM

If you want to convert people, a better strategy for you would be to shut up and go hide in a cave....

Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | August 20, 2010 4:07 PM

If I was on another planet and I saw long regular rows in the sand (dunes), I would assume that the native species were giant Japanese gardeners.

Posted by: Jason A. | August 20, 2010 4:18 PM

God is Love, This Universe is Filled with His Love. If you choose to reject God in this life by not accepting the fact that He sent His Son to be The sacrifice for our unrighteousness, then God will give you what you want and He will remove Himself from you which is what Hell is.

We enjoy love in our lives, We understand the concept. God is Love, Remove God, Remove Love and Compassion and etc.....multiply that by eternity and that's what Hell will be like and it is a real place.

I love how they go into random capitalized words when they get going. It's like you can see the seizure happening through the computer.

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | August 20, 2010 4:24 PM

I wanted to ask a professional scientist how something can come from nothing?

Or should we blame the Press™ for their stereotypical portrayals?

Posted by: duanerobertson | August 20, 2010 5:08 PM

Hear, hear, PZ! Or should I say, "amen, brother!" Heh, heh.

One of the worst things about modern religions is that they practically require their followers to convert others. It's one of their greatest strengths, I suppose, and yet another reason to wish their magical rapture would actually occur and they'd all disappear.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 20, 2010 5:26 PM

It's always nice to have a larger community, hence the conversion effort.

tell us where in your specific dogma it is spelled out that your religion wants converts for a sense of community, only.

but rapture is not a mainstream view among christians.

there are over 40K sects of xianity. mainstream means, what?

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 20, 2010 5:33 PM

The Rapture is just on offshoot of the kind of thinking it takes to believe the more mainstream stuff.

...and a great example of cherry picking by xians that consider it of no importance to their religion.

I wonder if we will inevitably discover that our new xian buddy considers his god to be acting at the quantum level?

oh, I'm probably jumping the gun.

*put the chewtoy, DOWN*

*backs away, slowly*

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 20, 2010 5:50 PM

Not really, it's like saying philosophy is a waste of brains.

um, considering the likes of Alvin Plantiga, for example, you're not actually far off, though you apparently don't realize it.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/10/lets_disband_the_theology_depa.php

Posted by: spameater104 | August 20, 2010 6:13 PM

Reading both the blog itself as well as the comments makes me sick to my stomach. I'm not a Christian, or Jewish, or Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc., yet I do believe in God. Not out of "intellectual inertia" but out of reasonable observation.

Atheists today are our generations "Crusaders", believing that they are completely correct and forcefully shoving their anti-theological perspectives on others.

I agree whole-heartedly that the guy who sent PZ the email was wrong. He made foolish arguments, and believes in God for the wrong reasons, but is he wrong in having a belief? I don't think so.

And I think it's foolish, ignorant, and incredibly conceited to think that you are right in your disbelief of a God.

So what, that the Universe is cold, full of rock and dust? We are continuing to learn new things about our Universe everyday. I bet most of you don't know the idea that we've recently come to the conclusion that there is this "stuff" out in the Universe that does not interact with matter at all, yet somehow allows dust and gas to clump together and produce enough gravity to form stars (aka Dark Matter).

I know that I just went for a loop describing a random new event in science, but I speak of it because it just goes to show you that the more we think we know, the less we really do know.

Who are we to say whether or not a God exists? Perhaps "God" was/is just an intelligent life, that created the Universe? We create our own "universes" all the time, even though they are very crude and primitive. Think about the game "The Sims", and what that would be like if we as an experiment programmed the characters with AI instead of human players, and let them "live" their lives.

I specifically like the phrase: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".

If we took our smartphones even 100 years into the past, people could take us for witches and wizards. 100 years in the grand scheme of the Universe is nearly negligible, so imagine where our society, or other sentient life in the Universe, could be with say, one million years, or the reign of the dinosaurs?!?!

The point is simple: don't blindly hate because you lack a belief. We are talking about something that you cannot prove or disprove, and both sides speak as though they know they are correct. No one knows for sure, but all we can do is continue in the spirit of science and keep learning and growing.

Be tolerant, and love each other, instead of being ignorant and hateful.

Posted by: makyui | August 20, 2010 6:18 PM

Who are we to say whether or not a God exists?

Who are we to say that unicorns and Santa Claus don't exist?

Do you disbelieve in Santa Claus?

What about the dragon in my garage? Do you disbelieve in that? Who are you to say that there is no dragon in my garage?

Why are theists so keen to tell us how we should deal with theists, and why is it always to sit down and shut up?

Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies! | August 20, 2010 6:22 PM

I wonder if we will inevitably discover that our new xian buddy considers his god to be acting at the quantum level?

oh, I'm probably jumping the gun.

Well, I do admit that a belief in god requires an untestable assumption that one exist (hence its called faith).

The closest thing I relate to is the Newton's idea of a clockwork universe, minus the predictable part.

Whether that constitute as god acting on a quantum level or below, you decide.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 20, 2010 6:28 PM

Whether that constitute as god acting on a quantum level or below, you decide.

I'm going to leave you entirely alone for a week, while I decide.

Posted by: MJP | August 20, 2010 6:32 PM

Whether that constitute as god acting on a quantum level or below, you decide.

I decide? Hmm...

And then John was a zombie.

Posted by: Becca the Over Socialized | August 20, 2010 6:35 PM

If we took our smartphones even 100 years into the past, people could take us for witches and wizards.

actually, no, you'd be taken for an idiot. Because without the infrastructure (cell towers, satellites, the internet), all you'd have is a box. Maybe some games or a book, until the battery died.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 20, 2010 6:37 PM

the more we think we know, the less we really do know.

ever think that might just apply to yourself?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Posted by: lose_the_woo | August 20, 2010 6:39 PM

Who are we to say whether or not a God exists?

Logic demands that those making a positive truth claim about reality bear the burden of providing positive evidence to support it.

Saying that deities probably exist, is a positive truth claim. Saying deities probably don't exist, is not a positive claim (because of the "don't").

Throughout the ages there has never been any credible evidence or reason for any rational person to think that deities are real, or are even necessary. The notion of magic, I concede, could have been an acceptable explanation of the mysteries of nature when our understanding was limited. But not deities. There simply is no exemplar or no parallel in reality of such creatures.

As an atheist (I'm not a fan of that label), I have as much reason to think that leprechans are real, as I do deities (which makes me an aleprechaunist as well as an atheist). Furthermore, explaining the mysteries of the Universe by invoking an imagined mysterious being does not advance the argument for the notion of what a god is, or should be. Explaining mysteries by invoking mysteries, explains nothing.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 20, 2010 6:40 PM

Which is why I stated I was aware that it is an untestable assumption.

they why choose xianity over pastafarianism?

actually, Bob might have something more appealing for you, if you're a true slacker.

*shit*

seriously, must ignore you for a whole week.

*grrrr*

Posted by: MJP | August 20, 2010 6:41 PM

Personal reasons.

A.K.A. the argument from "I'm an authority unto myself and don't need to give my reasons."

Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies! | August 20, 2010 6:43 PM

*shit*

seriously, must ignore you for a whole week.

*grrrr*

Posted by: Scorpy1 | August 20, 2010 6:47 PM

...Super Natural...

I don't know what the problem is.
Nature is pretty super at doing things that most folks can't fully comprehend.

Posted by: SteveM | August 20, 2010 6:49 PM

re 122;

If someone smashed up a watch, put it in a bag, shook it around and a watch came out, it would be proclaimed a miracle of God and NOT proof of evolution,
I am so designing that magic trick.

I was going to say I've seen magicians do that trick already, but it usually involves putting the watch in the bag first, then smashing it.

Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies! | August 20, 2010 6:50 PM

not your fault. I'm not pissed off.

you're just such a delightful new sniny chewtoy!

*must look away*

Posted by: makyui | August 20, 2010 6:52 PM

Rev. BigDumbChimp:

I'm also not a believer ... that ranch dressing is actually good

*Gasp!*

HERETIC!

Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies! | August 20, 2010 6:56 PM

I believe "that" refers to your admission to cherry-picking. If you're okay cherry-picking only the bits of Christianity you're comfortable with, then you don't seem to take your religion very seriously.

Looking back, probably should have used better wording.

Posted by: DaveL | August 20, 2010 6:57 PM

Time also has to originate right?

If there is a limit to how far back we can go in the past, that doesn't mean there's a first moment in time - just like there's no smallest real number greater than zero.

If there is a first moment in time, then it doesn't make any sense to ask what there was before time that caused time to happen. There can't be a before without time. You might talk about something outside of time, but even then without time there's no meaning to causality as we understand it.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | August 20, 2010 6:59 PM

New Age Wooist @ #148:

1)your arrogant claim of knowing more than the posters here about science and scientific discoveries resulted in you looking like a fucking moron; congratulations

2)in addition to the reading assignment in #157, read this to understand how science progresses

3)we don't hate. criticism and ridicule of ridiculous ideas do not equal hate

4)learn about the concept of parsimony: an idea that's uneccesary to explain something should be abandoned until it does become necessary to explain something, and it's the best explanation available. God does not fit that category.

5)your definition of "forcefully" leaves a lot to be desired. evidence for atheists using force to convince people of their ideas?

6)a "god" that's merely an advanced species doesn't actually answer any questions, since then you'd have to answer where that species came from. or is it "gods all the way down"? now that's unparsimonious as hell...

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | August 20, 2010 7:01 PM

DaveL
To be fair, there is a fair amount of research and speculation going on that suggests that time is not continuos but discrete in nature. If time turns out to be discrete your argument will fall a little flat.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | August 20, 2010 7:02 PM

Or that religion helped me with some personal issues I had.

Posted by: lose_the_woo | August 20, 2010 7:07 PM

Well, for one I personally don't think it's cherry picking. But I agree that it could seem like that.

It seems like that because it is that. You see, when presented with a field of ideas, the honest thoughtful person will evaluate each on their own merits. The dishonest person likes to emphasize ideas that make them feel nice, not because they idea actually have any merit.

The attitude you're projecting makes me think you are not honest, you are wishy-washy, and somewhat self-deluded. These tend not to be socially successful traits.

Posted by: Rorschach | August 20, 2010 7:11 PM

Nice one, PZ !

The leap of faith from "nothing can come from nothing" to "but the god of my holy book can come out of nothing" always amazes me.
You'd think the brains of those religiobots running GOD™98 would spontaneously combust from all the logic errors.

Posted by: Cosmic Snark | August 20, 2010 7:34 PM

Sigh. This guy Abell just regurgitated the Creationist Argument Cliff Notes into your inbox.

Posted by: makyui | August 20, 2010 7:57 PM

UberFubarius:

but for all we know, we can all be dreaming right now.

From a pragmatic standpoint, this argument is kind of useless, though. If we're dreaming, and this is all we can ever know, then this is our reality.

And even if we can never know absolute truth, we can come pretty damned close, and relying on evidence will get us there faster than just believing whatever we want to at the moment.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 20, 2010 8:07 PM

but for all we know, we can all be dreaming right now.

Or or or....IN THE MATRIX!!!

yawn

Posted by: studio34 | August 20, 2010 8:22 PM

LOL. Another eloquent piece by Professor Myers. Nice one. S

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | August 20, 2010 8:25 PM

but for all we know, we can all be dreaming right now.

Yeah. While I'm typing this, one of my dogs is sleeping and dreaming right now. Go hide in your closet right now, because I'm going to dream to my dreaming dog to dream of an earthquake hitting your house and only your house. Don't come out until I get back to you that the dreamreality earthquake has happened.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | August 20, 2010 8:30 PM

Solipsism is so 17th Century.

Posted by: charlie | August 20, 2010 9:06 PM

I was born into a family ensnared in evangelical christianity and was stuck in that religious insane asylum for half my life before escaping into the healthy freedom of real life and rationality. All the rest of my family is still stuck back there and no argument will ever shake them out of their irrational beliefs. It is just as futile to try to argue them out of their beliefs as it is for them to try to preach us into swallowing theirs. Unfortunately, it is too true that 'only a fool argues with a fool'... such arguments are a total waste of time. Here, PZ, sorry to say, you became a fool [or you wanted to entertain us .. which I hope was your motivation.]

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 20, 2010 9:09 PM

Here, PZ, sorry to say, you became a fool [or you wanted to entertain us .. which I hope was your motivation.]

You don't come here often do you?

Posted by: makyui | August 20, 2010 9:15 PM

charlie:

Here, PZ, sorry to say, you became a fool

Hey, don't knock a good fool. :)

'I can set a braggart quailing with a quip,
The upstart I can wither with a whim;
He may wear a merry laugh upon his lip,
But his laughter has an echo that is grim.
When they're offered to the world in merry guise,
Unpleasant truths are swallowed with a will,
For he who'd make his fellow, fellow, fellow creatures wise
Should always gild the philosophic pill!
For he who'd make his fellow, fellow, fellow creatures wise
Should always gild the philosophic pill!'
--Jack Point, The Yeomen of the Guard

Seriously, though, even if arguing with a fundie won't convince the fundie, there are people on the side. The Atheist Experience don't convince the people they argue with on the phone, but listening to the arguments is what freed me of theism.

Posted by: st.baad | August 20, 2010 9:58 PM

Greg Abell wrote: "God is Love, This Universe is Filled with His Love"

Ha! What a power tool. You come here to criticize a worldview based on rationality, and give as your "support" confident assertions about things of which you know absolutely nothing.

How do you know your god is love? What does that even mean? How can a universe be "filled with love?" And how does that universe differ from one that one that's empty and cold and blowing apart? You can't list the simplest verifiable characteristics your god and distinguish them from random occurrences. You can't even identify your god specifically out of the thousands--infinite numbers--of possibilities. How do you know the "love" you think you feel is not Shiva? Zoroaster?

You're not only failing to get out of the gate; you never made it to the gate. There is no gate. Go home and surrender to entropy.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 20, 2010 10:04 PM

I'm so sorry... Are you a frog?

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 20, 2010 10:16 PM

OK, late to the threat and all that.

UberFubarius seems to be taking, in part, a Durkheimian view of religion--it's about human sociality. (Durkheim's analysis of aboriginal animist religious practice, as I wrote on this site a few years ago, is that it's the group "worshiping" itself through a performance of group identity). There may be some other aspects about believing the woo, but at its core, it seems to be a position based on humans needing other humans. Sociality is, after all, one of the defining aspects of our species.

The other side of uber's approach, which is the only thing defining the spameater's approach is "fairy tells help us make sense of reality." Well, narratives are a central form of human activity that do help us to make sense of the world around us and our location in it. However, stories are incomplete and reality rarely conforms so simply to them.

Both commenters seem to attach that narrative approach to a silly mysticism of unknowability in such a way as to give biblical narratives and mystical woo a truth value greater than, well, anything else.

So what if the universe is cold and uncaring? Really, so what? (I've been in that suicidal space, too...it was significant humans--and some ocassional meds--that kept me from sending my car off those bridges. that's the sociality of which I spoke. "god" is just an imagined person in those circumstances--real people are better)

Listen to Bach or Mahler or Erasure or the Beatles. Play with a kitten. Enjoy a wonderful meal. Have sex. Engage in good conversation with dear friends. That's the stuff of life and it's far better than any fairy tale.

Posted by: awakeinthewest | August 20, 2010 10:53 PM

Okay, this may not be the most appropriate thread to ask this, but I really don't know where else to ask.

I have been involved in an evangelical Christian church over the last nine months. Since then, I have explored critical thinking and skepticism and I have come to realize that I was wrong. I admit it. I want to leave this church, to stop going, but I am really finding it hard to go. I love these people, but it hurts my brain and my heart to listen to this stuff.

So I ask you, if you would be so kind, how do I get out? Do I just stop going? Stop responding? Are there resources for people like me who have come to realize they made a mistake? I'm not being facetious. I am serious. What do I do?

Posted by: articulett | August 20, 2010 11:14 PM

Awake @ 216... It's hard to advise without knowing your age and circumstances, but this is a good group http://www.recoveringreligionists.com/ and there are thousands of people across the internet who have been in your shoes and are eager to hep others through the process. One day, you'll can use your experiences to guide others along the path.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 20, 2010 11:33 PM

The biggest thing, though, is finding people you want to spend time with and who share common interests....and there are many, many such things available.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/Cg2mHpJrwZWGK_6De9g_wim.s2Y6tB.iMWWFixxYxpyBGsg-#27ed7 | August 20, 2010 11:59 PM

This just made my day.

Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi | August 21, 2010 1:23 AM

PZ Sed:

This universe is filled with vacuum, gas, dust, radiation, and uninhabitable chunks of rock and ice. Imagining a magic man in the sky doesn't change reality and fill it with candy floss and puppy dogs.

PZ wins this round of Internets

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | August 21, 2010 1:33 AM

BTW, MAJeff - it's a pleasure to read comments from you, especially longer ones. I miss seeing you around these parts.

Posted by: makyui | August 21, 2010 1:43 AM

I kinda wonder how someone would find comfort in something they know is a delusion.

Like... maybe I'm just speaking for myself, but if I knew that there wasn't any evidence, but I chose to believe in it anyway, there'd constantly be that niggling little feeling that it's a load of bunk. How does someone find comfort in that?

Posted by: Michael Kingsford Gray | August 21, 2010 2:16 AM

Well played, sir!
Golf clap...

Posted by: Marella | August 21, 2010 3:16 AM

Oops, Sablosky sorry, I'm starting to need glasses and resisting this evidence of old age.

Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi | August 21, 2010 4:10 AM

King Uber: That's because most Xtians knowledge of the babble is entirely centered around Sunday school stories with lots of pictures of Jesus cuddling lions, and babble study where only selected passages are read OVER and OVER and OVER, totally disregarding anything remotely distasteful, like genocide or little girl rape or stonings. It's the book God himself wrote, 'but only the parts I like.'

Posted by: Dania | August 21, 2010 6:11 AM

if God is real and you denied him in your life then you will really be out of luck when you die. But if you believe in him you don't have much to lose, as you can see for yourself, that if God is not real then with your death it will all be irrelevant, but if he is real then you will enter life eternal in heaven.

Pascal's Wager? Really?

Are you kidding?

Posted by: Rorschach | August 21, 2010 6:45 AM

Pascal's Wager? Really?

Are you kidding?

Nah, they love it.They reckon it's the knockout punch, and it's fun watching them deliver it, and kinda eye you while they do it, to see how you react and how it bowls you over.
Had it happen to me just the other week.Cute.

Posted by: Samantha Vimes | August 21, 2010 7:39 AM

Justin #84, let me take a stab at this; I'm not a biologist or neuroscientist, but I'm well read and think I have the idea of why you are asking the wrong question.
Prodigies are NOT evovled to specialize in whatever ability they shine at.
They have a strong *inclination* to it, that they could not have if there was not such an area to work in; and they have a strong *aptitude* for it, which is simply an aptitude within a larger specialized function.
Mathematics and music are actually related, as are certain visual forms. For instance, M.C. Escher decided to be an artist, but his work did not stand out until he took his aptitude for mathematics and started using bizarre geometries to shape his work.
Perfect pitch is useful for a musician, but some mechanics use their ear to help determine the perfect settings for an engine.
A prodigy is the coming together of one or more broad specializations, such as language, timing, logic, etc; odd useful traits like perfect pitch or eidedic memory; ambition; and a love of the field that drives a person to pour their heart into it at a very young age. This is further aided by the plasticity of the human mind, that allows a person to further develop aptitude by practice.
Your question makes it seem like you think that people are preset for certain accomplishments, but that's not how humans are. Feynman hated studying humanities in college, but he later became a very skilled artist (as well as a legendary physicist). He might be considered a prodigy because he was a self-taught radio repairman as a child and was recognised for his potential immediately when he joined the Manhattan Project fresh out of college, but it had to do not only with talent, but how his father raised him, natural inquisitiveness, a joy in astonishing people, self-confidence... there's no great mystery. It's just a fortunate combination.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | August 21, 2010 7:57 AM

Anubis Bloodsin the third #241

I hate when people are wishy-washy. Tell us how you really feel.

Posted by: justncase80 | August 21, 2010 9:19 AM

They have a word for supernatural phenomena that can affect the natural world... it's "natural".

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | August 21, 2010 10:06 AM

Yahoomess #245

Are you feeling all butthurt because nobody is impressed by your non-arguments?

Nobody wants to convince you God is real.

You're just another Liar for Jebus if you're not being sarcastic. If you are being sarcastic, then you have to turn the sarcasm up. See Anubis Bloodsin the third's post #241 for an example of real sarcasm.

Posted by: co | August 21, 2010 10:20 AM

I'm guessing that Yahoomess in #235 and #245 is a Poe. Bacterial flagellum being an argument against evolution?

OK, OK. Either a Poe or one of Dembski's students trying to get a little course credit.

Posted by: Tulse | August 21, 2010 10:47 AM

Jesus said, "But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven" (Mt. 10:33) and "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (Jn. 14:6)

Abdul Alhazred said "That is not dead which can eternal lie, and after strange eons even death may die." (Necr. 12:56) Why should I believe the bible over the Necronomicon? Why should I think that a puny human god offers life when the evidence of the chaos of the Great Old Ones is all around you?

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/tL1MkU0ghY0gNMrxrvSjJFsEYJYQ0ZIPjQ--#5f870 | August 21, 2010 11:59 AM

Hi PZ, Keep stompin' on them sum'bitches

Keep up relentless pressure against fundies and their clerical and political handlers

True believers in the big-3 monster theisms are dupes through whom political power claims are made. We will never change their minds.

However, we are obligated to convince other rational individuals that all true believers are vectors of serious mental disturbances and dangerous political ideologies based on supernaturalism. Religion’s mental and moral perversions, especially in the big-3 sicken the entire planet

1. Taking the widow’s mite (stealing from the poor) — xianity is worse than state lotteries
Religious institutions are vampires sucking time volunteered by believers, money donated, psychological energy misdirected, and life itself destroyed (“martyrs”) — on nihilistic demands by religious authoritarians.

2. Disgusting mental habits learned — anti-intellectual nihilism
Illogical argumentation, denial of well verified scientific truths, mindless praise of ignorance — as part of irrational inverted snobbery.

3. Diseased psychological predispositions fostered — sadistic nihilism
Denial of death, glorification of suffering, wallowing in “sin,” degrading this world, unhealthy misunderstandings about sex and gender, psychological projection of hatred, violent predispositions and murderous intent.

4. Arrogant morality and political absolutism demanded — political nihilism
Misogyny, androcentrism, paternalism, pro-birth and anti-life, intolerance of ideological differences, theo-political drive to overthrow secular governments — as part of "mission to overcome" the world.

The sick “folks” of Ameristan (that is, xian America) — which every day more resembles theocratic Iran — threatens its own people with totalitarian rule and the entire planet with wars which divert public attention, inflame the far-right, and push the middle class into poverty.

the anti_supernaturalist

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 21, 2010 12:17 PM

No, it's not HIS wager, it's just an argument.

And it's one of the dumbest arguments for faith ever presented. So dumb it's remembered to this day with his name.

How do you know you aren't wagering for the wrong god.

Quetzelcoatl is going to be very pissed at you when your time comes for wagering your whole life that the Christian god is the correct one.

So are Thor and Allah.

Posted by: Iain Walker | August 21, 2010 12:37 PM

UberFubarius (#149):

Thou I always thought theology is a subset of philosophy.

Not really. Some theologians are also philosophers (e.g., Richard Swinburne), but most aren't. Theology is pretty multi-disciplinary - it overlaps with philosophy, literary criticism (e.g., biblical hermeneutics), some varieties of sociology etc etc. What defines it as a distinct "discipline" is its subject matter (religious doctrines) and its general approach (usually but not exclusively that of a believer).

Also (although I can't claim that the following is at all representative of the relationship between philosophy and theological departments in academia), back when I was a philosophy undergraduate, little love was lost between the Department of Philosophy (us) and the Department of Scholastic Philosophy (essentially the philosophical branch of the Theological Faculty). We looked down on them as time-wasting medieval obscurantists, who wouldn't recognise a Quantifier Shift fallacy if it came up and bit them on the arse, while they hated us because we had a bigger building than they did (or something - they were into academic backbiting almost as much as they were into Thamas Aquinas). Like I say, little love lost ...

A moderately common attitude amongst professional philosophers is summed up by Ronald de Souza, who famously described philosophical theology as "intellectual tennis without a net".

Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third | August 21, 2010 1:05 PM

No, it's not HIS wager, it's just an argument.

It is not even an argument it is a poor attempt at rationalising the irrational.
Pascal's cop out was thoroughly discredited many years ago anyway, it is just the theists never got the memo, or in fact did get the memo but ignored it, as they do with all things at variance with their delusion.

BTW, if you want an argument against evolution, here you go: http://www.proteopedia.org/wiki/index.php/Sandbox4_Eric_Martz

I am afraid another little misconception that so delights the chronically credulous.
Even Demski might be trying to extricate himself from that faux pas, by the usual creationist trick of lying about what was said and when, no doubt.
And the liars stand in line to experience the orgasm of incredulity, especially if they have a sycophantic audience that will not question their lies.

No, we don't want to knock you out.

Because you cannot, atheism was just an oddity at one time, now the theists have woken up to the fact that the idea is more then just wayward devil inspired individuals.
Theists by and large would prefer life without parole for the ones that laugh at their quaint ways, or failing that because there are to many of the atheist persuasion now consider even execution by god's hand as legitimate and in some mysterious way vindicates their precarious position.
Cancer is a favourite tool apparently as are plane crashes and explosions.
It must be rather galling not to be able to chant jeebus jingles around the bonfire any-more!
They went so well with the screams from the flames.

Better stick to your atheism or whatever you believe in.

Well you see atheism is not a matter of sticking to anything whereas theists apparently have to stick to their clan or they get ostracised, so you are betraying the mind set of xians that have to 'stick' to some cult or other because not sticking leaves the xian at odds with the rest of the gurgling inanity which seems to be the majority of the congregation.

Maybe you had better find out what atheism actually is before debating it, or trying to claim it is a belief!
Yes it is a bit of a stretch for the woo addled to understand the point but worth making the effort so as not to be continually embarrassed in public, but that is after all is said and corrected, your choice!

Nobody wants to convince you God is real.

Yes you do, stop with the lies, it is okay we understand, it must be very cold and lonely on irrationality reef!
And if no new victims trot up soon then the whole delusional shebang goes down the toilet tout suite, where coincidently, it all belongs anyway!
The proselyting is the default setting for every xian of low self worth.
They want to share their misery and rancid fear with others, simple like so!

Then the underlying fear really shows itself.
In a diatribe that spans jealousy, hatred, hysteria and loathing.
Also a certain amount of misapprehension and sheer ignorance.

Consider it: In your worldview I'm also an accident.

You are no accident the cretinism has to be worked at, well done you made it.

In the meantime you trick yourself into believing that your life has a meaning.

Irony meter gone bong!!!

Load of drivel googlemess, must try for coherent points next time instead of the normal xian taunts, they were never affective in the first place your parroting of the same memes has not improved their efficacy or indeed their vintage.

Posted by: Iain Walker | August 21, 2010 2:19 PM

Yahoomess (#235 & #245):

Jesus said, "But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven" (Mt. 10:33) and "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (Jn. 14:6)

Yes, the Gospels do frequently portray Jesus as a vindictive egomaniac with pronounced RWA tendencies. Was that your point? Because I think most of us already knew this.

Blaise Pascal wrote something along the lines like [blah blah blah]

Sigh. Another one condemned to an eternity of playing in the sandpit with the aborted fetuses.

All I say is worth nothing.

Which is the only true thing you've posted here.

Posted by: Iain Walker | August 21, 2010 2:36 PM

Correction to #256:

"Thamas Aquinas" should of course be "Thomas Aquinas".

Fucking Belfast accent. I'll never be rid of it ...

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | August 21, 2010 3:47 PM

So the ideology of an imaginary creature is important in establishing it's existence? Not following that at all.

The argument isn't with having personal beliefs, it's with spreading them. The spreading is especially objectionable when there is such a huge amount of rhetoric and misinformation involved. Strident, shrill and skeptical, thank you very much.

Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | August 21, 2010 4:15 PM

#84 Justin Rosario
You are assuming that talent evolved to be expressed in painting, playing music, playing chess, etc. Actually, that is backwards - we created chess, music & art to express certain inner traits that evolved for other reasons.
You are evoking a version of Douglas Adams' story of the sentient puddle. http://evolvingmind.info/blog/2009/02/the-anthropic-puddle/

Posted by: chigau (◦_◦) | August 21, 2010 4:19 PM

because I don't want to contribute to participate in the current goddebate:
Brownian #167

Dude, have you ever thought about like, how we say things die, like cars and batteries, but they totally can't die because they were never alive to like, begin with?
How come atheists never answer that?

Oh man. I barely saved the mouthful of makers on that one.

Posted by: amphiox | August 21, 2010 4:55 PM

Rosario #84;

A prodigy is 1% innate talent, 2% circumstance, and 97% mind boggling hard work.

I'll use the example of chess since it is something I know about.

Now, in addition to an opportunity to learn the game at an early age and several million hours worth of practice, which are not heritable and do not enter into evolutionary arguments, the heritable requirements for becoming a chess prodigy include:

- Good memory
- Good spatial thinking
- Intense competitiveness
- Creativity
- Incredible mental and above average physical endurance (competition chess games are multihour, sometimes multi-day affairs)
- Preferences for engaging in activities that train/exercise all of the above (or else there will not likely be sufficient motivation for engaging in the required millions of hours of practice)

Now look at that list and consider if any of these traits might, just might, be favorably selected in a social environment prior to the invention of the game of chess.

Posted by: blf | August 21, 2010 5:30 PM

If I saw a herd of small purple alien creature with tentacles and three eyes scuttling about organically and gnawing on the fragrant hoobatchie trees ...

I'll have what he's having.

No, distilled hoobatchie isn't that great. Not much of a kick, and purple skin is just so last millennium. I'd stick with the Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters.

Posted by: Dania | August 21, 2010 5:52 PM

You talk about being non-forceful, yet look at how you respond.

There you go again. Who is forcing what on you, and how?

But a person's personal belief is their own personal belief.

Yes, and you are free to believe whatever bullshit you want to, just as we are free to point out that what you believe in is bullshit. Do you have a problem with that? Oh, maybe you'd like us to shut up? Is that it?

Posted by: Samantha Vimes | August 21, 2010 6:07 PM

@245, "All I say is worth nothing."

QFT. Theist got one thing correct in his entire bit of babble.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | August 21, 2010 7:15 PM

No, I'm not a fucking moron. I know that gravity is interaction. Play with semantics some more, douchebags. Dark matter has zero interaction with physical matter. It passes directly through it.

You talk about being non-forceful, yet look at how you respond.

Like I said, only a single person was a true human being and responded intelligently.

And you want to tell me to grow up?

Okay, I get it. No proof means we shouldn't put emphasis on it.

As a whole, I agree with that statement. But a person's personal belief is their own personal belief.

I think it's pretty funny that you assholes try to equate a God figure to Santa Claus or a leprachaun. Not even close in ideology.

Whatever. It's obvious that you can't have an intelligent conversation without sparking angry douchebags to the podium.

Posted by: JeffreyD | August 21, 2010 7:39 PM

Googlemess -

In your worldview I'm also an accident.

Hardly, the level of inane drivel you spout, the already perjured "evidence", the unwillingness to learn - those all take work and intent.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 21, 2010 10:16 PM

Oh and

WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

boo fucking hoo

Maybe you should visit the Intersucktion. It's probably more suited for your delicate sensitivities.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 21, 2010 10:27 PM

Shorter spamer:

blah blah blah blah waaaaaaaaaaaaaah blah blah blah blah blah waaaaaaaaaaah blah blah blah blah blah waaaaaaaaaaaaah blah blah blah

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 21, 2010 10:36 PM

Spammy, we also don't care one iota for folks who complain about our tone. Those pearl clutchers can go to the intersuction, where tone predominates compared to ideas. Make your choice. If you stay here, you will be called out at time, and we aren't changing our attitudes as PZ prefers it that way. It chase the annoying pearl clutchers away. So far, you are a pearl clutcher.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 21, 2010 10:48 PM

s for the Dark Matter bit...Holy crap. I didn't, and still don't, claim to know more about that than anyone here. I was simply making a statement about something amazing in the Universe that we didn't know about until recently. Sure, we theorized it, postulated it, but never saw it. Never was able to have even a glimpse of it. And it really is amazing

Bullshit.

I bet most of you don't know the idea that we've recently come to the conclusion that there is this "stuff" out in the Universe that does not interact with matter at all, yet somehow allows dust and gas to clump together and produce enough gravity to form stars (aka Dark Matter).

In terms of scientific knowledge it isn't recently. Quit backpedaling.

Someone even made the statement of, "Tolerance and respect are two totally different things I don't respect theists har har har!"

Really, where?

You swooped down to my post, told me exactly why I was wrong about God and why you were right, that all evidence (or lack of) points to you being right, and in so many words you said that theists are stupid.

Not really. We told you why there is nothign that supports your belief in God. Nothing.

And Theists can be stupid but typically I think of them as self deluded.

You included.

So what? I wasn't planning on phone calling George Washington (and for you semantics dicks, I know 100 years ago isn't the time of our first president. Enough asshattery). Seriously, if I took a miniature plastic box that fits in my pocket into the past, where I could create light that wasn't candle flame, play "videos" (I don't know what they'd think or call it in the past), and otherwise store data, they'd have their minds blown. Hell, if I took the Playstation 3 into the 80's when there was only pong, people would have their minds blown. It was the principle that our "reality" is constantly changing, and that things that seemed fantasy, out of our reach, or unobtainable have and are being actively achieved.

But unfortunately you shot yourself in the foot here because we can explain playstation 3 and cell phones. There is no magic. There is no supernatural explanation. There is a rational material explanation. Honestly you even continuing down this line of argument is making you come off like a moron. The fact you can't recognize that this hurts your position is a source of amusement for me.

Then, you proceeded to make a rash assumption that I was trying to sound intellectually superior by bringing up an awesome phenomena (and Dark Matter is pretty damn awesome), and proceeded to argue about that.

Again, I only brought that up, and did so randomly, because of how groundbreaking it really is now that we have solid evidence of it. We are talking about "matter" that doesn't have mass (or so it seems), that passes through normal matter without physically interacting (specific enough, jackass?), and is one of, if not the major reason why gases clump together to form stars, aka the reason why our Universe is able to exist the way it does?

LIAR. See the first quote above. Ok here it is again

I bet most of you don't know the idea that we've recently come to the conclusion that there is this "stuff" out in the Universe that does not interact with matter at all, yet somehow allows dust and gas to clump together and produce enough gravity to form stars (aka Dark Matter).

humm?

In a way, I guess I do feel superior. Superior in the sense that I am not a bigot. I don't think or look down on others for their beliefs. I don't hate atheists because they don't believe. I hate the atheists that think they are right and love to throw their shit in everyone's face.

I don't look down you you because of your beliefs, I look down on your beliefs because they are wholly unsupported and irrational. And in my opinion stupid.

Don't you think you are right? But i can't think I'm right.

That's awefully bigoted of you.

But for you atheists, those of you that think you're inherently better, that think theists don't deserve respect, how does that make you any different from the extremist theists and "stupid" theists you hate so much? Where's the humanity there? Where's the tolerance? Tolerance isn't about just going, "Okay, believe what you want but I'll still hate you for it". It really isn't. And it's pathetic. Tolerance is the opposite of bigotry, and those of you that made me reply a second time are not examples of tolerance in the least.

What a fucking cry baby.

Theists ideas don't deserve respect unless they can show some reason to respect them. So far, bupkis.

I don't have to respect you. I don't know you from a frogs asshole. Respect is earned.

I'll tolerate you. I'll fight for your right to believe the silly things you do. But I do not under any circumstances have to respect those beliefs.

My first post didn't exemplify half the crap you claim it did. I didn't say or think I was superior. I came in with a valid point, that atheists like to beat on theists for their beliefs, and you proved me right.

WAHHH. People who disagree with me disagree with me, and they have the gall to say it publicly.

Grow up.

I'll tell you what...The reason I didn't respond to that one guy that gave me respect is because he made me think. Unlike the rest of you, who could have easily tried to get me to understand why you feel the way you do, he showed me his viewpoint with tolerance. He didn't hate me for being a theist, and instead made good points about the things I said.

Listen asshole. You're the one that came in here scolding everyone and you fucking think we'll just give you a big hug and tell you that we think you're just a super guy.

Fuck you.

Not only that, but I have been questioning the idea of a God for a while now, and he has me on the verge of atheism. However, I swear that if I eventually choose that, I won't be some self-serving smug douchebag that thinks that theists are retarded because they believe in a higher power, or believe that they have a soul.

See there is this thing called intellectual integrity. If you believe something, you should have the balls stand up for those beliefs and even argue about those beliefs.

What gives you the right to come in and tell us we're wrong but we can't return the favor?

Fucker.

Regardless of whether or not they are wrong, or what evidence there is or isn't, so long as they aren't interfering with my life with their practices and faiths, then I'll be just as brotherly to them as any other person. All people deserve respect and love until they prove otherwise.

Here's the point you obviously missed, Religion makes a point of interfering in EVERYONE'S lives.

So those who support it are supporting that interference.

Obviously if you thought I was talking about you in my original post, you must share something in common with the douchebag atheist I talk about.

Obviously you aren't as clever as you think you are.

you came here and started acting like a self righteous moron. You got called to the carpet for it and now you're all butt hurt.

Just like there are douchebag Christians, and shitty Muslims, there are terrible as all hell atheists. And some of you have proven that.

Well no shit.

Important word here.

Humans.

Difference is, there is nothing about being an atheist that requires you to be an asshole. There's plenty about being a christian or muslim that does.

I just provide my assholishness as a service.

Be thankful you got some and I didn't charge you.

Get over yourself .

And oh damn, God forbid I swear! I'm sorry that you proceeded to blatantly pull at my patience and had no regard for how you spoke to me, yet care so fucking much about how I respond to you. That's the internet for you.

wahhhh

Posted by: makyui | August 21, 2010 11:03 PM

What you guys did was nearly the same thing an evangelical Christian would do.

Evangelical Christians want me dead, just because I exist. And no, not because I'm an atheist. I hardly think anyone here wants a person dead just because they're a theist.

Or are you saying that insulting someone's fairy stories is the same as trying to wipe people like me out of existence?

Hell, if I took the Playstation 3 into the 80's when there was only pong, people would have their minds blown.

But they wouldn't think it was magic, would they?

As a matter of fact, they probably wouldn't think a cellphone was magic a hundred years ago, either, since... yanno, that was post-AGE OF REASON and all.

Are you trying to say that it's more right to assume magic? Because considering we've done nothing but steadily replace magical superstition with material explanations, the odds aren't in your favor, there.

He didn't hate me for being a theist, and instead made good points about the things I said.

You're mistaking annoyance and bemusement for hate.

I hate the bigoted AMERICAN fundie assholes who are trying to make homosexuality a death sentence in Uganda.

Theists who mind their own business? I don't give a shit.

Theists like you, however? You're just silly.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 21, 2010 11:18 PM

I can feel the throbbing from here.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | August 21, 2010 11:22 PM

spameater -

Who is "forcing" their views on other people?

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | August 21, 2010 11:40 PM

FUCKER! PIGFUCKER!

Posted by: lykex | August 22, 2010 1:50 AM

since he gave me the respect of a proper response I gave him the respect of having the last word in that regard

That may be part of your problem right there. If you think that a proper expression of respect is to shut up, then you're obviously quite at odds with most of the people here.

Dark Matter doesn't interact with normal matter, with the exception of its gravity.

Was that really so hard?

You swooped down to my post, told me exactly why I was wrong about God and why you were right, that all evidence (or lack of) points to you being right

Yep. That's called a discussion. You state your opinion and if I disagree, I tell you why I disagree. Then, if you were interested in an intelligent discussion, you'd try to counter my argument and raise points in favour of your position.

Note: at no point does this include throwing a hissy fit.

It was the principle that our "reality" is constantly changing, and that things that seemed fantasy, out of our reach, or unobtainable have and are being actively achieved.

Great, but you seem to think that this provides a justification to believe in god. It doesn't. Why you believe is as important as what you believe because the "why" is how you know you got the "what" right.

The reason why I brought that up was to say that if I were to bring up Dark Matter and claim to know it's there just a few decades ago, a good amount of scientists would just ignore me

And rightly so.

I'm not saying that the world should jump on their bandwagon, but should you think they're stupid? Certainly not. Should you hate them for their postulation? Nope.

If they actively believe something about the nature of the universe based only on a feeling. Yeah, I'd say that's pretty stupid.
Hate them? Certainly not. Not unless they went to school boards and tried to get their pet theory to be taught in science class.

Now for the more important questions:
Should we argue with them and point out the fact that they have no evidence? Hell, yes!
Should we demand that they provide evidence before we accept the theory ourselves? Hell, yes!

That's part of religion and is a personal thing, not something that should be in society

Well, the thing is, most theists would disagree. In fact, an awful lot of them believe that their religion demands that they push their bullshit on everyone else with all the might they can muster.
Your idea, that belief should be a personal thing, is a minority opinion in many places. It's not the standard theist line.

But for you atheists, those of you that think you're inherently better, that think theists don't deserve respect, how does that make you any different from the extremist theists and "stupid" theists you hate so much?

Are you serious?

Let me ask you, are atheists trying to push pseudo-scientific nonsense into school books? Are we trying to push legislation that will give our organizations tax breaks? Do we push legislation that will invalidate people from public office if they're not atheists? Do we try to kill people who disagree with us?

I hate to repeat myself, but are you SERIOUS?

Maybe we should try an experiment. First, I'll punch you in the face. Then, I'll call you an idiot. Finally, we'll see if you can tell the difference between the two.

I came in with a valid point, that atheists like to beat on theists for their beliefs, and you proved me right.

Oh, that was your point? Actually, we don't bash people for what they believe, we bash people for believing things with no good reason. There's a subtle difference. It's not like we've just arbitrarily decided that certain beliefs are stupid.

There's a reason why we criticize theists: they can't back up their beliefs with evidence.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/0zHvuGYhk8ER_.zWwiidG8AUL_DV#a886e | August 22, 2010 4:03 AM

hahahaha poor guy, he came into a place where everybody knows more about science than he does with his little high school diploma...

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/jRsInbA7m9hkFcFWgLVJeSZS1G2f#e50e3 | August 22, 2010 6:44 AM

I will note: that you pretend to have an invisible friend doesn't make him real), and I'm feeling pretty good: a wonderful wife, three great kids, and a job I enjoy doing. If this is Hell, bring on more.

Luke 16
[19] "There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. [20] At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores [21] and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

[22] "The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. [23] In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. [24] So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'

...

[31] "He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "

You don't get it. I'm not in agony. I'm feeling damn good. Your god is a god of misery and promises of relief from horrible, awful pain; your god is a delusion for broken people. If ever I am in a situation where I am suffering (an inevitable state, since I'm not pretending that I'm immortal), I should hope I wouldn't be so brain-damaged that I believe a retreat into fantasy is the solution. I believe in reality, and hard work, and the redeeming power of knowledge; I don't believe in magic.

Luke 5
[31]Jesus answered them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. [32]I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

I wouldn't tell you that, because only an idiot would think smashing a watch is a relevant experiment.

Proverbs 26:12
Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.

If you want to convert people, a better strategy for you would be to shut up and go hide in a cave where no one might listen to you and be frightened away from your daft pratings, because all you do is affirm my conviction that faith is for fools.

“For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God” (1 Corinthians 1:18).

Posted by: Dania | August 22, 2010 6:54 AM

Oh, look!

*points at #302*

We have someone here who can copy-paste from the Bible! So impressive!

Posted by: John Morales | August 22, 2010 6:59 AM

Dania, wouldn't call it foolish for slab-pasting babble, though citing is just as easy to follow (as I did) and so much neater.

...

But it was a foolish thing to do.

--

PS I love this: Luke 16
[19] "There was a rich man [babble]"

Posted by: Dania | August 22, 2010 7:33 AM

wouldn't call it foolish for slab-pasting babble

No, not if there's a point to it.

Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third | August 22, 2010 7:46 AM

#283

I was simply making a statement about something amazing in the Universe that we didn't know about until recently. Sure, we theorized it, postulated it, but never saw it. Never was able to have even a glimpse of it. And it really is amazing.

Ergo 'Sky fairy'...is that your vague point?
Very clumsy because it is so transparent, you are new at this aren't you?.

Don't play the semantics bullshit with me

Shorter version...

'Don't question or correct me'

I don't have to go so utterly specific that there's no way for you to contort my opinion just because you want me to.

The theist creed is peeking out from under your unaffiliated belief petticoat, as well as an xian brand of paranoia that usually only affects their evangelicals, you seem cursed brother, but that is what you get hanging around den's of iniquity!
Bit like contracting fleas from a rat's nest!

It wouldn't matter what I said in my original post, it was the fact that I said I believe in God that made so many of you (not all, just those that brazenly attacked me) beat your chests and fly off the horse.

Very first line #148

"Reading both the blog itself as well as the comments makes me sick to my stomach."

A very respectful first sentiment....

Keeping in mind that is was a thread about a severely disturbed evangelical cretin that had felt moved to proselytise to PZ under the pretext of asking..

"a professional scientist how something can come from nothing?"

Thus displaying woeful and pathetic inconsideration of questions to a Biologist, a tactic well used and favoured by the xian jeebus clones to bolster their standing amongst their peers, especially if the professional scientist cannot answer the question because it is not in his area of expertise.
A little trick used by theist fans regularly and to apparently great affect, amongst their own that is!
The commentators here are well within the rights of free speech to deplore the shabby underhand disingenuous attempt to score xian brownie points.

You however felt it was unfair even though you...

"agree whole-heartedly that the guy who sent PZ the email was wrong."

Then when the pearls have been clutched tight enough in public you feel moved to declare...

"I'm not a Christian, or Jewish, or Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc., yet I do believe in God. Not out of "intellectual inertia" but out of reasonable observation."

So what particular god, that you apparently confess to believing in, do you support that has displayed 'reasonable observation' that the Christian, or Jewish, or Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. god's do not?
What was the 'reasonable observation' of which you have witnessed that has convinced you so?..do tell curious minds wish to know!
If it is anything like your Dark Matter farrago it might be vaguely interesting.

What is your creed hotshot, a guess would be 'The united reformed bullshitting Evangelical society of tone trolls' perchance?
A group of undercover xian ninja assassins dedicated to offering the shield of tone control to all xians regardless of insanity.

A return to a previous dropping...

"He made foolish arguments, and believes in God for the wrong reasons"

Enlighten us 'O' holy one, what are the right reasons?

A word of wisdom sherlock...'Don't play the semantics bullshit with us!'

What you guys did was nearly the same thing an evangelical Christian would do.

And you seem very familiar with their modus operandi!

You swooped down to my post, told me exactly why I was wrong about God and why you were right, that all evidence (or lack of) points to you being right, and in so many words you said that theists are stupid.

Whining begins and the ever lurking inferential undertone of repression and intolerance, this is making a familiar pattern and one not new to this blog and always from the hard done by theist, do you not see it?
How dare we ask for evidence, wow! who would have thought it, and on a science oriented blog at that, standards must be slipping, never had that trouble at rapture ready did ya?

It was the principle that our "reality" is constantly changing, and that things that seemed fantasy, out of our reach, or unobtainable have and are being actively achieved.

Ergo 'sky fairy' again.

Currently, there's several new theories about how the Universe began, and they're pretty different from the Big Bang Theory.

Do tell...?

I read about one really strange theory that suggests that different Universes sit next to each other just a small small distance apart, and every so often they touch in certain spots, and that creates a "bang" like we see in the big bang.

Are you referring to Hugh Everett's many-worlds interpretation (MWI)?
Been around a while and nobody is claiming it is a fact.
There are various refinements and a lot of theoretical cosmology has gone into the interpretation since 1957.
But it is still a hypothesis and the one thing guaranteed is that there will be no theoretical physicists banging on the school board door demanding that they teach the controversy!
Then claim discrimination and atheist conspiracy when they get invariably turned down if they ever did.

you are so arrogant and douchey about being "superior" that you dare try to reverse it and say I was the one who thought I was superior.

Oh the utter injustice, the lies and the rotten low despicable things they call theists those nasty atheists are so god damned nasty!...

but in the very next line....

In a way, I guess I do feel superior.

Head / Desk!

I hate the atheists that think they are right and love to throw their shit in everyone's face.

Yep those mouthy atheists are sure scary, they might threaten the precious delusion.
Fucking grow up and cultivate a hairy pair sherlock , you know it makes sense!

What made me sick in the first place is how the theist is portrayed here and treated. If they deserve it, great.

Confused troll is Confused!

Those brethren of yours, the gods little storm trooper cults that apparently deserve a whacking for their inanity, you know the ones that deserve it, are your erstwhile brethren not ours they are your side of the deity fence not ours, that you and yours cannot keep them in line is not our problem.
They stray they get to know they cross the line especially here!
To rich for your sensibilities then no one is stopping you departing.
But unless you really piss off the prof...and you have to trot someways away from sanity to coax the full wrath out of him...no one here is demanding you leave or wants to ban you or remove your posts or refuse your submissions, strange that for such a nasty lot of inherently superior douchebags that are intolerant of your beliefs!
The same can never be said for theist web swamps.

My first post didn't exemplify half the crap you claim it did. I didn't say or think I was superior. I came in with a valid point, that atheists like to beat on theists for their beliefs, and you proved me right.

Whine...whine...whine...self vindication!

You had no valid point you had an agenda and got what you were angling for a chance to whine about intolerance of belief, that probably in some twisted way self vindicates your brand of utter twaddle...so be it!...be happy!

The rest of the screed in #283 is whine not red or white just murky and rather self obsessed and how you are treated and what you would do and how you would act.

You have very little chance of divesting yourself of god cos you require a sky daddy just to much seemingly.
But in case I am wrong in that assessment, it has been known, then I wish you happy monkey and may all your goats be on fire!

But seems the problem really is that you are trying to hang on by the rationalisations you make throughout all of your posts, the "just because there is no proof does not make it not so!" dogma!
The 'Ergo sky fairy' gambit does not make a convincing case amongst the intelligent sherlock...thought you should know that!

You stink of 'xian evangelical wannabe at a crossroad with no map' friend...just saying!

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | August 22, 2010 9:33 AM

spameater

Dark Matter doesn't interact with normal matter, with the exception of its gravity. You knew what I meant because you were oh so able to thoughtfully tell me off about how I didn't word it perfectly enough for you.

As I said previously, dark matter has measurable effects on the anisotropies observed in the
cosmic microwave background. This is another case of dark matter's interaction with the observable universe.

When you first tell us that you doubt most of us have ever heard of dark matter and then give a poorly worded and wrong description of dark matter, you can hardly object when you're corrected. Many of us here have known about dark matter for some years and we know something about its characteristics. So we corrected you when you said something we knew was wrong. We may not have been gentle in the correction but you're an adult. You shouldn't have to be treated like a small child nor should you expect to be treated like one, especially when the first thing you post are insults to Professor Myers and to us.

Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right | August 24, 2010 1:37 PM

Or, as a boss of mine once said:

Fiat lux: let there be light.

Fiat Fiat: let there be a small car.

Posted by: RUXperienced94 | January 8, 2011 3:52 PM

I'm disgusted by both parties in this this whole display of self righteousness and condemnation of your fellow man. the internet is a tool for people to rapidly share information and insight with each other and instead you sir with all due respect use it as a tool to broadcast your own arrogance and self assured superiority over those who have their own right in this free living world to cling onto the humble idea that there is meaning behind our existence.
the purpose of science is the pursuit of the absolute truth. you take so much pride in your position as a man of science. i am a man of indifference. i could care less of another mans ideology; i simply created this account so that i could try to put things in perspective for you. you have been in existence for maybe about half a century. the big bang is estimated to have happened about 13.7 bya. it originated from a point called singularity that cosmologists speculate was thousands of times tinier than the volume of a single atom. i am no scientist and i don't claim to have insight that is superior to any of you on this website; i simply long for the truth. i am open minded to all possible realities in my position as a "scientist" (in reality every person is their own scientist and makes a hypothesis based on the facts) and that is simply it; there really are no definite facts; most is speculation . we are SO insignificant in this incomprehensibly massive; MASSIVE universe and we exist for so short a period of time that i sincerely believe we will never know the truth. but i do know that i do not think it is logical for every single living organism, every single compassionate thought you've had about another person all the happiness all the joy all the sadness and longing for something more; and most of all the intense; INTENSE amount of energy that your mind cannot even comprehend required to make the universe expand to it's amazing size came from nothing and randomness. this leaves the door open to the supernatural. people thought black holes, giant squid, and yes sixty years ago gorillas were a myth.
one thing i know is that everything is real. both options to believe in a deity or to reject the idea of a god are undeniably in existence. and the most REAL thing in all of this uncertain mess is the fact that it is all uncertain; everything is speculation when it comes to the origins of our existence. the warning of an eternity of damnation is also a very very real possibility for you and for me. we are simply dust in the wind. all of your pride in your intelligence comes from you and nowhere else! you cannot understand people of faith. you see material objects as having value and i see love and truth as having value. everyone's opinions and everyone's beliefs are sacred to them and you attempt to trample all religion under your feet simply because it doesn't fall in check with your perception of reality. you call the man a phony because he is trying to call you out on your flawed logic. the lord said "Do not try to remove the speck in your brothers eye until you have first removed the plank form your own." by calling this man a phony and not answering his question sincerely you have branded yourself to me and the entire religious community as a "Phony." remember, science is simply the search for truth; to try and understand the origins of mankind's existence. science and reality does not favor ANYONE'S; not even a man of science like yourself's opinions. you abuse your position and distort science to fit your own bias perspective of the origins of existence. you are a biologist. you know nothing of faith yet you find it so easy to mock. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." this comes from the bible i'm certain you know. but in a peaceful mans mind this is simply logic. he wasn't the first to begin insulting your intelligence; that was you. try and take a walk in another persons shoes; as the man who asked the first question was doing. he simply wanted your insight on a fundamental question of our existence; how did we get here???????? the answer; who the fuck knows; certainly not you yet you are so goddamn high and mighty that you cannot relate yourself to someone who differs from you to stoop to there level and humble yourself before the mystery. remember one day you will be on your deathbed staring into the dark abyss of uncertainty and you life will flash before your eyes; if there is a lord he has told us time and again; HE SEES ALL; HE KNOWS YOUR THOUGHTS BEFORE YOU EVEN THINK THEM. he gave you free will. the only way to have security of the afterlife is to be a good person and open your mind and your heart to all points of view. you don't have to accept it but you cannot reject it. for our lord is a compassionate God and forgives. you can change your ways after reading this and open your mind to your fellow mans ideals and values or you can continue to be a bigot. that my friend will be between you and maybe a God, i can never know for sure because i am not scientist. but if you swallow your pride and stay awake at night with the question gnawing at you brain and through deep self reflection maybe you can see it from my point of view. please don't respond to this if you have nothing insightful to say; i mean it. i will not care to read it if you insult me and the only one that will know about it is you and your father.
all i want is peace and the liberty to have my own mind. a mind that is just a strong and just as well developed as yours. we all have feelings and we all simply long to be understood and to relate to one another. everyone on this website doesn't understand that or just ignores it; but quite frankly that is what the founding father had in mind when they came to america and you have lost touch with all of your Fathers; Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, Madison, adams, Jay, Hamilton and most of all christ.
please reconsider what you say and what you think while you still have time and while you still have the choice.

Posted by: RUXperienced94 | January 8, 2011 7:25 PM

wow you ignore everything that i just wrote except for the things that i said off the top of my head that were factually inaccurate??????
you can continue to wager an eternity of suffering based on bullshit that. you don't know me; i pretend to be open minded simply because my ideals don't resemble yours? you can't call me ignorant based on a comment on the internet. i would love to here you explain to me exactly what is wrong with my logic besides what you've already written.
you clearly get off on the artificial superiority that you feel after insulting someone elses frame of mind, just like every other atheist or whatever the hell you are. you have no right to call me anything; i never called you anything or insulted you i simply shared my beliefs humbly and trying not to offend people and you respond only with the intent to offend, i simply ask why?
are you insecure with yourself? you feel threatened by my beliefs so you have to make an attempt to shoot them down?

Posted by: RUXperienced94 | January 8, 2011 7:41 PM

context matters
-"if there is a lord" he has told us time and again; HE SEES ALL; HE KNOWS YOUR THOUGHTS BEFORE YOU EVEN THINK THEM.

-a mind that is just a strong and just as well developed as yours. aren't we all human beings here? you've never talked to me so why even bring that up. that's just mean spirited and wrong and only reinforces what I've already told you; the sole reason you say that is because what i tell you makes you insecure about your own life.

you clearly are smarter than I. how in gods name did you know that gorillas first description was in 1847. Ok what is 1951-1847+60; shit this is tough i have to get my calculator out.
ok gorillas were a myth 164 years ago. thank you for that significant bit of trivial knowledge that i can pass on to my children. i will be forever grateful

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | January 8, 2011 8:15 PM

the purpose of science is the pursuit of the absolute truth.

i am a man of indifference.

if there is a lord

that my friend will be between you and maybe a God,

a mind that is just a strong and just as well developed as yours.

please reconsider what you say and what you think while you still have time and while you still have the choice.

you ignore everything that i just wrote except for the things that i said off the top of my head that were factually inaccurate

put down the fucking guns

wager an eternity of suffering based on bullshit that.

you clearly get off on the artificial superiority that you feel after insulting someone elses frame of mind,

you feel threatened by my beliefs so you have to make an attempt to shoot them down?

HE SEES ALL; HE KNOWS YOUR THOUGHTS BEFORE YOU EVEN THINK THEM.

gorillas were a myth 164 years ago.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | January 8, 2011 8:51 PM

i'm simply not gonna take the risk of denying god

do you think that i do not exist in the same world

and i know i cannot prove that there is a god;

i was trying to make a reference of mankind ignorance of reality until we see things with our own eyes.

you; since you put so much faith in science and mankind's expanding understanding of this matter, are called upon to answer.

convince me how they prove there is no god?

Posted by: KG | January 8, 2011 8:54 PM

RUXperienced94,

wow you ignore everything that i just wrote except for the things that i said off the top of my head that were factually inaccurate??????

On the contrary, I picked out the bits that at least made some sort of sense.

you can continue to wager an eternity of suffering based on bullshit

Only the really, really stupid still take Pascal's wager seriously. Even Homer Simpson was able to see the point:
"Suppose we’ve chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we’re just making him madder and madder!"
Besides, it's utterly despicable to determine your beliefs on the basis of fear. If your psychopathic sadist of a god does exist, I spit in his face.

i simply shared my beliefs humbly

I'm disgusted by both parties in this this whole display of self righteousness and condemnation of your fellow man.

science does not allow for something to come from nothing

Yes it does. Specifically, quantum mechanics allows for exactly that.

Posted by: KG | January 8, 2011 9:03 PM

all i have to go by is faith, just like you - RUX

No: I go by evidence and reasoning.

Posted by: RUXperienced94 | January 8, 2011 9:13 PM

wow you think those are insults? does fuckwit sound familiar? both parties means religious people on this website and atheists. i did not intend to have an argument with an incredibly arrogant internet personality like yourself i was hoping for insightful respectful feedback on what i said.
why do you still try to insult what i said?
are you not disgusted by self righteousness and condemnation of your fellow mans ideals?
those didn't feel like insults to me when i wrote them. they felt like emotions that the religious experience on a daily basis

quantum mechanics: the energy particles like neutrons protons and electrons came from nothing thats what your telling me?
that is your entire reasoning for there being no god?
i believe in all paths to god, if yuo spent your life worshiping the idea of the true god is it not the same?
the lord understands all and knows what your intentions are and loves you still the same no matter what.
hell is reserved for the persecutors and those who claim they would spit in their creators face.
but if you accept him before the end you may enter the kingdom of heaven. but it doesn't matter anyway cause we're probly all gonna rot in the ground forever.
what bits don't make sense?
unlike you i care enough about the subject to explain my reasoning on a deeper level.
you still resort only to insults; WHY? i've already answered that question a few times if you pay attention

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | January 8, 2011 9:25 PM

you still leave all these questions unanswered.

i did not intend to have an argument with an incredibly arrogant internet personality like yourself i was hoping for insightful respectful feedback on what i said.

those didn't feel like insults to me when i wrote them.

that is your entire reasoning for there being no god?

hell is reserved for the persecutors and those who claim they would spit in their creators face.

i've already answered that question a few times if you pay attention

Posted by: RUXperienced94 | January 8, 2011 9:38 PM

there is no concrete evidence either way don't you fucking understand?!?!?!?!?!?
you don't pay attention.
you hate religious people because of you own distorted perception of the catholic faith.
the catholic faith did not do anything that you said.
MEN committed those acts that you said. self-righteous men who don't have a problem with persecuting other men's ideals and don't have a problem with condemning their fellow man.
you call all catholics homophobes simply for having their own faith?
Catholics are antisemitic?
who the fuck are you?
evil does not come from the lord it comes from men.
you dare to compare me and my entire religious community to the awful things that happened hundreds of years ago?
i fucking dare you to find one catholic that protects child molesters!
get your facts straight, pope benedict the sixteenth condemns the child molesting priests and everyone is aware of that atrocity.
your entire ideology is based on nothing but your ideology.
you see only what you want to see and hear only what you want to hear.
why the fuck haven't you answered any of my questions yet?
because you fucking can't and that's why you have to continue insulting me for my faith.
here's a question you can answer; how old are you?
i am 16 and i have totally destroyed you in this conversation i think any third party with a brain would see because you still haven't presented your own incredibly convincing argument you fuckwit! why do you keep such valuable information to your self?
if you consider saying, "yes it does, quantum mechanics allows for that specifically."
to be a legitimate answer then you have got your head so far up your own ass you should have auditioned for a role in hancock, you certainly are good enough at insulting people to call a superhero an asshole right?
you go by evidence and reasoning?
somehow i don't?
again you think that i don't exist in the same world you do?
i don't learn about the same evidence you do?
i have not an ounce of reasoning in my brain that is what you are telling me?
even though you are the one who fails to explain your reasoning and gives me bullshit answers only intended to upset me?????

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | January 8, 2011 9:58 PM

there is no concrete evidence either way don't you fucking understand

you don't pay attention.

i am 16 and i have totally destroyed you in this conversation

you hate religious people because of you own distorted perception of the catholic faith.

you call all catholics homophobes simply for having their own faith?

i fucking dare you to find one catholic that protects child molesters!

here's a question you can answer; how old are you?

you go by evidence and reasoning?

i don't learn about the same evidence you do?

though you I are am the one who fails to explain understand your reasoning

gives me bullshit answers only intended to upset me

Posted by: Ichthyic | January 8, 2011 10:07 PM

how can you not see that you cannot simply declare that something exists or doesn't exist?

you mean you don't?

surely, when you leave your house in the morning (you, uh, DO leave your house, right?), you don't spend time trying to avoid stepping on leprechauns, or bumping into pink unicorns?

likewise, you don't go bumbling out into traffic.

so, you too make implicit declarations, even to yourself, that certain things do and do not, exist.

In essence, what you are doing here, is lying.

do you enjoy lying?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | January 8, 2011 10:13 PM

how can you not see that you cannot simply declare that something exists or doesn't exist?

but i'm almost convinced that there is an imaginary guy in the sky who will remember them;

i have yet to hear your concrete facts and reasoning

science only accepts concrete facts and evidence doesn't it?

you are i am so arrogant

god is very real to me.

because the religious are naturally quiet and forgiving

just want to live and love and be undisturbed.

i still would love to here your convincing logic and reasoning behind all of your empty insults...

Posted by: Ichthyic | January 8, 2011 10:21 PM

your man made degrees have nothing to do with logic and spirituality.

do degrees from deities make you bulletproof, I wonder?

ALL OF THIS THAT EXISTS CANNOT COME FROM NOTHING.

sure looks like it did though, regardless.

or did you have actual evidence to the contrary to share with us, other than delusional ramblings?

yeah, thought not.

religion is insufficient medication for your condition; suggest a visit to a good therapist or at least a GP for a better prescription.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | January 8, 2011 10:24 PM

your man made degrees have nothing much to do with logic and spirituality.

you couldn't begin to understand spirituality.

ALL OF THIS THAT EXISTS CANNOT COME FROM NOTHING.

i cannot prove there is a god.

so with your logic technically that suggests there is a god.

words and insults will not protet you from the almighty, neither will your false ego. peace!

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | January 8, 2011 10:26 PM

you won't be able to hide behind your aarp card when the father asks you why you rejected him.

ALL OF THIS THAT EXISTS CANNOT COME FROM NOTHING.

For fuck's sake, you're using 'arguments' as old as the hills, and I can respond to you with one arm tied behind my back a cat taking up half my keyboard.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | January 8, 2011 10:32 PM

ALL OF THIS THAT EXISTS CANNOT COME FROM NOTHING.
you cannot prove how all of this came from nothing

Oh oh I can. Pick me, I can answer this.

This harks back to Aquinas's first three Proofs of God, which can be summarized thusly:

1. Contingent, non-self-existent, changing beings exist.
2. Their existence implies the existence of other beings upon whom they depend for their existence and their change.
3. The sum of contingent, non-self-existent, changing beings upon which any given being depends has a first member.
4. This first member, a necessary, self-existent, unchanging being, must exist. Ex nihilo nihil fit (nothing comes out of nothing).

Let's consider ex nihilo nihil fit. It's an assumption. What happens if we consider it to be wrong:

1. Contingent beings exist.
2. Their existence implies the existence of other beings upon which they depend for their existence.
3. Because no necessary being exists at least one otherwise contingent being does not depend for its existence on another being.
4. Because this being is not necessary, its existence must be explained somehow.
5. The only explanation is that it simply comes into existence.

Therefore, ex nihilo nihil fit is false.

Actually if we look at both sets of arguments we see a whole lot of question begging. A universe with a first being requires that at least this first being simply came into existence. However, to assume ex nihilo nihil fit guarantees the conclusion in advance. By definition, the first being cannot be caused by another being. If it were, it would not be the first being of the chain. However, to assume that the first being must be caused (which is what ex nihilo nihil fit amounts to) is to assume that a necessary being must exist. This is the very issue in question.

Posted by: Satan | January 8, 2011 11:10 PM

Since when do I have a face to spit in?

I'm sure that was meant as a metaphor for gross disrespect.

Posted by: Satan | January 8, 2011 11:19 PM

Remind Me, what did You do with that priest that wrote that the humans were created in My image?

Infinite hell hall of (warped) mirrors.

Heh.

Posted by: David Marjanović | January 9, 2011 5:29 PM

the purpose of science is the pursuit of the absolute truth.

Oh dear.

No, it isn't – because it cannot be. After all, it's not even possible to disprove solipsism. Go ahead, prove to me that you're not a figment of my imagination!

Science doesn't deal with truth, it only deals with reality; it's not a quest for truth, it's a quest for falsehood. It tries to find all ideas that are wrong ( = contradict reality) and to show beyond reasonable doubt that they're wrong.

the big bang is estimated to have happened about 13.7 bya. it originated from a point called singularity that cosmologists speculate was thousands of times tinier than the volume of a single atom.

"Estimated" is wrong, and "speculate" is so wrong it's funny. Try "measured" and "calculated".

BTW, 13.7 Ga ago. :-)

i do not think it is logical for every single living organism, every single compassionate thought you've had about another person all the happiness all the joy all the sadness and longing for something more; and most of all the intense; INTENSE amount of energy that your mind cannot even comprehend required to make the universe expand to it's amazing size came from nothing and randomness.

"Logical" is again the wrong word. What you mean is you can't imagine it, not that it's not logical. The problem isn't necessarily in physics, then – it's more likely just in your head, in your lack of knowledge.

Besides, did you know that the total energy of the universe is 0 or very close to it?

everything is speculation when it comes to the origins of our existence

You act as if there were no evidence, no microwave background, no redshift...

Bad move.

you cannot understand people of faith.

Most of us have been people of faith.

you see material objects as having value and i see love and truth as having value.

Wow. What an unprovokedly insulting set of lies right there in the middle of your long comment...

everyone's opinions and everyone's beliefs are sacred to them

That's their problem.

And, frankly, as a scientist I try not to get too attached to my opinions. Every one of them could, after all, turn out to be wrong. Several have already, so I had to drop them...

you call the man a phony because he is trying to call you out on your flawed logic.

So? Then why does his e-mail consist of one logical fallacy after another?

the lord said

Jesus: Lord, liar, lunatic, or legend?

I'm with "legend".

not answering his question sincerely

What?

remember, science is simply the search for truth; to try and understand the origins of mankind's existence.

It's... sort of... cute that you try to explain what science is to a professional scientist.

It's less cute that you get it wrong. Most science has nothing whatsoever to do with trying to understand "the origins of mankind's existence".

you know nothing of faith

PZ was a Christian before he found out how little sense faith makes.

you don't have to accept it but you cannot reject it.

lolwut?

but if you swallow your pride and stay awake at night with the question gnawing at you brain and through deep self reflection maybe you can see it from my point of view.

Questions about reality cannot be solved by thinking alone. Otherwise we wouldn't need science; philosophy would be enough.

Questions about reality can only be answered by thinking about observations that have been made.

all i want is peace and the liberty to have my own mind. a mind that is just a strong and just as well developed as yours. we all have feelings and we all simply long to be understood and to relate to one another.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.
– Sen. Patrick Moynihan (D-NY)

Reality is that which, if you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.
– Steven Weinberg, I think.

You have every right to believe and say whatever you want – and everyone else has the right to point out your mistakes, even to point and laugh; you're not allowed to try to prevent anyone from doing that.

you have no right to call me anything;

Our right to call you anything ends only at libel & slander.

i never called you anything or insulted you i simply shared my beliefs humbly and trying not to offend people

I've pointed out the places where you utterly failed to do that.

you feel threatened by my beliefs so you have to make an attempt to shoot them down?

Do you feel threatened by our lack of belief, so you get scared at anyone's attempts to shoot your beliefs down?

i am a man of indifference.

Lie, otherwise you would not have posted.

Good catch.

(Besides... "man" at the age of 16? :-S )

i'm simply not gonna take the risk of denying god unless there is definite proof.

Then why do you deny all gods that have ever been believed to exist, except one?

you have no right to call anyone ignorant; i can't comprehend how you don't realize that.

Uh... evidently you're ignorant of what ignorant means. It means "not knowing".

Really. That's all. It's not an insult, it's a statement of fact.

you cannot prove that there is not a god; and i know i cannot prove that there is a god

And indeed we don't claim to have proven that there's no god.

Instead, we humbly point out that there's no reason to assume the existence of a god. Such a hypothesis is not needed to explain anything we currently know of, so why should we assume it?

why don't you just let me believe and share whatever the fuck i feel like believing and sharing

We do.

Nobody has deleted anything you wrote.

oh and i'm am still waiting for just one atheist to elaborate on how something came from nothing?

Your knowledge of quantum physics is several decades behind.

Start here and then go on to the Casimir effect.

the energy particles like neutrons protons and electrons came from nothing thats what your telling me?

No. And what does "energy particle" mean?

hell is reserved for the persecutors and those who claim they would spit in their creators face.

How do you know?

You don't. You only believe.

there is no concrete evidence either way don't you fucking understand?!?!?!?!?!?

Do you understand Ockham's razor?

evil does not come from the lord it comes from men.

Good, too, does not come from an imaginary Lord. It, too, comes from people.

Lamentations 3:38. Do try to make this a bit more difficult.

Oh, if RUExperiencedUnlikeMe wants to go down that route... Isaiah 45:7: "I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I, Yahwe, do all these things."

I am 12 years old and what is this?

Nothing. You're just aware of all Internet traditions.

you couldn't begin to understand spirituality.

Is there actually anything to understand? Is there such a thing as a spirit?

Show us.

ALL OF THIS THAT EXISTS CANNOT COME FROM NOTHING.

Saying so doesn't make it so.

Repeating it still doesn't make it so.

Posted by: Owlmirror | January 9, 2011 6:05 PM

ALL OF THIS THAT EXISTS CANNOT COME FROM NOTHING.

Saying so doesn't make it so.

Repeating it still doesn't make it so.

And -- just to be clear -- cosmological hypotheses don't necessarily suggest that there was "nothing" (as in literally no thing at all, not even space, nor time, nor energy) before everything.

But there's certainly no reason to assert that because we don't yet have an explanation for time or space existing eternally that a magical invisible person with superpowers somehow makes sense as an explanation.

Posted by: David Marjanović | January 9, 2011 6:13 PM

time or space existing eternally

I should have remembered the theory of eternal inflation.