Yeah, I know, I already had you listen to our drecky Christian radio station earlier this week, but today at 5pm Central, KKMS-AM will have the president of Minnesota Atheists, August Berkshire, online for an interview titled "Understanding and Responding to Atheist's Beliefs". It could be interesting, just for the experience of seeing how these clowns treat August (I already know that August will be polite to them.)
- Log in to post comments
More like this
It's a good thing that Minnesota Atheists are making an effort to get on the radio. Have you ever looked at the Christian talk radio programming in your area? It's like a black hole of rampaging stupid, so awfully banal and inane that it's terrifying. I was just sent the program guide for our major…
Uh-oh. The president of Minnesota Atheists, August Berkshire, is descending into the den of idiocy that is our local evangelical radio station, KKMS. Listen if you can bear it. Personally, I don't know that I can — it's too repellent to listen to people who stress the importance of mindless faith,…
I don't know how he can abide them, but August Berkshire of Minnesota Atheists will be appearing on KKMS talk radio, the Twin Cities refuge for fundagelical reality-deniers. Listen in at 5pm Central (in about two hours), if you can bear it. I can't.
This is short notice, but hey, it's not like the residents of North Dakota could have anything else planned*: August Berkshire, that other atheist in Minnesota, will be speaking in Fargo on Tuesday evening.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009, 7:00 pm - August Berkshire, past vice president of Atheist…
Wow! They dont have anyone scheduled to 'debate' him? Jeffs balls are showing!
I can't figure out how to get it to play. All I get is pop-up blocker. Dang.
I'm looking forward to this. I'm still debating about when/where/if I should post my extensive replies to August's "21 Unconvincing Arguments" paper somewhere.
Their language reveals their inability to grasp the atheist's mindset. "Understanding and Responding to Atheist's Beliefs" conflates an atheist's skeptical worldview with a religious person's unsubstantiated "belief".
Maybe this is the missing link that will let me finally understand those people.
Or, maybe it's just gas.
why do they feel they have to "respond" to atheists? who cares?
do they have a show called:
"Understanding and Responding to Tall People's Beliefs".
or
"Understanding and Responding to 'People-who-dislike-Chocolate-Chip-Cookies' Beliefs".
What's 5pm central time in GMT?
This is off topic but I have to vent somewhere.
My university is doing previews for the incoming freshmen. I'm standing in line at the school store and I overhear this conversation between two parents.
Lady 1: He's taking a class called "Age of the Dinosaurs" can you believe it? Imagine when he has to take a humanities!
Lady 2: I know, my son is taking a class on communist secret police KGB or something!
GRAAAAAAAAA! Why can't YECs go to a different, less respectable school?! I hope they're "premeds" so the organic chemists have a chance to rape their puny minds!
#6
http://www.timeanddate.com/
11 PM.
Ta James!
"I can't figure out how to get it to play. All I get is pop-up blocker. Dang."
Go into preferences, and see if there's a checkbox for "Enable Isanity".
#4 ...."Understanding and Responding to Atheist's Beliefs" conflates an atheist's skeptical worldview with a religious person's unsubstantiated "belief".
I agree. When I talk to religious groups as a representative of the local atheist group, I always start off with explaining that our membership does not have a belief in god. Beyond that basic statement, we are a diverse group, Some our members may have beliefs of one sort or another, but the commonality is a lack of a belief in god
I always find it funny when the theists expect me to develop a faith based on their certainty in their own belief. I have asked, them, after they give me their best arguments for belief without evidence -- "Do you want me to pretend I now have faith? Would that make you happier". If you don't believe, you don't believe. They seem to think I have some sort of non-evidential belief that can be shifted by special pleading for some other non-evidential belief.
I'm wondering if they're following up on you now, since a certain someone pointed out that they had a debate on atheism without an atheist.
I wish August well!
80's Sunday? How the HELL is MN going to be warmer than WI? Do you have more atheists up there or what?
An atheist's "beliefs" are roughly the equivalent of a cat's opinions on music i.e. even if it did have any, it wouldn't consider them worth mentioning.
Ask any cat!
Yeah, I always find it interesting how enmeshed religious people tend to be with the very notion of belief itself. I've read a few pieces, and a few websites, where their whole argument is premised upon, or attempting to establish, a redefinition of non-belief into belief, i.e. 'they don't lack belief, they have a belief in nothing'. Conservapedia, that perennial fount of truly "Trustworthy" knowledge and wisdom, has a whole article, I believe, on attempts by atheists to, as they would have it, redefine atheism from a belief in no god into a lack of belief; they call it diluting the definition of atheism and claim we do it in order to avoid having the present evidence for our beliefs. Wow.
Atheism is still a faith. Your faith is based on your so called "lack of evidence" that there is no God.
Lack of evidence can have different meanings. I mean the four first books of the New testament is based on eyewitness evidence that God exists. That is not evidence because you fail to believe in what is written in the Bible.
Another example is NDE experiences. Thousands of people have come back and said that there are beings of light on the other side that are loving and full of joy. However, because you have not experienced this in a lab, this is not evidence.
I have done research on (www.shroud.com) and they still can't find how the image got there on the material. Check here for the latest news: http://www.shroud.com/latebrak.htm
We also have historians from the time of Rome that say that Jesus was God and he was real.
However, if you want to continue to believe in what you believe that is fine. However, evidence is what you make of it. Either you deny it or you embrace it.
Kenny, I just repented because your adriot testomony! Thank you! I now have Jesus.
Hey one question, I blasphemed the Holy Spirit already. (Mark 3:29) Will Jesus throw me in hell?
Wow... They've got sound effects. Yippee! I hope they have a button that plays toilet flushing sounds.
The "atheist beliefs" problem is a standard logical fallacy that the "faithful" often don't comprehend. You probably have heard a slightly different version used in the form of the "god of the gaps" BS. Of course, you can debunk this easily by pointing out that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Rephrase this by substituting the word "belief" for "absence" and the relation is clear.
Oops. Damn preview. Change "absence" to "evidence" in that last sentence.
Mystyk,
Yes it is.
>Kenny, I just repented because your adriot testomony!
>Thank you! I now have Jesus.
>Hey one question, I blasphemed the Holy Spirit already.
>(Mark 3:29) Will Jesus throw me in hell?
Mark 28 says that he will forgive you if you ask forgiveness:
"Truly I say to you, All sins shall be forgiven to the sons of men, and blasphemies with which soever they shall blaspheme"
However, if you are an unclean spirit you will not get forgiveness. Mark 29.
Nice try kid. Maybe you should read a little more before trying to throw something into people's faces that you do not understand.
I'm actually pretty impressed with this interview so far, they seem to be letting him have a fair shake in addressing some misconceptions about atheists. The only thing I can take any kind of offense to is they are trying to stall him a bit with innane chatter. It's pretty obvious they don't understand much about their guests point of view but I can't really fault them for that
Why don't you take your own advice with regard to the ACLU, evolution, and pretty much everything you spout off on, you lying, homophobic, piece of human filth?
They are being very cordial to him so far, and I have to say, August is doing excellently. Usually there will be one or two things that I feel I could have said better when I listen to these interviews (granted, I'm not under pressure), but not this time. He's explained his positions very well.
Goddamn, the callers are morons.
I think he is being very patient, but I think he is being too nice. I would be tempted to make a firmer stand.
Kenny said: "We also have historians from the time of Rome that say that Jesus was God and he was real."
Please name them.
And remember, the New Testament wasn't formalized by committee until 325 BC in the Council of Nicaea (where even such things as Christ's divinity was debated and the whole virgin birth story was fabricated) so the apostles don't count.
Goddamn but the presenters are morons. Legal evidence, wtf?
On hold...this should be fun.
Kenny dear...you weren't so mean to me last night. You were so nice in sweet as we played Mister and Mister Adam and Steve Hitler. I remember how you said that "when Jesus was coming" put almost as good as a smile on your face as when I was spanking you.
Oh... hey cock..maybe you should solve the dilemma I proposed instead of being all Priest like. So, if you will dickhead, resolve how does one go back to accepting Jesus after he's completely said fuck you to the Holy Casper you ape.
Etha!! Was that you?
Nice, just throw a sentence in there and let them hang themselves Etha :P
Presenters are nicer than God, apparently.
Kenny @15 "Atheism is still a faith. Your faith is based on your so called "lack of evidence" that there is no God."
It doesn't take any faith to perceive insufficient evidence to convince one of anything. Do you believe in leprechauns? How much "faith" does that take?
"Lack of evidence can have different meanings. I mean the four first books of the New testament is based on eyewitness evidence that God exists."
It's claims made decades after the fact. Do you believe the miracles of Krishna? If not, why not? How about Mohammad, the last and greatest of prophets? They were witnessed by many people. Your books have exactly the same persuasiveness as the tales of the Norse Gods, trips around Jupiter on flying saucers, and junior high locker room tales of sexual exploits. Namely, none. In science, facts have to be verifiable precisely *because we know that humans are fallible. We lie, misremember, are misunderstood, and misperceive. We need many eyes to verify observations. And the wilder the claims, the more important the verification is.
I have three bicycles at my house. Most folks would believe me when I say this; it's not very far-fetched.
I have a per dragon, and my wife is an android from Mars. Believe me now? You should - it's an eyewitness account.
"That is not evidence because you fail to believe in what is written in the Bible."
So, we need to believe in the bible in order to recognize it as persuasive data? Funny, that's what the Muslims say about the Koran.
"Another example is NDE experiences. Thousands of people have come back and said that there are beings of light on the other side that are loving and full of joy. However, because you have not experienced this in a lab, this is not evidence."
Numerous people also report that the world spins if they ingest sufficient ethanol quickly enough. Is that evidence that the world spins wildly, or that human brains tend to respond in the same way to similar brain events?
"I have done research on (www.shroud.com)"
No you haven't; you've read fantastic claims which fly in the face of the evidence, and you read them with an uncritical eye and embraced the claims because they gave you a warm and fuzzy feeling.
"and they still can't find how the image got there on the material. Check here for the latest news: http://www.shroud.com/latebrak.htm"
It was painted on a few centuries ago. Religious artifacts were a lucrative business in medieval Europe.
"We also have historians from the time of Rome that say that Jesus was God and he was real."
No we don't. We have a couple of mentions of the Christian cult in it's early days. This is no more evidence for the divinity of Joshua ben Yahweh than news about Muslims in Iran is evidence for the divine inspiration of Mohammad.
"However, if you want to continue to believe in what you believe that is fine. However, evidence is what you make of it. Either you deny it or you embrace it."
Actually I (and I think most skeptics) *cannot believe what we want. We believe what the evidence shows us. You can present evidence (you haven't) or you can present a new argument (you haven't), and *those might change my mind. But I can't do it by an act of will.
I suspect you can't either, but don't understand how your own mind works. Fundamentalists tend to shy away from introspection.
And evidence is not what we make of it. It is what it is. What a thing to say! I was raised by folks like you, and y'all have baffled me for 45 years and more.
Kermit
Oh darn - I should refresh first! You were too easy on them, Etha. So was August. I wanted to call in to just say "thank you for representing us" - but couldn't get the opportunity.
My goodness those guys are wafflers.
JC
Arg! Again, with the "choice" to believe. How in the world does one choose to believe or disbelieve something? You're either swayed by the "evidence" or you find the evidence lacking (nor nonexistent).
I find it really telling that believers continue to fall back on this "chose to believe" rhetoric. It's almost as if they're admitting to the fact that find this crap unbelievable, yet they make a conscious choice to ignore their own better judgment.
@#35 JackC --
Did they air any of my subsequent objections, or did they just air my initial question? I couldn't tell. Either way, it was hilarious to watch them scramble to justify their blatantly immoral and unjust beliefs.
Uh-oh.
Here comes the crap (software) Engineer. With 'Romans'...
Oops! I meant "OR nonexistent."
Oh, I see. It only sounds like a fantasy because they have limited time to explain it.
These guys are on their best behavior, but you can tell they feel like they are interviewing an Alien and don't want to scare it away.
Generally very polite.
At least they had him on.. and they presenters seem nice if a bit, erm, confused. Reach out, people..
I may have spoke too soon, the callers seam to lack even a modicum of intelligence.
As reguarding Kenny in this thread:
He has a fair right to his opinion and I don't think mocking him or attacking him here is the right thing to do I will address you points though. Faith would be defined as belief in something with no possible way to prove that thing. I.E. taking someones word at face value.
Atheists in general do not do this, they have look at the idea of god and know that their is no way to prove in any way that such a god exists. Therefore we simply state that without any proof for the matter we do not know one way or the other. Atheists are much more pragmatic then you are and say we only believe in things that we can know or see or test. I could just as easily say that I can't disprove dragons or unicorns or fairys but you are very disinclined to believe in those just as I am.
Personal experience is just not a reliable method to prove anything so NDE experiences can't be taken as justification for the truth of anything. Not to mention people have had NDE experience that would not varify the christian faith but would more fall in line with other faiths, often faiths that that person believes in. We just feal that this is likely do to natural expression of the brains mechanisms that ocurr with lack of oxygen to the organ.
Most of your historians that you talk about are not contemporaries with Jesus but even so, I won't deny that there is a good case for the existence of the man Jesus, but there is no real case for his divinity outside of the bible. Atheists as a whole would likely convert could you get some corroborative evidence for your assertions of his divinity and supernatural power. If you could significantly test or document a suspension of the laws of physics in the natural world (a miracle) the same would be the case. But the truth is this has never occurred.
I put it to you that you sit there and argument with just the same evidences and proofs christians have always used but there are very very few christians who do active scientific research to back up their beliefs, they just don't want to fight us on even ground. They'ld rather throw beliefs their own ignorance then try and progress their faith.
I bet those beetles and blind fish are going to be pissed when they find out they weren't perfect anymore because of our sin.
I onlyheard your initial question/statement (which I thought was quite good) and their attempt to justify their position out of it - I don't think they had anything further. Maybe they were quaking in their respective sandals?
JC
No Etha, they aired your additional comments. I must say you were very well spoken and it was hilarious listening to them scrabbling around for answers!
I think Pascal's Wager is just about worn out now as a reason 'to believe'.
I am listening to it right now. The hosts - Jeff & Lee - are polite enough, but they really don't seem very bright, the poor dears...
I guess I am spoilt, because when I do listen to theocons on the radio I try to listen to their "best" people - Dennis Prager, Albert Mohler etc... ,i.e. those with national exposure. That often really helps me sharpen my own arguments.
But these tow tools?
Complete waste of time - for me, that is. I commend Mr. Berkshire for going on the programm and getting the message out.
INNOCULATE ME WITH YOUR CHEMICAL LOVE!!!!111111one.
*sigh* The "agnostic" accusation. Anyone remotely likable is "really an agnostic".
The THIRD time they've mentioned the 'agnostic' thing! Christians seem really shocked by this whole 'we atheists aren't 100% sure about stuff' thing. Maybe they do think we're baby-eating fire-breathers after all...
He's a fucking atheist, get over it people! How many people are refusing to believe (for want of a better word) he is a bona fide atheist! But he is such a nice person, he couldn't possibly be a baby-eating, cross burning atheist!!!111!1
August's answer to the "Challenge to open himself to god" was pretty weak. My response to that is generally "I will if you will do the opposite - admit that no god is requires for any of this - and allow that to reach a level of understanding within yourself that you no longer need this "god" of yours."
Generally, they can't do this.
But then, what motivation do we have (for anyone ho has never been there, of course) to take the challenge against a fictional being?
Thank FSM, I can finally turn that dreck off!
JC
Woohoo! Kenny's back and parroting the same ridiculous, debunked arguments that we mocked him for last time!
Hey Kenny, show us one case in medical literature of a patient coming back from brain death. I searched every medical database I can legally access and didn't find anything, which seems strange, considering that it would be the single most significant phenomenon in all of medical history. Surely some doctor, somewhere, would have written about it in scientific or medical literature.
And if you can't show us an example, then we must conclude that NDEs are proof of nothing except that the brain goes nuts when it thinks it's dying.
The guy commenting about mass-producing the chemicals in our mind and causing world peace? Maybe I'm just a nerd, but the thing that first came to mind was Equilibrium? I certainly don't equate that idea to anything positive, that's for sure. Either way, he sure was pushy, overall.
Another Note: Their internet radio is terrible. I eventually just had to turn in offline. It stopped working about five times during the first half hour of the interview before I finally gave up. It also took me going back and forth on both of my computers to get it to even up!
Etha - Maxi says the additional was there, and I had a local call while listening, so I must have missed it. Sorry about the mis-direction. That was one of the reasons I didn't call in myself.
My apologies.
JC
Atheist, agnostic, tomayto, tomahto. Call me whatever you want, I still don't believe in your god.
My favorite part was after their long ramble about the biblical basis of hell belief, when I repeated the question of how they justify it morally.
Their answer: "We don't."
*headdesk*
You know it's bad when you're more moral than the god you worship....
Etha,
You're awesome.
Wow, just listening to them trying to answer your question was painful...
Of course there is no morality in the "original sin" leads to damnation meme. That is the primary infection hook for the Christianity virus. The concept that you are born "wrong" and the only way to be "right" is to carry the infection with an extreme punishment for refusal.
It's really quite elegant. Since you were born "with sin" it is not possible to argue that you have not performed sin and thus do not need to conform. You must conform because you were born with sin. It's just the way it is.
Then to prevent outright rejection of the "original sin" supposition the punishment clause is introduced. You must conform because if you don't you will go to hell because of your sin. By delaying the punishment until after death the virus does not need to answer a demand of proof of the punishment. And since no one can know for sure what happens at death, doing so allows the virus to answer the rejection of the "hell" supposition by asking "do you really want to take the chance?"
This leaves the victim with two possibilities: conformity in the form of providing a host for the virus or denying both suppositions. But then, of course, the virus has other ways of dealing with those who reject it...
In short, there is no more morality in the "original sin" meme or in the supposed actions of God then there is in a cold virus infecting tonsils.
You're pretty much just trolling at this point, Kenny. I'm pretty certain you know what you say is wrong, and this little error in your thinking has been dealt with constantly. So, if you don't understand, it's not for lack of people trying to educate you, I'm sure.
Can anyone post a record of this talk? Please?
I got a good laugh when August compared Bigfoot waiting outside to assault him as he leaves to an intervention by their god. The hosts laughed too, but not quite as hard, which I thought was a Freudian slip showing that they are no different than other religious "leaders" who evade deep philosophical questions in public while personally being very baffled as to how to integrate their religious convictions with their own common sense. Could there be a profit motive, I dare say, behind their "faith"?
@ 53
Uh . . . like this?
I'm actually surprised PZ hasn't mentioned it yet. I'm pretty excited about it, life extension and revival being my big interest (transhumanism in general, really). Of course, the godsmacked loons have to bring those God and Jeezus fellas into it.
crypticlife wrote
I'm sorry, is there a problem with that?
#62
There's only two logical explinations for that story:
1) The doctors were mistaken about her condition or the machines were faulty.
2) ZOMBIE!!!
@#60 Alex Besogonov --
KKMS usually posts mp3s of the show here a few business days after the fact. Not sure why they take so long, but it'll probably be up sometime in the middle of next week.
@62
Interesting. Do you have any more info? A cursory googling reveals nothing but that FoxNews story and blogs that link directly to it. Anything in the medical literature? I can finagle my way into most of the major databases. Just tell me where to look.
But for the time being, I must confess to being very, very, very skeptical.
I'm not locking myself in a mall just yet, but the woman was dead. Did you watch the full video? I actually didn't on that page, I assumed it was the same one I'd seen on Yahoo yesterday, clipped it, and ran back here to post, but my understanding is that she had a FLAT brain and her heart had stopped three times, but that she was kept on basic life support almost a day past declaration of death because of an administrative hiccup over her organ donor status. They finally straightened that out and started yanking out her tubes in preparation for organ harvesting, when she simply wakes up.
I've been Googling hourly for updates, and I haven't read anything about equipment failure yet, which you'd think would be at the top of anyone's list of facts to check on this story. Of course I'm willing to be proven wrong, but in the meantime my inner child is giddily piddling on Francis Fukuyama's press photo.
I first encountered the story at:
http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0S00M2nVzdIWQQBddz7w8QF;_ylu=X3oDMTBya3RtdHR…
and it's obviously still in the "breaking" (i.e. potentially completely wrong) stage of the news life cycle. Every article I've seen is just a longer or shorter version of what I posted from Faux.
I'm skeptical too, I'm just skeptically optimistic. Call it setting myself up for disappointment. Right NOW I'm dancing on a cloud.
Here is another article about the zombie-woman:
http://www.newsnet5.com/health/16363548/detail.html
And isn't "medical miracle" and oxymoron?
My best guess at this early stage of the zombie-woman story is that it was perfect storm of misinterpreted evidence. Faulty equipment, misreading of physiological symptoms, and who knows what else, all at the same time.
Definitely an interesting story, though. I'll be keeping my eye on it.
(Though regardless of what the news media says, I will remain skeptical until I see something in the scientific literature, which will probably be a while.)
Ian H Spedding FCD
There's no problem with being an agnostic (as far as I'm concerned) but what they're doing reeks of a No True Scotsman. They get to have their strawman evil atheist, and any counter examples are swept away as "Oh, but he/she is not a REAL atheist. They're really an agnostic, so you can't use them to disprove our generalizations about atheists."
#64
Did they check for any leaking chemical storage tanks in the hospital? That can be very dangerous.
(NSFW)
Uh, you got that about 650 years too early, I think. Either that or a bunch of us have been rather too skeptical about prophecy.
So God gave me a winky but then told me not to touch it?
Everyone has a belief system or framework and they use it to interprete facts and to organize them.
If it can't be proved that God doesn't exist, Atheist's have a faith based belief. Only an agnostic can say that they don't believe anything about God.
No atheists require evidence, and since there isn't any we don't accept the idea of a god. Period. There's no faith there.
You using that argument shows how little you actually know about Atheists.
Kenny couldn't care less about truth. He's shown repeatedly in many threads that his goals are only to yell as loud as he can and ignore anything that shows him and his "OPINIONS" to be full of shit.
Ok my irony meter just went into full core meltdown.
You using that argument shows how little you actually know about Atheists.
Even less than he knows about the proper use of apostrophes, and that's saying something.
Rev BDC! Eject it! There's not much time! I Cannae stop it! Take out the Romulans if you can.
Ahhh too late. It burned through both floors and into the crawlspace. Time to put it out with Whiskey.
Use the transporters?
I'd also like to see those names.
AFAIR, there are only 4 even nearly contemporaneous references that are sometimes claimed to refer to Jesus. Three refer only to a self-proclaimed Jewish messiah, and are usually dismissed because they do not specifically name Jesus and could refer to any loony (apparently messiahs were ten-a-penny then as now) or are far too late to be considered reliable; the remaining one, the only one which names Jesus, is the infamous Josephus text, which has long been acknowledged to have been forged by the Vatican in the 9th century.
If anyone can provide credible references to the contrary, I'd like to know about it.
It is interesting to see the response to our conversation with August. He raised some excellent questions and did so with civility. I think many of you could learn from his example.
Atheism is still a faith. Your faith is based on your so called "lack of evidence" that there is no God.
Yeah but it's not the same thing as religious "faith". That's a different sort of faith. The word "faith" can be used a few different ways. Ask any two year old, or perhaps even a pile of bricks if the two year old is too smart.
However, if you want to continue to believe in what you believe that is fine. However, evidence is what you make of it. Either you deny it or you embrace it.
Yeah but there's all kinds of stuff in between there too. It's not an "either/or" kind of a thang. Ask any pile of brainless dirt, or perhaps a rock if the dirt is too smart for you. Thanks!
Did you learn anything from August?
I'm so sorry, this is completely off topic, but does anyone remember where that video was of the guy casting a 'protective spell' on some circle in the woods.. and then cutting his own arm with a super-sharp sword? (amazingly, the spell didn't work! /sarcasm)
I'm going crazy looking for it!
ON topic, Etha, I'm so bummed I missed you! I'll have to look for it later in the week.
And
video is here here. (friends are good!)
I need to perfect my html. I'll do it the old-fashioned way:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5hCczfGYv0
I actually agree with Jeff on this one. It was refreshing to see such a level-headed and civil discussion. Kudos to both sides of the talk. When it comes to talking to theists, I think that's the approach to take if you want people to actually think about what you have to say. If we're rude and condescending people won't get past the fact that they think we're assholes.
One man's opinion.
@ 70
I agree - have you seen this article titled "Possible brain hormone may unlock mystery of hibernation"? Science is cool....so much yet to discover!
I saw the faux news story, where everyone immediately jumped on the goddidit bandwagon (it's a miracle, yadda).... sad.
Opprobrium is mercilessly heaped upon mendacious trolls and spammers, but even moderately intelligent comments from theists are usually pretty well received. Tens of thousands of people read this blog, thousands comment regularly, and a few have their flamethrowers on a hair trigger. You think it'd be different on a Christian site of equal popularity? Instead, the experience is that they heavily censor comments and simply delete any that are critical or that they don't like.
People are apt to be more strident on the 'net than in person; this is universal, not a anything peculiar to here. PZ clearly pulls no punches in this blog, but is apparently unfailingly polite and soft-spoken in person.
I'd rather be flamed than censored.
No.They suck!
Many things set off my spidey sense in the article about the zombie grannie.
No-one would transfer a patient to another hospital for more treatment if they were dead.
Hard skin and curled fingers does not equal rigor mortis.
Obviously, each time her heart 'stopped' they must have resuscitated her or else she would not be an organ donor candidate. The article makes it seem like her heart stopped and she miraculously came back.
If she was an organ donor candidate, they would not 'remove all the tubes'. Brain dead bodies take a lot of work to keep the organs alive.
If she was still intubated (breathing tube in) she sure as shit would not just start talking to the nurse. It goes through your vocal cords, you can't physically talk.
I see weird shit at work all the time, and I can tell you that nowhere near all the story is being told.
BTW, the 'no blockage' part at the end doesn't mean shit. You can have a heart attack without something blocking your coronary vessels.
The thing that really rips my nightie about the whole thing is the stupid 'god granted a miracle, he must have some purpose for me' crap the chick and her family start bleating. Why the hell would a loving god give you two heart attacks and all the emotional anguish for the family in the first place? ARGH!
This is for Kenny:
This I Believe.
I am an atheist. I do not believe in any supernatural deities.
I believe in Science, not the death cult superstitions of bronze age nomadic tribes in the Middle East. I believe in Logic and Reason, and not in vengeful gods that demand unthinking worship.
My "Bible" is the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, and Mark's Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers. My "Concordance" is The Pocket Ref, 3rd Edition.
The symbol of my "faith" is not an ancient torture device, it's a slide rule. The simple three part device that helped build the Brooklyn Bridge, Hoover Dam and the Empire State Building, as well as sending humans to the Moon and returning them to Earth.
Algebra and Calculus are my "liturgy", and Physics is the celebration of all that exists, from the smallest subatomic particle yet to be discovered, to the Universe as a whole.
The "Saints" of my faith are legion. Galileo and Einstein, Sagan and Asimov, Eratosthenes and Fermi, Hawking and Feynman, Dawkins and Darwin, Jefferson and Franklin and Paine, and countless others who have sought and still seek to expand the knowledge of how the Universe works, for the betterment of all, to free the minds of humanity from the shackles of superstition and ignorance, and, finally & simply, "To Know."
I worship no god, nor bend the knee to anyone, man or god.
And yet, despite my lack of fawning obeisance to the judeo/christian/islamic deity, I do not rape nor rob nor murder my fellow man or woman. I do not defraud them nor seek to enslave their bodies or their minds. I do not turn my face from them if their beliefs differ from mine, nor do I condemn them if they choose to love someone of the same sex or of a different "race".
My friends include the gay and the straight, the atheist and the deeply faithful, Caucasian, African and Asian.
I help the less fortunate in this world as best I can, and do not seek to convert them to my way of thought by my actions, I help merely to ease their suffering.
I choose to stand in the Light of Knowledge and Reason.
I oppose the Darkness that is ignorance and superstition.
And I KNOW that, in the end, it IS Knowledge and Reason that will triumph over ignorance and superstition, and triumph over those who would use ignorance and superstition for their own evil and ego-driven ends.
THIS I believe.
Kenny:
STOP WITH THE NDE CRAP ALREADY.
NDE are only proof that our brains are complex and amazing mechanisms. It has nothing to do whatsoever with a god.
Stay up for three days straight, then explain to me why you see very convincing hallucinations. It's not God.
Your ignorance of science astounds me.
Kenny, the canonical Gospels are most certainly not eyewitness testimony. The oldest of them, Mark, mentions the destruction of the Jewish temple, whch happened in 90CE, or approx. 60 years after the supposed death of Jesus. Its author wasn't even born during the events described. And the other gospels are based on Mark, so those authors are even more temporally distant from the events they describe.
You are talking nonsense, my dear.
Hey Kenny . . .
Just for you. I deny the holy fucking spirit.
Your god is a fuckwit with no morals, no ideas, no respect,
nothing. A zero. Zip. Nada.
Actually, I shouldn't go on and on about your imaginary friend. I just hope that you aren't as screwed up as he is.
Peace.
Bravo, Chris Tucker!
@#84 Jeff Shell --
Yeah, but he's still going to hell, right? Just because he won't make the "choice" to believe in your sociopath god.
I really don't see how such amoral beliefs deserve any respect.
#99 "Bravo, Chris Tucker!"
Damn right. And please note, some of you smarmy bio-nerds, that Chris would appear (like me) to be an Engineer. Engineers are at the practical end of science. Without us you could theorise all you like but you couldn't actually *do* anything about it. No serious experiments. No evidence. No building things of value and utility based on those experiments. No killer robo-droids looking like japanese schoolgirls.
Well educated engineers know more about the practical sharp end of experimentation, deduction, evidence gathering, hypothesis forming and testing, skepticism and logical synthesis than pretty much anyone.
Certainly you'll get the occasion engineer claiming that s/he thinks such and such a body part is 'too well designed' to have evolved, blah,blah. Scratch the surface and you'll find someone that is simply a religionist. They'd see deities at work no matter what they did for an occupation. Remember, there are plenty of people that are purportedly trained biologists that are theists; your whining about "Here comes the crap (software) Engineer." is merely an inverse form of 'No true Scotsman'.
Vaguely on the subject of KKMS, I'm just listening to PZ's debate with Geoffrey Simmons - talk about arguing with a brick wall! Does anybody remember this?
"Or maybe they [brain cells in a developing foetus] are pruned by design!" What a comeback! Is this guy for real? I strongly (though facetiously) suspect that the entire creationist movement is the conception of a bunch of stoners. Think about it: aren't potheads well known (in some circles) for their tendency to devise bizarre, nonsensical theories about the life and the universe, the mind-blowing profundity of which they are completely assured? "Dude, what if we're all like, living on an electron floating around the nucleus of an atom in somebody's thumb, but like, the nucleus is the sun! Whoa!"
If anybody wants to get high, I'll bet the Creation Museum is the place to do it. Trip of your life, man! Cosmic!
Jeff Shell said: It is interesting to see the response to our conversation with August. He raised some excellent questions and did so with civility. I think many of you could learn from his example.
Likewise, Mr. Shell, you and your co-host are admirably civil and polite. Perhaps the posters on the KKMS message boards could learn from your example.
Oh yes. I've lurked there. I know how hostile they can be towards perceived outgroups. Seriously, don't act all high-and-mighty about how mean the atheists are to Christians. The rank-and-file on your side is no better, maybe even a little worse.
Discussing "an atheist's beliefs" is like discussing...
1. a nudist's clothing.
2. a bald man's hairstyle
3. who's got some more?
Jeff,
Find me an honest Christian, and I'll be sure to treat her with respect.
Until then...
It is interesting to see the response to our conversation with August. He raised some excellent questions and did so with civility. I think many of you could learn from his example.
"For many decievers have gone out into the world who will not acknowlege that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. This is a deciever and a antichrist. Look at yourself so that we may not lose that which we labor for, but that we receive our full reward. Whoever violates and does not abide in the teaching of Christ does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching of Christ has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not allow him into your house or give him a greeting. For whoever gives him a greeting becomes a partaker in his wicked work."
How about that example? Could many uf us learn from that example too? How about you. Could you learn from that example? Anybody? Would anybody like to learn from that example? Helloooo?
As an atheist, I am deeply embarassed by the vicious hostility many of you have expressed toward Kenny. While I disagree with his position, I see no reason to attack him personally the way many of you have done. We often talk about the violent and divisive nature of religion, but this discussion demonstrates to me that atheists are just as prone to aggression. This fact saddens me very deeply.
@108:
Hi, Kenny! I can see you behind that concern troll mask!
Yeah, because getting fed up with a commenter who repeatedly spouts demonstrable falsehoods and subverts discussions with repetitive nonsense is exactly like sending death threats and committing petty acts of property destruction. Can you see the difference? Me neither.
Kenny saddens me deeply.
Also @ 108,
I don't comment much on any of the religious posts, as reading two or three hundred comments is a bit of a waste of time, but I've seen enough to know that Kenny is either so indoctrinated or so ignorant, that abuse is absolutely the best way to deal with him/her/it (after all, how difficult could it be to program a Kenny-like comment-bot. He only has about a dozen sentences containing at most one-hundred words. If we allow that the program may use unfamiliar words found in replies to it).
The treatment of Kenny is the result of many, many hours of utterly ineffective dialouge.
In #110, those were supposed to be two separate links:
Death threats
Property destruction
Kenny saddens me deeply.
are the rules set for "The Kenny" game?
Is it time to play yet?
summarizing:
the prize for game 1 being a Carman hat or other clothing paraphernalia awarded at the end of the year.
game 2 (based on what Kenny himself posts?), which I think would make a good drinking game:
maybe drink for every 5 points Kenny scores?
... ok, I don't want people to get liver failure, maybe drink every 15 points?
Etha, Kenny's arguments are silly, I agree with you. But to him, they are not demonstrable falsehoods. And, I am sad to say, the responses from our fellow atheists have not been the brightest either. Thirdmonkey wrote in comment 28, for instance, that "the New Testament wasn't formalized by committee until 325 BC in the Council of Nicaea." That's a demonstrable falsehood; the Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with the New Testament. Kimpatsu in comment 98 wrote about "the destruction of the Jewish temple, whch happened in 90CE." That's a demonstrable falsehood. The temple was destroyed in 70CE.
What I am saying is that simply because someone expresses an opinion, no matter how erroneous, that is no reason to denigrate the person. We all make mistakes. Why not be nice to each other and learn from one another? I just don't get where all the hatred is coming from.
I thought this was supposed to be a science blog.
Rev BigDumbChimp ... what is your scientific evidence that there is no God?
But to him, they are not demonstrable falsehoods
it's reminiscent of trying to argue a schizophrenic into agreeing with you that there really AREN'T bugs crawling up his arm.
He sees them and feels them, after all.
earlier, from Autumn:
The treatment of Kenny is the result of many, many hours of utterly ineffective dialouge.
which one, really shouldn't surprise anyone who has spent any amount of time arguing with creationists before, and two, is a microcosm reflecting how the responses of both atheists and scientists to creationism in general have become much more strident and vocal.
the creationists have ignored the evidence for hundreds of years. Just how long are we all supposed to stay calm and polite about it, especially as they try to pass legislation to change the very definition of science itself, let alone how it is taught.
@#114 Ichthyic --
That would probably be the healthier option.
So with 47 points, it's time for 3 drinks on this thread!
(2 posts + 1 "bible proves itself" + 1 NDE + 1 shroud) I don't even want to think about the level of drunkenness playing this on the ACLU thread might involve....
I don't even want to think about the level of drunkenness playing this on the ACLU thread might involve...
*hic*
OK, twenty points.
@116:
You're a bit fuzzy on the concepts of "scientific" and "evidence," aren't you?
Rev BigDumbChimp ... what is your scientific evidence that there is no God?
what's your evidence you understand the rules of logic?
ever heard of: burden shifting?
@#115 Secular --
But not all of us refuse to admit those mistakes when confronted with obvious counter-evidence, a la Kenny and the ACLU. Not all of us hide behind the "it's my OPINION" excuse.
You may be right, and it may be that we won't be able to convince Kenny of the fact that his beliefs are demonstrably false, no matter how strident our counter-arguments are. But we certainly aren't going to convince him by coddling him and treating his erroneous assumptions (I'm sorry...OPINIONS) with kid-gloves.
You may be right, and it may be that we won't be able to convince Kenny of the fact that his beliefs are demonstrably false, no matter how strident our counter-arguments are. But we certainly aren't going to convince him by coddling him and treating his erroneous assumptions (I'm sorry...OPINIONS) with kid-gloves.
the thousand or so times I've tried suggest he IS right; nothing will ever convince Kenny except his own relatives and peers becoming atheists themselves (and even then...). -which is why it so resembles cult-behavior.
However, you are just as correct: even though it is the thousand and first time, I suppose it's still just as important to run through the motions, especially for the lurkers, and I have never seen any value in coddling the cultists.
I still think at this point, if we aren't punting Kenny, it would be far more edutational to make a game of it.
after all, has he actually said anything new since his second day here?
what's really left to respond to at this point, that hasn't already been covered?
either punt him, or put a clown suit on him I say.
screw the concern trolls if they refuse to look back on the many times his "issues" have already been covered.
I still think "Secular" is Kenny in disguise. The style of making emotional appeals strikes me as too similar to be a coincidence.
"Secular" does, however, seem to have a better grasp on the mechanics of the English language, though, so maybe not.
There are those of us that believe in God and also believe that the Bible is not literal truth, but stories handed down from long oral traditions to explain the natural world to an illiterate population. The books that were chosen to be the Bible were chosen by a council of "Men" (note, no women were allowed to be involved) to justify certain doctrines. That does not however discount it as a work of merit. There are many life lessons and advice on how we should treat one another that could be taken to heart. As a Christian and also someone who believes in evolution I defend your right to not believe. No one has a monopoly on truth. There is however no reason to mock and be cruel to Christians who chose to exchange ideas on this form. If you wish to be treated with respect for your non belief please respect others who have a differing opinion.
There are those of us that believe in God
Thanks for starting your post out that way. You saved me the trouble of having to read the rest of it.
Hmm...the results actually weren't as bad as I'd expected -- only 57 Kenny points on that thread.
Mostly because he somehow managed to avoid mentioning Dawkins and the SoT for once, I think.
I still think "Secular" is Kenny in disguise.
Kenny as sock-puppet?
possible, but it doesn't strike me that's his style.
er, not that that is anything but pure gut instinct.
sounds more like someone concern trolling to me.
Thanks for starting your post out that way. You saved me the trouble of having to read the rest of it.
LOL
Hmm...the results actually weren't as bad as I'd expected -- only 57 Kenny points on that thread.
yeah, but now that you visited the thread to count up the points...
that's another 2 drinks for you.
;)
If you wish to be treated with respect for your non belief please respect others who have a differing opinion.
I respect those that can BACK UP their opinions; I certainly can't speak for anyone else here.
simple as that.
No one has a monopoly on truth.
for example, please both explain and then back up that opinion, or rightly have it chastised as little more than an empty-headed platitude.
O, definitely not.
"Kenny" couldn't fact-check his way out of a paper bag, let alone comment knowledgeably on history.
As a Christian and also someone who believes in evolution I defend your right to not believe.
You defend the right to be thrown into eternal torture forever. Gee thanks. How come you don't try harder to keep people from going there? Thanks a lot.
No one has a monopoly on truth.
Then what the hell they get thrown into hell for? Something don't add up there! Thanks though.
I can see that this is not a place for respectful debate. It may have to do with alcohol consumption or just plain bad manners. Shame on you boys I'm probably old enough to be your mothers
I can see that this is not a place for respectful debate.
indeed.
maybe you might be more respectful next time?
(Heavy sigh)
I actually can cut through the bullshit of "atheist beliefs", but I fear that I will not be heard.
Anyway, here it is.
I do not believe in gods,
This does not mean that I believe in the absence of gods.
I have no evidence that gods exist.
I have other ideas about aspects of the universe which do not require gods, and are thus more usefully allowed to be explored.
It is possible that gods exist, but any influence they may have on the physical universe is undetected, or,by definition, undetectable, as detection would place said gods fully within the domain of inquiry.
If you can not give me an example of a falsifiable (and yes, I'm aware that Popper's definition is not necessarily the final word) difference that a god would make, and allow it to be examined, the atheist position is not based on any faith, nor is it "weak" or "strong". It may be incorrect, but I also don't believe in "caloric". It has not been definitively proven to be untrue, merely flawed.
Label me as a strong Acaloricist if you must, but please don't pretend that I hold out hope for discovering your god, and am merely decieving myself.
It may be incorrect,
until such time as this condition:
If you can not give me an example of a falsifiable (and yes, I'm aware that Popper's definition is not necessarily the final word) difference that a god would make
is met, it's irrelevant whether you are actually right or wrong.
which is really the whole point; an atheist doesn't even need to be right about it.
Only the theists have that need.
There is no reason to treat me with the disrespect that you have shown. I have said nothing to hurt anyone. You go out of you way to twist others words and demand proof when you yourselves do not offer any. I offered an opinion not proof. I was not trying to prove or defend anything. You have a right to say your piece without rancor so do I. It does nothing for your cause to try and hurt other people. If you want respect please show it.
Obvious concern troll is obvious.
You go out of you way to twist others words and demand proof when you yourselves do not offer any
proof of what?
How is anything you have said supposed to generate respect?
think again.
If you want respect please show it.
ditto.
. I was not trying to prove or defend anything
since that is EXACTLY what you are in fact, trying to do as you wrote that very post, I'd say you are in a habit of lying to yourself as well as others.
seriously, if you find the atmosphere too warm here, move on.
Well, to your credit, you don't all-caps opinion a la Kenny.
Still, it's a fairly inane defense.
Not all opinions/beliefs/interpretations are worthy of respect. I respect your dignity as a human being, but I have no obligation to respect your beliefs.
It's not too hot for me. I wonder how you treat women in the real world?
How sad, I respect your opinion.
It's not too hot for me.
well, then let me turn up the heat.
you really haven't said anything original, new, or insightful.
frankly, with all the experience someone purporting to be well-aged should have, I'm not seeing it in anything you have posted so far.
In fact, all I see is concern trolling:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=concern+troll
you come across as entirely condescending, and I don't see how you can think that deserves respect.
@#141 Karen Simon --
WTF? Complete non sequitur. You'd have gotten the same response if you'd called yourself "Karl Simon."
sounds like she is about ready to start yelling at us to get off her lawn...
@#142 Karen Simon --
That's nice, but I'd really rather have someone disrespectfully but honestly dispute my opinions than vapidly and condescendingly "respect" them.
... I think we've hit the dregs before the bar closes.
I'm done.
night all.
I wonder how you treat women in the real world?
I like to take them to places that are both entertaining and intellectually stimulating. I'm particularly fond of museums. Any type, really -- Science, history, art... Just not that one in Kentucky. I've heard it's kind of silly. Zoos are excellent venues as well.
Then I take them home, and if all goes well, have wild monkey sex with them.
Oh now I''m being labeled because I'm not playing by you rules. must everyone think the same way on this thread not to be called a troll. As far as I am concerned I won't be bullied off this site by the behavior of jerks Atheist or not.
Karen Simon,
what are you referring to and who has treated you without respect,and whose words have we twisted?
The regulars on this blog have time and time again tried to argue and debate with death cultists like you "in good faith" (pun intended),and in most cases it only ever leads to the revelation of the cultists brain's inability to process any facts at all.So we get a bit impatient with yet another tiresome Kenny'esk argumentation.
And again,the burdon of proof is not on us....
Hi Karen. I've been watching this exchange, and I'd like to try and prevent the exchange from descending into a complete acrimony.
Lets see if I can help. The perceived abuse you are encountering is generally related to comments, that appear to the posters here as unsubstantiated. Worse still there is an element of condescension as well.
For example : There are many life lessons and advice on how we should treat one another that could be taken to heart.
No one has a monopoly on truth.
In moderate christian circles (which I suspect you frequent) these views would pass without comment, other than perhaps a demure murmur of approval. So of course, you consider robust rejection of them as rude.
That is genuinely not the intent, and the the best response is not to take offense, but to offer a well articulated defence of your position. If you are not up for that, I suspect you'll need a thicker skin to hang out round here:-)
Personally as a former fundi, turned moderate, turned atheist, I'm a big fan of moderates like yourself. I consider they embody the best that christianity has to offer, but I do wish they would direct their energies on rooting out the dangerous extremists within their own midst rather than taking a poke at atheists. Something about splinters and eyes comes to mind:-)
...but speaking of the treatment of women, Karen, does your church permit you to speak? I certainly hope not:
Death cultist! There is name calling if I ever heard it! I did not come on this sight to prove anything. I came to learn. PK is a scientist. I wanted some intellectual stimulation. I couldn't give a rat's ass whether you believe in God or not. I didn't expect to be attacked. I did not try to change anyones opinion I was making a comment about the bible and all of a sudden it started. Maybe saying that I was a Christian was a mistake, but why should I lie? I consider myself to be an open minded person. If I wasn't I wouldn't dare come on this sight. If I offended anyone I apologize. But there was no one on here tonight that proved to me that doesn't exist.
Death cultist! There is name calling if I ever heard it!
Oh, please. Your god is a dead man on a stick, for crying out loud. Don't try to tell us Christianity isn't a death cult.
Karen,
what were you trying to learn something about? Evil atheists?All I have heard from you were ad hominems so far....
And it took you half an hour to respond,after Etha skewered you with one simple straightforward question....
Gee,I hate it when its night in the US,the blog goes quiet and im getting into the mood here on the other side of the globe LOL....
I guess You Didn't here about Jesus rising from the dead. As for the slow response I have a fine motor problem with my hands which makes typing slow and difficult.
Karen, try and ignore the occasional (or even frequent) outrageous comment. Death Cultist for example. It's not personal, it's just how some of us speak about what we (now) consider strange, perverse and even dangerous mind viruses.
This may scandalise you, but for many of us it's no more than statement of fact. I'll try and steer clear of the seriously emotive stuff. Whaddya want to know? :-)
As for The women keep silent comment I said in my first post that I did not believe in the word for word literal truth of the bible. There are things that I Take to heart but it was a book written by many authors through many generations with all the human frailties and bigotry of the authors' time and place. Divinely inspired? I think not.
Acknowledged.
I am however still waiting to hear what you were hoping to learn about? Or was it more a wish to confirm preexisting prejudices about evil atheists?
Because,there is no evil people or babyeaters here,everyone here is just as nice or not nice,fallible,honest or dishonest,angry or not angry,loveable or less loveable,than your average death cultist of any given denomination around the world.
And if you can leave this place with that lesson learned,that would have been worth the effort writing to you !
#157 "I guess You Didn't here about Jesus rising from the dead."
Okay, so you're a zombie cultist. Happy now?
Divinely inspired? I think not.
Well Karen, that is pretty interesting. Where do you stand on the trinity, the divinity of Jesus and salvation by faith? On what basis do you decide which doctrines are valid, and which are not?
#153 "I came to learn. PK is a scientist."
Who the heck is PK?
By the way, if you honestly want to learn about science, make sure you check out the other science blogs (there are dozens).
Well, Karen Simon, I'm sure we're all sympathetic to your personal medical problems here and thanks for sharing.
As for the risen christ point you made; yes, we heard about that and don't think it has been adequately proven. So back to you on the death cult point.
Just an observation from here; you claim to be open-minded and to have come to this site (see how that's spelt?) to learn something. Have you looked at the science postings? How did you react to those? Were they interesting? Which ones taught you the most?
Or have you just hung around the threads that discuss other stuff? Hmm?
I never once said that I thought Atheists were evil. I see the radical right as the evil ones trying to remove the right even to our own bodies. I see radicals of any religious tradition as dangerous. I didn't see Atheists as any more or any less than any other fellow seeker. I have a live and let live attitude until my and other fellow humans and creatures freedoms are threatened. What I wanted to lean was the reasons, (probably many),for choosing your path. I apologize. I am fairly new at blogging and am ignorant of the rules.
Karen, welcome to the internet :)
If you want to understand how different people got to their present position with respect to theism there are plenty of resources. Go to the 'Converts Corner' section of the RDFRS.net (http://richarddawkins.net/) site. Search on scienceblogs for keywords relevant to your inquiry. Google with keywords as well.
Good luck.
Its all good Karen,just a few sensitivities around here to be aware of....
Choosing my path? What path?I did not choose to be an atheist if thats what youre implying,didnt have to,I walked out of religious studies class one day laughing my head off and that was pretty much it,no path chosen,just plain common sense,and I guess parents that let me think for myself and did not indoctrinate me with what they had been indoctrinated with.
PK a scientist? PK who? Did I miss something?
I congratulate you on your ability to use a computer, at your old age. My own mom keeps pointing the remote control at it.
Accepted for the boys remark.
Now there's some killing irony. The entity that you require proof of for not existing does not even exist in that sentence...
Karen, to be perfectly honest I don't think you have that much to apologise for. Just enjoy the cut and thrust, soon you'll ad homing with the best (and the worst) of us:-)
My own journey started out with being born again in an "Assembly of God" congregation about 30 years ago. Then followed decades of uncritical christianity, 4 years of missionary work, and a gradual broadening of my perspective to accept more and more christian groups as "saved". As an aside, this is why the more extreme religious leaders belittle education at every opportunity, they know (instinctively if nothing else) that a broad and deep knowledge of human society and achievement is lethal in the long term to simple, literal religion.
The pinnacle of my moderate christianity came with the realisation, that had I been born in Iran (or any islamic country), I would almost certainly be a muslim.
Then came the Iraq war and Bush. This really knocked me out of my faith induced coma and I woke up one day and realised it was incoherent nonsense. This all took a while though:-)
Kenny @ 16
Citing sources - UR DOIN IT RONG.
#87
Rev. BigDumbChimp wins the thread!
The Trinity, The divinity of Jesus and salvation I do believe, but they are personal beliefs and I have never asked anyone else to believe as I do. I also believe that Christians do not have a Monopoly on the truth. As some prefer to spice their food with different spices so some have different beliefs. Each has validity and I respect that.
Karen, we show the respect we're shown. When someone comes into a thread taking us to task for our manners, whining about how there's no science (on a post that's obviously not about science), verging on a full-throated Christian apologia, and then devolves into arguments from age and gender, well, we don't see that as respect, and we respond accordingly.
Some of us are hyper-sensitive to any hint that a Christian is about to start into the "God's right and you're all going to Hell!" routine. It doesn't matter how kindly it's put: that's how the majority of Christians respond to us. The ones who have no problem allowing Muslims, Buddhists and other religious sorts their faith have a huge problem allowing our lack thereof. Even when they state otherwise. Hence the hypersensitivity.
So we got off to a bad start. Looks like we're doing fine now. Hello, welcomes, enjoy your stay, and can we get you anything to drink? ;-)
If you came by the place looking for the scientific evidence we use to prove our atheism, I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed. We don't have evidence there's no God: we have no evidence there is a God, and that's a subtle but important difference.
As for how we became atheists, well, the stories are many and varied, and mine's about as pedestrian as they come: went to church, started to doubt, doubts not allayed, fellow believers annoying, walked out of church, passed through the agnostic phase, and finally eased in to accepting that nothing requires God except people who need to believe, and I don't. Boring, isn't it? I have it tarted up with some blue language on my blog, but that doesn't make it any less boring, just more colorful.
And I'm going to end this burgeoning novel here. If you'd like to drop by my cantina and chat, I'd be happy to have ye. Just come prepared for the outrageous remarks and the abundant lack of respect, which are not by any means aimed at moderates such at yourself. Usually. ;-)
As for PK he is the Author that this thread is based on and is a Biologist and Atheist.
That's PZ, dear. Not PK. Slight discrepency there.
As some prefer to spice their food with different spices so some have different beliefs.
Well in much the same way as extremist christians have no doubt castigated you for your "wishy washy" views, you'll find some atheists find your position equally unpalatable.
Here is why. You subscribe to a faith that is overtly absolute but you talk as if none of this were the case. As if Jesus/Mohamed/Khrisna were all equally valid objects of worship or even interchangeable. As if there is no downside to making the wrong religious choice.
Yet you maintain that the trinity and divinity of Jesus are valid. This all strikes atheists (and hard core christians) as terribly muddled.
It sounds to me as if your christianity has been hollowed out over the years by your own intelligence bumping up against doctrines, attitudes and behaviours you simply could not in good concsience agree with. I think it likely you are "one of us" rather than one of "them" :P .... you just need to give it more thought, maybe get a good solid polemic like the God Delusion under your belt.
On can just as readily apply the golden rule without subscribing to all of the supernatural claptrap. In that sense, we are both christians:-)
Welcome to world of blogging, Karen...
It's interesting you picked a militant atheist blog to write...Don't worry about any "sensitivities" which doesn't imply being mean, on the contrary, if you have a point to make, then write it.
When an atheist asks where's the evidence for Jesus, he's already telling you he doesn't believe there is any...When they say, it's all in the evidence is the basis for their belief, don't believe that either...
For example, Dawkins who is PZ Meyers buddy, believes in aliens. Now what evidence does he have for this hypothesis? Even with lack of evidence, PZ Meyers says alien life is to be considered. So they say, there is no evidence for God, and yet there is no evidence for aliens. So why would they believe in one and yet not the other without having "evidence?" Well God is supernatural which is something one cannot test, but their disbelief comes from rebellion. It's the same type of rebellion for those who believe in the existence of God, but deny God as far as Him reigning over them.
On the other hand, there is alien life. Some atheists believe in the concept because it fits the natural model. Anything in naturalism regardless of any sort of so-called evidence or lack thereof would be more likely accepted. For example, the Hubble revealed mature stars very far out in space, so far that it would be impossible by natural means to be there. Not enough time in other words. So according to the evolutionist model, the further into space you can see, the stars are suppose to younger, not mature. In the creationist model, you would see these types of things.
So just like Christians go by certain principles, so do the group known as the "godless"....
In that sense, chimps are Christians, too, too. ;-P
Well said, Brian!
Karen Simon,
In # 153 you say that there is "no one on here tonight that proved to me that [a god] doesn't exist." That is not our responsibility. Believers in a god or gods have the burden of proving that such exceptional creatures exist. [This is the unadorned version of the 'You wouldn't expect me to disprove the existence of unicorns-Thor-Zeus, etc., argument' that weary atheists bring out in response to this common logical fallacy. The predictability of your argument, by the way, is one reason you are being met with impatience. The prove-there-is-no-god argument is trotted out all the time and is as deep as a puddle on a flat, smooth surface.]
In # 157 you state "You didn't here [sic] about Jesus rising from the dead" in a context that suggests you believe this extraordinary claim to be indisputable, but in # 159 (and in an earlier comment) you report that you do "not believe in the word for word literal truth of the bible." You also state in # 159 that the Bible is not divinely inspired but instead the creation of fallible men. This product of fallible men is the only source for the remarkable claim that a person can be dead for three days and then return to life. Given your earlier logical misstep and given the fact that you hold to an amazing belief even while aware of the flawed nature of the evidence for it, for what reason do you expect folks here to respect that belief? Can you offer any reason at all for people to respect the astonishing and unsupported claims of people who believe in god(s) in general or in Christianity in particular? Are you yourself generally in the habit of respecting assertions or beliefs, especially extraordinary ones, in the absence of support for such assertions and beliefs?
Michael No 177,
I sincerely hope you are doing a Poe on us,if youre for real id have concerns for mankind,especially should you decide to breed and pass on your delusions to your offspring.
//On the other hand, there is alien life. Some atheists believe in the concept because it fits the natural model. Anything in naturalism regardless of any sort of so-called evidence or lack thereof would be more likely accepted. For example, the Hubble revealed mature stars very far out in space, so far that it would be impossible by natural means to be there. Not enough time in other words. So according to the evolutionist model, the further into space you can see, the stars are suppose to younger, not mature. In the creationist model, you would see these types of things.//
Natural model? The evolutionist model of the expansion of the universe?
Get your GP to review your meds mate....urgently
I think that was Michael's rather pathetic attempt to prove the creationist model has something to say about science. Fail.
Dana,
I should have known he's for real,what with PZ "Meyers" and all LOL
#172
Karen,
I commend you for your live and let live attitude that you wanted to convey with this sentence, but there is just so much wrong with it. It is simply logically impossible that any number of mutually exclusive religions are all valid. I'm sorry to say that your respect for something that is impossible therefore isn't worth much.
Now try saying it this way: all religions contain elements that I can respect. They may also contain elements I don't respect. For instance, I can respect teaching to treat others like you would want to be treated yourself. I can't respect teaching to treat people badly based on gender, race, or religion.
Note that you can like or dislike such teachings regardless what religion includes them in its teachings, and regardless of what god or gods the religion worships, or regardless of its rituals. Think about this: Aren't those teachings good or bad all in their own right? Do you still really need religion, or god, or ritual, to find value in such teachings, or reject them?
Also, think about this: what makes you decide which parts of other religions you respect, and which you ignore? I mean, you might respect the Islam for demanding their followers to give to charity, but I doubt you pray to Mekka five times a day.
This is directly related to Brian Coughlan's question, that you didn't answer: how do you decide which parts of your doctrine you want to keep (like the divinity of Jesus), and which parts you can ignore (like the inferiority of women)? Please answer, because it is an important issue. I can promise you, if you give an honest answer to this question, you will receive a lot of respect here, since very few people have been able to honestly answer it.
Riddle me this: why is it so many Christians and IDiots can't get PZ's name right?
Ah. Answered my own question with the IDiots, didn't I? ;-)
From Dana's profile on her blog:
//You can lure me into the sunlight by waving a bottle of premium tequila under my nose and announcing a sighting of Roger Clyne and the Peacemakers. Will pontificate for food.//
One things for sure,Karen wouldnt approve of that sort of lifestyle hey !!
And I tried to post it on your blog,but google/bloggers only,and I hate that !
I never have bought hook line and sinker into full compliance with anything. I travel to the beat of my own drum. On my Myspace page I describe my religious views as "Catholic on my own terms" I am certainly not hard core and I would not be invited to the Vatican anytime soon, but what I believe I believe deeply There is no wishy-washyness about it. There are just things that have happened in my life that give me all the proof I need. I have nothing to prove to anyone. You can say what you please. I am sure that you feel just as strongly and I would never try to convince to change your way of thinking. I feel a great respect for all of you who followed your own path and didn't get sucked in to group think. I bid You peace and goodnight.
#177:
Dawkins and PZ don't believe aliens exist, they acknowledge the possibility of their existence. Big difference. The rest of your post contains even worse misrepresentations.
No problem with anonymous posting at my place now, Clinteas, darling! I just changed it so folks without an identity can fell welcome as well - just be sure to sign your name. Come on by and have a drink!
'Night, Karen. Thanks for an interesting evening. And do stop by ye olde cantina sometime - Progressive Conservative's feeling a bit lonely, poor bugger.
I see the "how do you pick and choose which bits to believe" question is still unanswered. Sigh. Will we ever find a Christian willing to answer that honestly, logically, and without special pleading to "God tells me so"?
I have to say Karen Simon comes off as a very mild Christian. We don't get that many outspoken Christians in Finland anyway, of course there are the kooks, but on everyday basis, we don't really see them. You bring up validity issues and I hate to bring up the old bit that Dawkins said (paraphrased): "What makes you think what you believe is _the_ way to Heaven?
He talked about being born in a different country and having different beliefs because of that, but I think I got the jist of it.
@190 - See, that's one of the main things that killed my faith as a young 'un. I couldn't, just couldn't, wrap my head around a loving God who would condemn so many people to hell because they never got the message. What about all those folks born elsewhere and who'd never seen a missionary? What about all those folks living good, decent lives who just happened to see the Divine in Krishna, or believed Mohammed truly was the prophet of God? What kind of loving God would damn good people to hell for that?
And we all know what one niggling question does: opens the floodgates and lets in a flood of 'em. Next thing you know, bam! You're an atheist. Or a contortionist.
As a weak attempt to answer the question (Dana at #189): how do you pick and choose which bits to believe? The answer, as I understand it (and I know a lot of Christians with various different viewpoints), is essentially a matter of textual interpretation. (I'll attempt to write this from a broad mainstream Christian perspective; my personal beliefs are not relevant and I won't go into them.)
The remarks in 1 Corinthians, about women speaking in church, are advice of St Paul, and don't purport to be a direct instruction from God. Paul makes quite clear when he is repeating the teachings of Jesus (e.g. in discussing the Eucharist). But don't forget the purpose of the Pauline Epistles - they were letters to nascent Christian churches in various corners of the Roman Empire. They therefore reflect the social context and moral standards of their time. This is why not all of Paul's advice is followed by churches today.
Much the same could be said of many of the moral disputes within the church today. For instance, take the most contentious issue - homosexuality. The raucous condemnations of homosexual behavior in Leviticus form part of the Mosaic law (along with admonitions against eating shellfish and wearing clothes of mixed fabrics). The New Testament makes clear that Christians do not have to follow the Mosaic law, and that salvation is not gained through doing so. (A relevant passage is Acts chapter 10). The Gospels themselves say nothing whatsoever about homosexuality, and there is no reason to suppose that Jesus wished to condemn it. Thus, both the conservative Christian view (of homosexuality as a sin) and the liberal Christian view (of homosexuality as acceptable) are scripturally sustainable.
On the other hand, core concepts, such as the divinity of Jesus and the Resurrection, are central to the identity of Christianity. (I won't go into the Trinity here, since Mormons and JWs, inter alia, would dispute that, and they're as Christian as anyone else. The nature of the triune God is not something which the Bible makes very clear.)
Thus, liberal Christianity is not a matter of "picking and choosing" which bits to believe. Rather, the core doctrine - Jesus dying for the sins of humanity - is common to all Christians, while other parts are negotiable and open to interpretation.
I know most people here are atheist or agnostic, so going into a lengthy discussion of theology probably isn't particularly meaningful for most of you. I was just trying to answer the question of how Christians "pick and choose" which parts of the Bible to believe and apply in modern life.
Strawman. Who is asking for evidence for Jesus? Atheists I know are perfectly fine with Jesus having either existed or not existed. Personally, what I would like to see some evidence for, is the claim that Jesus was anything more than an ordinary guy with some sensible (and some less sensible) thoughts that he was able to successfully convey to others.
That is an extraordinary claim. Please substantiate it, or retract it.
That is an extraordinary claim. Please substantiate it, or retract it.
A fallacy based on your wrong assumptions about "belief in aliens". There is a difference between "believing in aliens" and "not ruling out the possibility that aliens exist". Having said that, existance of aliens requires no magical or supernatural changes to our understanding of the universe. Existance of supernatural beings does. Despite all that, Dawkins explicity does not rule out the possibility of a god existing.
Oh? Is there? First you suggest Dawkins believes this without evidence, and now you claim it exists?
That is an extraordinary claim. Please substantiate it, or retract it. Note: evidence that this was at one time a valid concern is not good enough, make sure you also check that this conclusion from Hubble data is still supported. I'm not even sure if it was Hubble data and not another satellite, but that's beside the point.
And that is exactly what we see. The things we see in really deep space are younger, in the sense that they existed earlier than some of the older things we see closer to us. This entire line of reasoning collapses because of your faulty claim about too "mature" stars, which you need to substantiate.
In a creationist model anything goes, including Russel's teapot, and a unicorn drinking from it.
@#192 - Walton, you are amazing. Thank you. At last, someone who's not afraid to tackle that question, and does it very well indeed!
@192:
Oh, but you do pick and choose. You just did. I don't need to and don't want to go into the specific inane rants of your God, but the point is, it's a fucking book with instructions on how to live your life. You can't just pick the ones that modern society finds acceptable. If it was considered fiction, it'd be acceptable to like bits and pieces of it and ignore the rest. The "holy" book is full of disgusting guidelines and tells tales of a morbid and vindictive deity.
But you are privy to your beliefs, and I'm not going to try to persuade you to think otherwise, since it doesn't work that way anyway. It just strikes me odd to see such remarks made by someone about the book. You can read the damn thing with quantum physics on your mind and you'll find references to it if you want to, defending the text is just stupid and goes nowhere.
I don't mean to be offensive.
You say that as if there's something wrong with fucking books, with instructions. Pictures beat instructions tho' :)
@192:
Yes, I do see that you were being objective, but it's still picking and choosing if you just interpret the words and meanings.
@196:
Well if we're going down that road, I do have a problem with fucking books. They chafe and give papercuts. The pictures just make it worse.
@#197: Of course it's picking and choosing. But I prefer they do that - and, like Walter, have reasons for how and why - than just blindly believing every contradictory, venomous word.
Christianity isn't going away any time soon. Alas, it can never be a fully rational belief system, based as it is on the supernatural. But I do hope believers like Walter get the upper hand. They're easier to live with and far more interesting to talk to.
Bonus: you'll notice he doesn't seem intent on converting us, or demanding we prove the non-existence of God to him. That's refreshing, at least for this atheist. ;-)
Wait just a damned minute - how do the pictures make it worse? ;-P
To Vorvados (#195).
You're not being offensive in the slightest. I should make clear that I myself am no longer a practising Christian and haven't been for some time. (There was even a stage when I would have called myself agnostic.) But as someone who was brought up in the Christian faith and has a moderately good understanding of its theology and structure, I felt I could present an answer to the question from the standpoint of what most Christians believe.
My answer was written, therefore, from the standpoint of those who accept that the Bible is, on some level, the word of God, and who accept the divinity of Christ.
You write: ...it's a f**king book with instructions on how to live your life. You can't just pick the ones that modern society finds acceptable. - I entirely agree. That's why my answer was based on a reading of the text itself, on its own terms.
Ultimately, most of the commandments which seem pointless or barbaric today - condemnation of homosexuality, circumcision, detailed dietary laws, needlessly harsh punishments - are contained within the 613 mitzvot (commandments) of the Torah, and constitute the Mosaic law. Bear in mind, these commands were laid down for a primitive Bronze Age tribal society in a generally brutal age; if you compare them to other Near Eastern legal codes of the period, they don't come out too badly. Orthodox Jews today still try to live by these laws (as well as the commands of the Talmud and rabbinic tradition), hence why they do many things which appear strange in the context of mainstream society.
But it is specifically made clear to Christians in the New Testament that they do not have to follow the Mosaic law, because the "old covenant" (based on obedience to the law) is replaced with the "new covenant" (based on faith in Jesus). Thus, ignoring the commands about homosexuality - or shellfish, or circumcision, or wearing mixed fabrics - is not simply a matter of convenience for Christians in modern society. It is actually scripturally justifiable.
FWIW, most Christians do not ignore every biblical command which is inconvenient in modern society. Much of modern society finds adultery and abortion to be acceptable practices; most Christians do not. (although I personally oppose those things on secular, rational grounds; adultery is a betrayal of your spouse's trust and causes familial breakdown, and abortion is the killing of a genetically distinct human being. But I'll avoid going off on a tangent here.) But the commandments of the Mosaic law are not just ignored because they are irrelevant and ludicrous in the modern world; they're ignored because the Bible makes clear that Christians do not need to follow them.
Ok, so you want my proof. 7 years ago there was a man living on the street by the name of Jim. He was a hard core drunk and bottle picker and had been living on the street for 5 years. One particular winter morning he was leaving the shelter that he had spent the night in when one of the staff who knew him well stood in front of the door and blocked his by that time six foot one 112lb (that's right) frame from walking out the door. He told her he was leaving. She told him that he did not have another drunk left in him and if he walked out that door he would be dead before nightfall. Something clicked in him and he turned around went into detox then treatment. He has been sober ever since. Why is this my proof? 5 years ago Jim became my partner. I felt called to be with him. It has not been an easy road. there is still allot of healing to be done. But when I look into his face I see the face of God. What about the Woman at the shelter? She was a Guardian Angel if there ever was one. You can scoff now, but you cannot say that this is invalid proof until you have lived it.
@199:
I don't think religion will ever go away, and I like Walton's post because wasn't trying to convert anyone. And I wish all believers were like Walton.
But it's still stupid. Not believing in the bad bits is good, but it still means the recipient of the sermon is susceptible to the lies. Most of them are benign, but just being open to that kind of intellectual abuse just peeves me off.
But, as I said before, I can't and don't wish to alter anyones beliefs. I guess I'm basically just a dick, since I tend to veer off to the militant side of atheism and generally get annoyed by believers' comments.
The answer, as I understand it (and I know a lot of Christians with various different viewpoints), is essentially a matter of textual interpretation.
This if course is quite correct. The problem with the approach is simply another glaring example of why religions are tosh. A banal empirical truth will sweep the world in a generation, because all observers can (barring extreme outliers) agree on an interpretation of the evidence. Evolution, Germ and Quantum theory spring to mind. Yet despite 2000 years, we still do not have anything like a unified approach to christianity, and such brief periods of unity that have existed, have been achieved through murder, torture and oppression.
Interpretation, discussion and debate are only useful if the raw materials fed into the process are sound.
The utter failure of any one religion, even internally, to rise above all others simply by virtue of the compelling case made in its favour, is yet more evidence that the religious endeavour is as human as science. Just without the checks and balances that prevent scientists from beating school children and abusing altar boys.
It's a beautiful story, Karen, and it's powerful for you, but it's subjective. It's not "proof," any more than my having seen one of my fictional characters in the flesh is "proof" that he exists in an objective manner. So yes, I'm afraid we can say your "proof" is invalid. We just can't say it's meaningless, because it's obviously deeply meaningful for you.
Pretty weak tea for the rest of us, alas, at least as far as arguments for the existence of the supernatural go. A Christian sees Guardian Angels and God. We atheists see humans treating each other with kindness and care: no Divine intervention needed.
@200:
It depends on the pictures you look at...You don't want to know. I'm an evil atheist, after all...
@202:
And you still go into the subjective visions etc. I'm happy that you found someone to love and live with, but it doesn't really tell anyone anything about anything.
Sorry I missed this, but I went to sleep early so I could get up this morning and catch the sunrise for a few photos.
It is not my burden of proof to disprove the existence of god[s] in the same way that it is not your burden of proof to disprove the Invisible leprechaun I have living in my ear. Really, he is in there and he tells me to burn things.
You on the other hand make the positive assertion of the existence of a deity, and I am fully willing to accept that as soon as I see something that provides evidence of that existence.
So far I've seen nothing so I am an atheist. But I remain open to new evidence, should it be made available.
Buckyball @ #3:
It's now 34 Unconvincing Arguments For God. August's new and improved essay is here: http://mnatheists.org/content/view/64/34/.
@207:
I denounce your Leprechaun, since he lives inside my head, not in the ear, and your Leprechaun is the false Leprechaun. The Leprechaun in your is the evil one. The one that does all the bad stuff. It's just like you evil Leprechaunists to try to put a bad name on my benevolent Leprechaun.
@206: Of course I want to know! Hellloooo, evil atheist, here. LOL.
@201: Could you clarify, Walton, dear? (And forgive me for calling you Walter - 's what I get for trying to do 64,000 things at once and not paying bloody attention.) Do you still consider yourself Christian, albeit non-practicing, agnostic, atheist, Pastafarian? Only you just dashed my hope that an actual current Christian had the guts to stand up and provide an actual question rather than evading or obfuscating.
@207: Fun! I was just out photographing sunrises meself. Not that that has anything to do with the current discussion, but what the hell. ;-P
To Dana (#210). I was raised as a Christian (Church of England - equivalent to Episcopalian) in an active churchgoing family. I went through a patch of agnosticism in my mid-teens. I'm now a university student and am not an active churchgoer, but ultimately would probably term myself Christian if I had to face the question.
Your hopes shouldn't be dashed - I have many friends and relatives who are practising Christians, who would have answered your question in substantially the same manner I did. Unfortunately, those people who argue religion on the Internet tend not to be representative (in terms of their intellectual calibre) of religious adherents as a whole. So don't be put off by the likes of "Kenny".
Interestingly enough, I'm actually more politically conservative than my (churchgoing) parents and grandparents. Go figure. :-)
To Dana (#210). I was raised as a Christian (Church of England - equivalent to Episcopalian) in an active churchgoing family. I went through a patch of agnosticism in my mid-teens. I'm now a university student and am not an active churchgoer, but ultimately would probably term myself Christian if I had to face the question.
Your hopes shouldn't be dashed - I have many friends and relatives who are practising Christians, who would have answered your question in substantially the same manner I did. Unfortunately, those people who argue religion on the Internet tend not to be representative (in terms of their intellectual calibre) of religious adherents as a whole. So don't be put off by the likes of "Kenny".
Interestingly enough, I'm actually more politically conservative than my (churchgoing) parents and grandparents. Go figure. :-)
Sorry for duplicate post.
The discourse is long past, but I always get a kick out of the old "it's only my opinion, so you are being unfair in criticizing me" nonsense.
In some discussion boards where I am a regular, I always tell the mods to put this into their FAQ:
Opinions
This is a dicussion group and you are free to post your opinion. However, please remember that others are also free to post their opinions, including their opinion that your opinion is stupid or idiotic.
In my nearly 20 years of internet discussion groups, it has become clear that "I'm entitled to my opinion" is just their way of saying, "I have no basis for any of this nonsense but I want to believe it anyway."
And there's the problem exactly. As you admit, scripture can support both of these two completely opposite viewpoints. We must therefore pick and choose. Clearly, scripture doesn't tell us which of the two we should want it to support. How do we decide this, if not by scripture? I'm afraid you still haven't really answered this.
Your post does clarify how Christians feel they can pick and choose, i.e. by changing the interpretation of scripture. It however still doesn't answer the question of how they know when to change this interpretation, and in what direction.
You've just described many of the trolls who post here.
Yeah, unfortunately I'm waiting for my new camera to get back from Nikon for a repair on the Auto focusing. So I was out there with my older (but perfectly fine) camera. Still takes good pics but not as good as the one in for repair.
Plus the sunrise was a bit dull today. Maybe tomorrow!
@ Walton (211 & 212, LOL, pas de probleme): Relief! My quest for a Christian who will directly and unflinchingly engage the tough questions has at last come to an end. FSM be praised!
The likes of Kenny don't put me off. It's probably mean of me, but I consider them an entertaining diversion. But what you said raises a whole new question: why is the calibre of Christian willing to argue religion on the internet so low? I'd have expected the exact opposite, but strangely enough, not so. I know my very own Progressive Conservative likes to take the lofty stance that he's above such base things, but I think he's just chicken. Why, then, is it so hard to find people who are willing to answer the challenging questions about their faith openly, honestly, and as logically as possible? You see, I'd like that to happen, because I think that would help kill off a lot of the acrimony between believers and non.
Ah, mysteries.
...."Understanding and Responding to Atheist's Beliefs" conflates an atheist's skeptical worldview with a religious person's unsubstantiated "belief".
A "skeptical worldview" is not necessary to atheism. After all, it is just as impossible for an atheist to prove the non-existence of God as it is for the theist to prove the existence of God. Atheism is a "belief" system just as theism is. Two different sides of the same coin.
The only true worldview is Agnosticism which deems the very question of the existence or non-existence of God as invalid because of it's inherent unprovability.
:D
It has nothing to do with "here." And it's not really trolling. It is just idiots.
Vorvadoss -- Yep. "Textual interpretation" means, in reality, "pick and choose," one step removed. Otherwise, there would be one interpretation of Christianity starting approximately 1-200 years after the bible's creation that would be immune to social and cultural shifts. Instead, there have been competing christianities that are all influenced by secular trends.
The FULL question Christians need to answer is, "How do you choose which doctrines to believe in? And if other people using the same principles come to a different conclusion, how do you know you are right?"
Karen might have mentioned the Jehovah's Witnesses because they don't actual believe Jesus was divine... and of course she doesn't want to get into that, because it points to what a sausage of beliefs the bible is.
And, incidentally Catholics are the most irritating of Christians, because, unlike their evangelical friends, they do put a lot of store in reason & argument, but not enough to challenge their core assumptions.
@217: Damn you, dull sunrise! Ah, well, perhaps it's saving it up for when the Nikon's back, eh?
RE: sunrises
There was a little haze off the rivers and streams around here this morning which would have probably made a really good sunrise pic.
I had to come to the office...
Well right, but it still describes them. And they are idiots.
To Karen, #202
I don't think anyone will scoff at your story, it's clearly meaningful to you, as Dana said, and I for one am happy things took a turn for the better with Jim.
Nonetheless, your story is not proof for the existence of god, or even evidence for it, it is just your interpretation of something that happened to you. Something we can't verify even happened, let alone why it happened. An anecdote is not the same as evidence. If you want to debate with atheists, it's important to know the difference.
As Dana said, simple human decency could explain the actions of the shelter worker just as well, no god needed. On the other hand, it is not too hard to argue that it was god who put Jim in such a hard place to begin with, along with many like him, which is a completely different interpretation. If this sounds mean of me to say that, remember that it does not change your experience in the least. Think about it. But it does show that the interpretation is not evidence of anything.
Personally, I think that to attribute the improvements in Jim's life to god is selling Jim, and you, and the shelter workers short. I hope you can have the confidence in yourself and finish the healing.
Oldfart -- I should program this as a macro.
Atheism and agnosticism actually measure two different things. Atheism is lack of belief in God, agnosticism is lack of knowledge of God. By strict defintion, many Christians are agnostic because they don't KNOW God exists, but that have FAITH (i.e. belief). Likewise, many (most?) atheists are agnostic, because they don't have any knowledge that God exists or that God does not exist, and therefore choose not to believe in them.
In common practice though, the definition of an agnostic is an atheist who isn't in the mood to argue. So the definition does get muddled.
Dawkins says it best(paraphrasing) :
An atheist is technically agnostic to Zeus,Apollo,Christian Dog,the celestial teapot,FSM,and all the others,and just goes one further.....
oh no, we can rule out the existence of certain specific gods. to construct some examples: example, a god that carries a flat Earth on its back is entirely untrue. a god whose eyes are made of the sun and the moon is untrue. a god who is, by definition, infallible, yet whose Holy Book is largely untrue folklore is untrue. a god who created the earth in six literal days is entirely untrue.
the only truly defensible vision of God is the weakly Deist version who keeps a low profile enough to be undetectable. i think it's reasonable to say that this God is not synonymous with the God of Christianity. indeed many Christians don't even seem to believe in the God described the Bible.
It seems to me that people get all hung up on differing understanding of some word definitions. Fact -vs- Theory atheist -vs- agnostic. A person can argue all day about the definitions but I don't have that much time. I avoid the words atheist and agnostic. I simply tell people
1) I don't believe in God
2) I'm not 100% sure there isn't a God.
They can call me whatever they want as long as it isn't late for supper.
To continue alex's point in #228, "God who?"
The theist who complains that atheists "can't prove the non-existence of God" always forget that part of "what's this God thing"
They forget that "God" is something _they_ are proposing, and I can't "disprove God" until I know exactly what God is.
And as alex notes, for pretty much any incarnation of God that we know, it can be ruled out. Consider the God of the Bible. In the Bible, we find the following characterizations:
God is Love (1 John 4: 8)
God is a Jealous God (all over the OT, but e.g. Ex 34:14, Deut 4:24, Josh 24:19, just to name a couple)
Love is not Jealous (1 Corinth 13:4)
So by logic we have
A = B
B = C
but
A =/= C
Hence, one of these statements must false, and so the Biblical description of God is falsified.
Now, christians will resort to "God is above the laws of logic," which may be true completely undermines the concept of "proof." Without logic, there is not proof, so how can anyone be expected to "disprove" anything if you can't use logic?
@230: Brilliant!
All of you (with a few exceptions) have been brilliant. Alas, 'tis well past my bedtime. Thankee kindly for a very interesting and enlightening night indeed!
And that's why we both pity and fear Christians like you.
I like this tack: "absence of belief is not belief of absence."
@ amk:
amk, thank you for this reference - I like much of Eliezer Yudkowsky's texts. I believe you are one of the GMBM evangelicals for bayesism, and there was a recent thread which is relevant to this. I wasn't a participant, but let me see if I shortly can sum up why the above isn't exactly true.
And which btw Yudkowsky's reference on bayesian reasoning admits, if I'm not mistaken. "Bayes' Theorem shows that falsification is very strong evidence compared to confirmation, [...]" Well, understandably, since it is given a probability context. ;-)
Ensemble probabilities (frequentism) and learning probabilities (bayesism) isn't the same thing. However, they will converge on the same values under robust settings. They are IMHO both useful, ensembles for theories and learning for observations.
But, and this is the clincher, the event that Yudkowsky wants to study has never been observed to happen.
Whether or not it exists, it is falsifiable. However, if it doesn't exist, conditional probabilities doesn't apply. [Unless you live in philosophical multiverses admitting inconsistencies (gods) or local consistency (magic), as opposed to empirical multiverses or universes with global consistency (processes).]
This is in my mind why Dawkins' bayesian reasoning in TGD applies; he looks at existing events (designers). You can also use conditional probabilities on observed events, such as that natural theories explains facts, and push the likelihood for that on ensembles of observations without involving learning.
Note: I guess I have to explain my terminology and back up my claims.
That frequentism works on ensembles is obvious. This is what makes them useful, as they can be applied to idealized infinite dimensional objects in theories (such as QFT AFAIU) on account of admitting finite probability densities there. They are also what is used in hypothesis testing in theories, as you can't adjust parameters as in bayesian methods in order to reject specific hypotheses.
That bayesism is learning should be obvious. That is just the use it has in machine learning systems, where trial and error adjusts the probabilities for hypotheses about the environment. And it is analogous to how a populations genome learns about its environment, bayesian filter methods on spam, et cetera.
Paradoxically, many bayesians wants to make ensemble models philosophically problematic as they work over idealized mathematical models. Instead it is AFAIU both philosophically problematic and practically problematic to use learning probabilities in such areas as QFT, as they only admit probability densities over finite objects. But on account of the above mentioned convergence, I assume scientists have been, or should be, able to bootstrap such methods to converge on ensemble probabilities.
OT, if you are interested, I have a note and a question on Yudkowsky's reference mentioning science methods.
Yudkowsky takes an interesting, but narrow approach on applying bayesism to hypothesis testing. What is interesting is that he accepts testing, while many bayesians seems to take a dim view on it, despite that it works well.
But, and here is my question: shouldn't a bayesian argue against testing of theories and for learning? I.e. instead of rejecting some theories and so information, one could in principle keep them all and use bayesian parameter adjustments for weighting how much of each that best learns data.
Of course I'm asking because I think Yudkowsky has forgotten the strength of rejecting theories. Scrapping them improves our knowledge and our predictive capabilities.
(I assume due to that the false theories aren't so much noise among the signal, as detection algorithms abhor unnecessary filtering. But that they are often make "orthogonal" predictions to what we are interested in. Sort of like diluting the effect among an energy starved (resource constrained) system.)
And he doesn't explain this what I can see, why traditional testing within its interpretation is better than other, bayesian, learning here. In other words, I think he fails a test. :-P
I can't take credit for the exercise in #230. This was a favorite disproof of Wayne Delia from back in my old alt.atheism days.
Wayne was great. He always had a great response to the "you can't prove he doesn't exist" line. It was "You can't prove you don't owe me $20 000. Please make the check to the "Joe and Lisa Delia College Fund.""
Joe and/or Lisa are probably pretty close to college age by now.
Wayne was also a big fan of the story of Saul and the Amalekites, and how Saul was punished by God for not destroying every living creature of the Amalekites, including all the babies and the cattle, merely because their ancestors had opposed the Israelites during the exodus...400 years before. It was always fun to watch the godlings try to spin that.
Dana, re your #231, sleep tight.
I would recommend all travel to Dana's site, click on her name to get there, and read her latest post, "Talking Past Each Other: A Few Simple Rules For Christians Among Atheists". Quite nice and a good starting point for playing here in "PZ's Playhouze".
Ok, beach calling out to me, and a Red Stripe at Coconut Joe's at Isle of Palms. Oh hell, Memorial Day weekend, bloody tourists!!!!
Ciao, y'all
Just to clarify, "Secular" and "Kenny" are different people: different email addresses, different IPs.
Karen Simon (Comment #172):
Karen, I appreciate that your position is one that strives to be open-minded and tolerant, but things aren't quite that simple. The central claims of Christianity are claims about matters of fact, not matters of subjective preference, and so it is appropriate to evaluate them like any other claim that supposedly describes an actual state of affairs. And that means subjecting them to analysis and criticism by way of public criteria (i.e., logical reasoning and empirical testing). So one can't defend a belief from criticism simply by appealing to it's private or personal nature. Not if it makes publicly accessible claims.
Now, you may treat your religious beliefs as being personal assumptions that help you find meaning and value in your life, without worrying too much about whether they have a rational foundation. That's fine, and I doubt anyone here would deny that you have every right to believe as you do and to live your life according to those beliefs (as long as in doing so you don't infringe the rights of others). But by the same token, others have the right to criticise those beliefs, because the beliefs pertain to questions of fact, which are not personal matters but public. Similarly, moral beliefs, although not directly pertaining to matters of fact, do pertain to how people should behave towards each other, and so it is also appropriate to hold them up to public criticism and debate.
In other words, no matter how much I or anyone else may respect you as a person, your beliefs are still fair game.
Frankly, a simple live-and-let-live policy in which everybody quietly refrains from criticising other people's beliefs, while superficially attractive, is neither practical nor desirable. Differences between believers and non-believers are not remotely the same as "Fred likes Tabasco sauce" versus "Jim can't stand the stuff". The latter is not an argument over facts - in fact, it's not an argument at all, since there is no contradiction to be resolved, no further truth of the matter to be determined. But the truth of religious claims is not a matter of personal taste. They are claims about actual or alleged states of affairs, which (in principle at least) should be amenable to testing to determine their factual accuracy. But the only way of determining the accuracy or validity of a claim is by public criticism. That's how knowledge is acquired. No field of inquiry in the sciences or the humanities could ever progress if people just sit back and treat genuine questions of substance as matters of personal belief which are all "equally valid". Testing and criticising beliefs and ideas is an essential part of being human, and one can't escape this simply by hiding behind the notion of personal beliefs. It's intellectually lazy, if not downright anti-intellectual.
And if that seems a little harsh, bear in mind that what I'm really criticising is the belief, not the person ... ;-)
Ooh, #230 is magnificent! That is a saver, Pablo.
Well, you could define it that way. The problem, as always, is that people don't agree. For example, TheFreeDictionary defines agnosticism as:
"1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist."
This is why Dawkins claims to be an agnostic atheist; while he can't prove that gods are impossible, he can prove that they are improbable. Well, IIRC he claims beyond reasonable doubt (without providing an actual value to test against), so perhaps you want to argue with him for the philosophical distinction between impossible and rejected.
For such reasons I like to call your definition philosophical agnosticism. It is a much stronger claim that there is, or rather forever will be, lack of knowledge of gods, than the atheist claim that there is a lack of personal belief (your definition) or lack of evidence to base belief on (popular definition).
And in fact Dawkins TGD discussion proves the strong claim wrong, as he can provide (exceedingly low) probabilities for designer (creator) gods.
Karen Simon (Comment #202):
Sorry Karen, but one can say that this is an invalid proof, because the validity or invalidity of a proof has nothing to do with personal experience. A valid proof is an argument such that, according to the rules of logic, the conclusion cannot be false given the truth of the premises. That's what the term "valid proof" means.
See, for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity
Oops, this is imprecise:
The bayesian methods I think of don't reject hypotheses AFAIU, so it could be referred to as "dumb trial and error".
(As failed mutations can reappear after been selected out of the population, et cetera. Which is all to the best, since the environment can change. Sometimes you need to be dumb to be creative. :-P)
www.shroud.com is a "shroudist" site which denies or rationalises away the evidence that it was painted in the 13th century by a self-confessed forger with red ochre and vermillion tempera. Even the Vatican makes no claims that the shroud is genuine.
Trinitarian Christians worship a god of three forms, one indeterminate and the others not: a zombie and a ghost. They venerate a corpse nailed to a stick or simply the stick he was nailed to. They at least symbolically "eat flesh" and "drink blood". How, then, is "death cult" an inaccurate or unfair description?
Torbjörn --
Thanks for the links.
My definition is a distillation for point of contrast. The two definitions of agnosticism you cite both point to knowledge (and the unattainability thereof)...
But this is a subject that has been beaten to death, and as other people have pointed out, the definitions don't convey what you need to convey to the general public. If you don't actually eat babies, don't call yourself an atheist. If you don't actually think there's a chance the Christian God is real, don't call yourself an agnostic.
I DO call myself an atheist, but with the understanding that I will have to explain about the baby-eating part.
Might I also add, kudos to the crew here for engaging Karen
Simon civilly and politely. I am actually surprised and impressed. Maybe she will invite some of you on to a Christian forum to continue the conversation.
This is how I see it: Some people say they believe in God, and others say they do not believe in God. Both of these statements are opinions aka. beliefs. So "believling in no God" is really the same as "not believing in God."
The engineer in me just wishes people could simply ask the question 'in your opinion, what is the likely hood that there is a god'? No other labels need be used.
Seems a lot more straight forward than these peripheral arguments about 'belief, faith, atheist and agnostic'.
Emma - don't forget that the majority of their rewards or punishments are going to be eternal and after the death of the body. There are millions who look forward to the day they die (I know several myself), and we have all heard of those Christians who eagerly look forward to their manufactured Rapture, the one where they get to fly to heaven where they can watch the torture and death of billions. I'd call that further evidence that Christianity is a death cult.
The engineer in me knows that likelihood is not a matter of opinion.
So "believling in no God" is really the same as "not believing in God."
--Albatrocycle
Albatrocycle, please tell me you do not work in the field of public safety.
@235 - You're the sweetest! Enjoy that beach!
@243 - Opinions are not the same as beliefs. And I'd write a blazing missive on that, but I've got to go get Happy Hour together at my place. Argh. I guess that shall have to come later.
Bloody hell, the things I miss because bodies require sleep... sad.
To Karen (#202)
Living in the UK, most of the Xtians I know are much more like yourself (and my Dad) than "Kenny" and the bizarre Nazis which all people of good will are horrified at encountering on the net and seeing waving placards when dead soldiers come back from Iran.
I still, however, find myself to be deeply worried by the reification of the good things people do for each other as expressions of "God". It seems to me that this externalises our impulse to help others or ourselves; you say you look at Jim and see the face of God; I would argue that you see Jim. A prson who has used the resources inside himself to beat an insidious and horrible disease, with the help of truly admirable people such as yourself and the Shelter woman. That comes entirely from him and you and her. Isn't that fantastic? It seems to me (and , I guess other atheists) that it cheapens your achievement to say "It would not have been possible without an external guiding force". It was possible! You did it!
This is probably a very confused post, but my point is that people are great, judging by the sample that I've met; also they're shite. Reifying that fact as something external diminishes every one of us. IMO.
Back to the original topic, I've written up a brief blog post about my call to KKMS here.
Gah...trouble with sloppy HTML tagging...the post is here.
Speaking of Hell, have you read Ted Chiang's "Hell is the Absence of God"?
It's creepy, and a bit slow, but it attempts to be a cold, logical, rigorous, and consistent extrapolation of what the world would be like if God — the God of the bible — were real.
It's not really a pleasant place at all.
I'm not 100% sure of which theological position he's writing from, but I don't think it's the sort of contradictory nonsense where Hell is not morally justified, yet God is just. None of that nonsense, please.
Tully Bascomb - What does my statement have to do with public safety?
It's more of an illusion or argument and reason. They never actually do either. There bizarre and superstitous ritual filled denomination is proof of thatat least the protestants hashed out much of RCC dogma centuries ago.
I hadn't read it, but it looks interesting. (And I'm quite partial towards the creepy, slow, coldly logical sort of sci-fi myself.) Thanks for the link!
#253 Albatrocycle:
We just hope you don't apply that kind of logic when designing aircraft engines or something similarly critical.
Sorry, but I'm sick of being "civil" meaning, to fundies, being meek and submissive and nodding and agreeing with them. To these people saying, "No, that's not right" in however a pleasant a tone is "angry" and "militant." Just the other day, I had a theist learn I was an atheist and this was his opening remark: "Oh, so you're one of those In-Te-Lec-chuls who thinks she's too smart to believe in God."
Excuse me?
Surely it's obvious how incredibly rude, presumptuous and arrogant that was, but it is, unfortunately all too typical. When I responded that I found ut rude, presumptuous and arrogant to conclude any kind of motives from my statement, he had the nerve to say I was being hypersensitive and "a typical militant atheist." I'm the one who was attacked--I said nothing about his beliefs, but I'm the one who is being "militant."
A disgusting number of fundies aren't interested in a friendly exchange of ideas, much less civility with us; they want our submission and prostration at their feet while we grovel, "Oh thank you for showing me the error of my ways, oh wise and all-knowing one!"
I keep saying that I'll believe atheists are closer to at least a degree of overall tolerance in America when the phrase "militant atheist" becomes the equivalent of "uppity negro," and that "angry" used to describe atheists is the equivalent of saying "shiftless" about an African-American. Because they're said for the same reasons: hatred, intolerance and to demean the "other," rather than dealing with them in a fair, rational manner.
Torbjörn Larsson
One of the who?
amk
GMBM = Good Math, Bad Math, another ScienceBlog by Mark Chu-Carrol. He recently started blogging on stats basics, and there was some frequentist vs. bayesian 'discussions'. I can't see any posts in by the name amk in the four most recent posts with bayesian relevancy, so it's understandable why you might have been confused.
good read, thanks for sharing.
To Tully Bascomb and slang
I was expecting some civilised, intilleigent discussion here but all I'm getting is unintelligent personal attacks. I am disappointed.
Why am I not surprised that apologists for creationists and religion have such difficulty spelling "intelligent"?
The Rapture Monkeys hope fervently that god shows up real soon and destroys the earth and all 6.7 billion people. The rest of the biosphere will be merely minor collateral damage.
How much more vicious can you get? I suppose hoping god destroys the whole universe would count, 50 billion galaxies and whoever else is out there. But Death Cultists aren't real big on science and probably get hazy about the size of the universe once they get beyond the orbit of the sun around the earth.
To make things worse, some of them have started early. Violence is never far below the surface with Death Cultist fanatics and they pick off a few people or a few dozen here and there, MDs, the occasional biologist, each other, university students.
sorry to point this out, but you've done little to initiate any sort of discussion. if i remember, your first post in this thread was:
...which has been thoroughly dealt with (not for the first time) in this thread. not only that, your point is a horribly naive and poorly-thought out thing to raise in the first place. if you genuinely want intelligent discussion, raise a real issue in an appropriate thread, and you will get answers to it. post something stupid and people will be rude to you. no-one's obliged to be nice to you, so earn it.
And now I somehow became a religion apologist and creationist. Interesting.
What I originally meant to say was that "I don't believe god exists" or "I have no belief in god" are in themselves statements of opinion. Serious science has better things to do than proving or debunking the existence of god which is a purely philosophical concept. That's why I consider both theism and atheism personal beliefs. In some of the initial posts I saw people arguing "I don't believe in god." is radically different from "I believe there is no god." Well, it's not. There are just two different ways of expressing the same atheist worldview. The key word here is "worldview" - opinion, belief. Skepticism is also a worldview, an attitude, a choice to believe a given phenomenon is only credible if thoroughly substantiated. I see this argument as theists on one side yelling "You guys believe there is no god." and atheists on the other side: "No, we don't believe in god." But they really mean the same thing, and are getting all wrapped up in pointless talk. It's like "is the glass half full or half empty" sort of thing.
So that's what I have to say. You can agree with me or not. Please note I was not the one who started all the name-calling. I did not read all the posts on this topic and I did not intend to adress all of them. If you feel like you are repeating yourself, then don't.
While I wouldn't have said what Albatrocycle did in his initial post, I still think that it shows that we get sucked into debating the non-essential issues. If someone want's to compartmentalize his/her religious views but the still support science, I think it's silly to pick fights with them.
Yes I know that makes me sound like an apologist but I think we should focus on the essentials (good science). Do I think many of them are wrong, yea. Does it further the fight for good science to alienate them, no. And as far as picking on poor spelling, I'm as guilty as anyone. Bad PZ.
@#255 Owlmirror --
Just finished it -- thank you so much for the rec, it's great. The story is actually is eerily similar (in emotional content, not plot) to my conversion experience...except without the subsequent deconversion.
Albatrocycle babbled,
Just because you can't see the difference, doesn't mean that there is no difference.
It's more like "I don't like beer/I don't drink." Similar subject, different meaning.
It probably wouldn't matter to most of us, were it not for the reason godbots make this argument. They are trying to make out that atheism and religion are equally reasonable. They are not. Let me say this to you one more time: Religion requires faith, atheism does not.
Before you start arguing that atheism requires faith, blah, blah..., I am using the word faith here in the religious sense, i.e., believing in things without, or contrary to, evidence.
The reason why people treat posters like yourself rudely here is that you are making an argument that has been debunked a million times, without adding anything new to the conversation.
Albatrocycle (Comment #265):
Strictly speaking, whether or not the existence of God is a "purely philosophical" concept depends on the particular characterisation of God in question. If the characterisation has testable consequences, then science can, in principle, have something to say about the matter. In practice, of course, the proposition "God exists" tends to have few if any testable consequences, because theists tend to use the term "God" in a somewhat vague and shifting manner, and make strenuous efforts to avoid saying anything about their deity which would open up the question to empirical analysis (not to mention inventing all manner of ad hoc excuses when experience and observation fail to match their expectations).
So if the existence of God is a "purely philosophical" concept (i.e., not amenable to analysis by the scientific method), then this is something to be found out by examining the concept of God in question, not something to be declared by fiat.
Furthermore, if the existence of God is a "purely philosophical" concept (and I agree that for the most part it is, for the reasons given above), then it does not follow that it is a matter of personal belief. What follows is that the existence of God is a question to be addressed using the tools and techniques of philosophy.
For instance, one might analyse the concept of God to see if it is internally consistent. Thus, if the God under discussion is conceived of as being both timeless and an intelligent agent, then one can point out that agency presupposes the passage of time, and so such a concept of God is self-contradictory. In which case, one can legitimately say that it is not the case that such a God exists.
More generally, one can examine the claims of theism from a purely philosophical standpoint and still be able to offer reasons for rejecting them, based on rational, public criteria.
I get quite tired of this "personal belief" crap, because I think it conflates two different meanings of the term. There are beliefs that are personal in the way that they are held (i.e., the holder does not consider it necessary to persuade others of the truth of the belief), and then there are beliefs such that the propositions expressed in the belief are not amenable to evaluation by way of public criteria (it's not easy to think of a philosophically uncontroversial example, but incorrigible private beliefs such as the belief that one is in pain might serve as an illustration). In the first case, the personal nature of the belief is contingent upon the believer's attitudes, in the second case, the personal nature of the belief is inherent, and follows from the content of the belief.
Just because a belief is personal in the first sense does not mean that it is personal in the second sense. Which is why calling both theism and atheism "personal beliefs" is unhelpful and misleading. It's understandable as a rhetorical device for keeping the peace between believers and non-believers, but it's ultimately a dishonest one, since it glosses over real, substantive issues.
You want faith? I have faith that god is a man made concept.
The archived audio for this show is now available:
http://www.kkmslive.com/MP3/17052308-AugustBerkshire.MP3
I'm glad it worked for you.
If you liked that, I think you might like his other works as well, although I don't think anything is quite as intense as that piece. Well, there is one which is nearly as intense: "Story of Your Life".
His other stories are similarly quiet and introspective, though. It's a bit hard to describe them, other than "generally deeply nerdy". They do not include God; indeed, God is absent from all of his other stories, even though some have a sort of superficially quasi-religious premise.
There's interesting discussion of "Hell is the Absence of God" out there on the web; this page collects links to most of them:
http://www.nicholaswhyte.info/sf/hell.htm
FWIW, catching up on old threads:
@ inkadu:
I agree that these terms are ambiguous. That was rather my motivation here.
@ amk, mds:
I'm sorry about the confusion. I should have checked, but there was someone with very much the same arguments over there.
So I'm a bit sorry that my question wasn't addressed. Oh well, there is always next time - these topics comes up regularly.