Not unless you give me odds.

Don't sweat it. It's good they think you're dangerous. That means they fear you. It's the flop sweat of academe.

Okay, I'll admit it. The Cubs thing is me. I also caused the death of Mike Royko.

No, the Invisible Pink Unicorn causes all those things.

This study came from England... should we then assume that arrogant academic BS causes bad dentistry?

I also get a kick out of the fact that a bunch of jerks who come from nations that mostly were monarchic or flat-out didn't exist in 1820 refer to US as a "developing democracy". Can we then assume that faked propaganda 'studies' cause historical ignorance?

All your diety are belong to us.

Study's flawed. In Europe, opium is the religion of the masses.

Steve Sailer gives this a good rip over on his site.

How about this....

EVERY FUCKING RELIGION STAYS OUT OF EVERY FUCKING OTHER RELIGION's BELIEFS?

How about this?

HOW ABOUT EVERY FUCKING RELIGION STOP PREACHING TO EVERYONE THAT DOESN"T WANT TO LISTEN TO THEIR PREACHING.

After all, for you Christians out there, does God say its ok for you to judge someone and condemn or force feed your religion down their damn throat or tell them that their religion is bad?

Under GoD? Doesn't the bible teach you that you don't throw stones? Doesn't god teach you that you don't promote war? Didn't God teach you that it was his right to reserve judgement and punishment, Not ours?

I mean. IF you are going to claim to be christians or go to church at least read your fucking bible so you better understand what Jesus taught you.

Anyone who supports wars cannot honestly claim to be a damn christian.

Hell, I stopped believing in the stories themselves of the Bible yet I understand the meaning and teachings behind them.

I'm tired of blind ignorance or complete misrepresentation and interpretations of the true teachings of Jesus. And I don't even believe in the story of Jesus himself.

After all, for you Christians out there, does God say its ok for you to judge someone and condemn or force feed your religion down their damn throat or tell them that their religion is bad?

The problem is that radical Islamists believe that Allah says "it's OK for you to judge someone and condemn or force feed your religion down their damn throat or tell them that their religion is bad."

What is hypocrisy for Christianity is sanctioned for radical Islam.

AlanB:
Thanks for proving once again that fundamentalist athiesm is the most self-centered and bigoted of the major religons.

I guess when Christianity does it they are no different than the Radical Islamics are they?

After all, for you Christians out there, does God say its ok for you to judge someone and condemn or force feed your religion down their damn throat or tell them that their religion is bad?

You mean the way islam was spread? I haven't seen any good christian snuff films recently, but you can find a bunch of islamist ones without much effort.

Actually,

I believe that humanity itself would be pointless if we were going to be saved by some supreme entity. I believe that we were put here to decide our fate in this Universe.

The judgement of our fate is based upon the outcome of our decisions.

So. I'm not going to say God isn't real. I honestly believe that we cannot ignore the fact that we can no more say God isn't real as we can say God is real.

But. True freedom of choice is that to determine your own paths through your existance instead of someone dictating to you your paths.

To me, the Bible, if used as a beneficial tool to help people and families is a beautiful book. The teachings that reside in it provide many foundations to build a strong and healthy family off of.

Unfortunately, it is a tool meant to control and abuse people. It threatens you that your God who "loves you all" will cast you into hell to burn forever because you are "human" and you are "flawed". This is a control mechanism that instead of promoting the idea of choice it says that if you use your freedom of choice then you suffer the consequences. So if you wish to exercise your choice of choosing your own path and destiny then you burn for it: even if it is one of benevolent nature.

I'm not here to disprove the Bible though I have strong cases as to why I do not believe in it beyond being a series of stories. I do believe in the fundamental teachings that it provides including the golden rule that you should do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

atheist: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

To put that comment into perspective. I believe, through knowledge, one obtains higher levels of thinking and increased capabilities.

I believe that there are beings who have increased their knowledge and understanding and thus have become godlike in nature, from our perspective.

So. The question I ask myself is do we worship these beings? To me, the answer is clear and simple, NO.

Any true being of pure intent and heart would never exercise their knowledge and power to suppress and control those with lesser knowledge.

I won't pretend that I know the answer to everything but I do know that all intelligent beings who can comprehend it should follow it: common law.

Similiar to the golden rule, it states, everyone has the right to exercise their free will as long as it doesn't control or harm another.

So

Bigot:

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

So Christianity isn't?

Self-Centered:

I believe that people should be able to have their own choice and exersize their free will as long they don't harm others. That is an extremely self-centered point of view?

exercise*

"You mean the way islam was spread? I haven't seen any good christian snuff films recently, but you can find a bunch of islamist ones without much effort." - some annonymous

And Christian established churches never had problems with child molestors.

Christian established organizations never had someone who tried to put a hit out on another person.

Who knows what has happened that we don't know about.

Unfortunately, every religion has its bad apples. To simply point to one and say "Look, here is proof they are bad!" when in turn your own religion has those who do hideous crimes as well makes you no more than a hypocrit.

Here is another one for you:

Christian establishments never had millions of people burned because they proclaimed them to be witches and witches where *bad*?

Christian establishments never caused massive wars? Never ruled over societies that, under their control, were ruthless and bloody?

Alanb, what a hypocrite you are.

You ask people to stay out of others religious beliefs, then you dive right in to people's religious beliefs, telling Christians how they should believe.

You then say everyone should stop preaching to those who don't want to hear it. Who wants to hear your lectures on religious that are based totally on blind ignorance and misrepresentation. You don't know what you are talking about at all, and you are a hypocrite.

Atheists are the most narrow minded bigots around.

"Alanb, what a hypocrite you are.
You ask people to stay out of others religious beliefs, then you dive right in to people's religious beliefs, telling Christians how they should believe.
You then say everyone should stop preaching to those who don't want to hear it. Who wants to hear your lectures on religious that are based totally on blind ignorance and misrepresentation. You don't know what you are talking about at all, and you are a hypocrite.
Atheists are the most narrow minded bigots around." - Village Idiot
"But. True freedom of choice is that to determine your own paths through your existance instead of someone dictating to you your paths." - me
Is that true or false?
I'm telling you how you should believe? I told you how I believe. Where, in everything that I've wrote, did I say that being a Christian is wrong? I merely pointed to the fact of why I don't believe in christianity. In all honesty, I think someone who remains true to the Bible's teachings who are a true Christian, in accordance to Christian teachings in the Bible, are great and kind people who have deserve my respect.
"Atheists are the most narrow minded bigots around." - Village Idiot
I especially love this comment. And although it can be true at times it also can be false other times. In essense, the same could be true for alot of people in all religions. You cannot point to another group of people who have those amongst them that are narrow minded bigots without first looking at your own religion and question those in it that are equally narrow minded bigots.
And actually, I believe in knowledge and open mindedness. I believe in questioning religions and beliefs, including my own, and trying to find the true answers in life. To me, that is being open minded, instead of simply settling on a religion because it tells me to simply be faithful to it and believe it because it says so in a book.

Now wait a sec -- I've got plenty of atheists for friends, and only some are assholes (and usually it has nothing to do with their atheism). It's like vegetarianism -- my husband is a strict vegetarian, but he doesn't try to convert people (and he cooks my steaks)... but all people think about is PETA and their juvenile campaigns when you mention vegetarians.

Just like every ideological group, those who most loudly proclaim their membership to it are the most intolerant and annoying about it. Well, it's nice to know that you share that human trait.

Get. Your. Own. Blog.

Meep,

If you knew me IRL you'd know I'm one of the farthest people away from being an asshole.

What I posted is in terms of my beliefs are only the tip of the iceberg. I could go deeper into them but then it goes into the realms of *preaching* of those beliefs.

If anyone wants to know what I believe beyond the mere idea presented here they can ask. If they do not they do not have to ask.

AlanB, this is real life, and you are an asshole. You just took a giant dump or three in the middle of somebody else's nice comments section. You seem completely incapable of making points instead of speeches.

To everyone else: on behalf of fundamentalist atheists, we'll claim this guy, but only because you guys have to claim Pat Robertson. Fair's fair.

I apologize to anyone that feels I came off as an asshole.

Sorry, Weasel. I'm a Catholic. I don't HAVE to claim Pat Robertson. By my standards, he falls somewhere between snake handlers and Satanists.
Cardinal Law now, maybe. But even he was the amoral, irresponsible type of asshole and not the loudmouthed and pig-ignorant type of asshole, so I'll say that ol' Alan is all yours. Get him spayed before he has a litter, will you?
(And anyway, Pat's brain is past its sell-by date these days and I don't think even HE is responsible for the stuff that comes out of his mouth. )
Alan, thanks for making the case for religous faith so cogently.

After all, for you Christians out there, does God say its ok for you to judge someone and condemn or force feed your religion down their damn throat or tell them that their religion is bad?

Yep. Read, oh, pretty much any book of the Old Testament. Not much of a one for political correctness, is God.

Though I'm not a Christian myself. Reform Cthulhism is what it's all about. (We get to be eaten last.)

I'll claim Pat Robertson over this AlanB guy any day. He's far less childish.

'Unfortunately, it is a tool meant to control and abuse people. It threatens you that your God who "loves you all" will cast you into hell to burn forever because you are "human" and you are "flawed".'
I think this is funny coming from a guy who, a few posts earlier, told us we should go back and reread our Bible because we weren't getting it.
Get a livejournal; don't even soil blogspot with this.

How about this....

EVERY FUCKING RELIGION STAYS OUT OF EVERY FUCKING OTHER RELIGION's BELIEFS?

How about this?

HOW ABOUT EVERY FUCKING RELIGION STOP PREACHING TO EVERYONE THAT DOESN"T WANT TO LISTEN TO THEIR PREACHING.

Funniest g*ddamn thing I've seen on this blog this week. This cretin makes Ardolino look like the Dalai Lama, doesn't he?

Gregory Paul, author of the study, has a huge anti-religion agenda. From a review of one of his books:

"Author Gregory S. Paul has sifted through historical evidence largely available only in scholarly works to write an analysis which demolishes the widespread myth that the Nazi party and its leaders were secularist, and that Germany's Christian institutions were naive or unwilling participants in the Third Reich's rise to power.

"Nazism is often popularly understood as an atheistic regime that forced the defenseless and naive Christian churches of Germany to accept its authority, punishing theologians and other dissenters who criticized its immoral agenda. Greg Paul lays out the hard evidence that belies such beliefs."

Get it? The Nazis dug JC (contrary to the historical consensus), and the Christers just loved, loved, loved the Nazis.

Back to his latest "scientific" research: the real shocker would have been a study authored by Mr Paul that reached some conclusion other than "religion is bad." I don't have a religious bone in my body, but I suspect that Mr Paul's latest study is horse shit.

"After all, for you Christians out there, does God say its ok for you to judge someone and condemn or force feed your religion down their damn throat or tell them that their religion is bad?"

I apologize for the Christians who force fed you religion and then told you your religion is bad. As Christians we are obligated to share the Gospel in a simple, straight forward, and polite manner. What you do with that information is then between you and God.

I could go deeper into them but then it goes into the realms of *preaching* of those beliefs.

no need Alanb - the rants stand on their own.

Let me see if I can summarize Alan's argument thus far:

IT'S BAD TO PREACH AT PEOPLE.

UNLESS, OF COURSE, YOU'RE ME.

AlanB == obvious dipshit. Long winded, too, considering he didn't have anything new or interesting to say. There, got that out of the way.

As for the study, what bothers me the most is that this will be treated like science. "It's a study. It's published in a journal. It's facts!" Not one question will ever be asked of the study's validity. Reporters will find the most fundamental of the fundamentalists, through this study in their face and demand they refute it. (This is what passes for journalism today. Undoubtably they will get a quote from Pat Robertson that sounds ridiculous, because Pat Robertson is Christian, therefore he speaks for all Christians.)

Well, no, it's not facts. Just a quick glance over the summary hints at major fallacies. Just because something is published in Science doesn't make it science, or fact, or anything else other than an article. You hope that the logic and the lab equipment were checked, verified, repeated and burnished with the Truth polish, but deep down you know that the real purpose of the study was to tell red-staters that Jesus was a myth because it made the scientists feel better about their own prejudices.

This is the grand result of the many years of science education in the public schools--the facts are what somebody in authority tell you they are. Science is whatever scientists say it is. Q.E.D.

Considering the accusations of atheists like AlanB, it seems like the religionbots are less lemminglike than their opposites. "Carl Sagan said it's true, it must be true."

This same guy has an old post somewhere where he thinks that inventors shouldn't profit. They should just give their ideas away to humanity.

= no inventors, of course.

Just like if you expect farmers to just give away their crops because people need food, that = no farmers.

This AlanB guy is living in a dreamworld.
And I do resent people who are athiests out of some reactionary hostility against religious people. Its intellectually dishonest.
I'm an athiest because I have no faith. Period. Has nothing to do with other people.

Back on topic, there was a study a couple of years ago that "proved" conservatism was a form of mental illness.

Jonah Goldberg, IIRC, tore it into small origami shaped study pieces. Tore it like a Viking!

AlanB.: If you want to convince anyone please don't shout at us and please don't treat us as abject morons. I know I resent that, and I immediately dismiss the argument being presented. When it comes down to persuasion you really bombed out. I just ignored whatever you wrote.

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

The study in question.

lots of mood swings too, in addition to the long-winded ranting, weren't there?

I blame Bush.

Oh, those tornados? That was me.

Sorry.

I had nothing to do with the Cubs though.

AlanB: Read the Bible and have somebody explain it to you, because you obviously have no idea what it actually says. You've picked up on a couple of talking points based on single lines without looking at the context in which they were written. God doesn't tell us that we can't have judgement, in fact, it's the exact opposite. It also tells us to tell people about Jesus. If we don't then we're disobeying God.

What it doesn't say is force others to convert. Nobody can become a Christian unless they willingly accept Christ as their personal saviors. That's not something that works with a gun to the head.

Once someone goes off on a cursed laced anti religious bigoted rant, they have lost all credibility to me. I can have a discussion with anyone with any kind of belief, but when one proves themselves to be a bigot and unable to express thought without crude language right out of the gate, then why read anything else they have to say?

Which is why I didn't.

Nobody can become a Christian unless they willingly accept Christ as their personal saviors.

There's some disagreement on even that point among Christians--see the doctrines of predestination and unconditional election.

rho: Two doctrines I don't agree with, but I'm not declaring a jihad over it.

After all, for you Christians out there, does God say its ok for you to judge someone and condemn or force feed your religion down their damn throat or tell them that their religion is bad?

Well, take out the uncessessary invective, and YES, Christ does command that. We are told that no-one may come to the Father but through Him, the prophets all spoke incredibly harshly of Baalim and other Caanite worshipers. In fact, Israel was command by God to exterminate them, and much of the woe of this world is because rather than obeying Jehovah-God, Irael instead worshipped those gods at various times.

We all told that all have sinned an come short of the Glory of God, and therefore are worthy (condemned) to hell if we don't repent and accept Jesus.

Further, we are commanded to preach the Gospel. Now, we cannot forcibly convert people, but we are in fact supposed to make sure that all a nations have heard the word, and there is no exemption given to Communist, Islamix countries.

And on topic of the study, it is odd that recently we have heard in other reports how dangerous England and Scotland are, at least as far as assualt, muggings, robbery et al. Wonder how they decided that the US really was a more dangerous place to live than the UK?

dbs: Isn't it interesting that Christianity has such wide ranging internal debates, while so many atheists simply say "Godbots are st00pid".

We don't have to agree on every doctrine, but we agree on larger frameworks, and can therefore live in peace. I wonder, though, how it is that atheists can peacably live with people who believe in an invisible Sky-Daddy. Me, I'm not sure I could live well with so many absolute lunatics.

I'm not sure I take your point, rho, unless you think modern Christians are huddling together for warmth. The infighting among co-religionists of different sects is historically nasty, probably for the same reason civil wars are nasty -- it's family.

I live in Rhode Island, a state founded by a man who was kicked out by the Puritans for being a religous nut. That took some doing.

I'm an atheist and I don't feel I have any obligation to claim Alan, or even allow him to use the clubhouse. I do not expect the Catholics to claim all of the sexual deviants in that church nor do I expect the fundamentalists to claim Robertson and Falwell.

I respect all religions and all people as individuals. You can't categorize all people of similar faiths because of what one or two idiots say or do. I certainly would not want Alan to be representative of all Atheists, especially me.

Religion is between the individual and his/her God.

Rhode Island and the Providence Plantations, to use the full name.

Yeah, I kick ass in Trivial Pursuit.

and I got the kung fu grip, too!

Weasel: Point taken. I was speaking to modern Christianity as I know it, which is to say largely American. Since we are free of a State-sponsored religious sect we tend to have a great deal of independence in religious thought.

Historically, disputes between religious sects could be quite nasty, but since these conflicts were also intertwined with political issues, I'm not sure it's fair to lay the blame at the feet of secterianism. Spanish Catholicism invades British Protestantism--is the religion the reason, or simply the excuse?

Re: AlanB again, I can at least see where he's coming from. He doesn't believe in God, and thinks people who do are crazy. This is a consistent set of beliefs. He's still a dipshit, but that's separate from his religious beliefs. Hitchens is atheistic (I believe), but he's not a dipshit.

However, I do wonder about atheists who do not find theists to be crazy. These two beliefs do not jibe. Either they're inconsistent, or they're not really atheists. (Apatheists, maybe?)

Uh, that's because many of us used to believe. I know what it is. I understand its nature, and I don't have any animus toward believers. They aren't crazy. I think that a belief in a higher power is hard wired in humanity to some extent.

The Greeks and Romans believed in their Gods just as fervently as any Christian or Hindu believes in theirs. I don't think the Greeks or Romans were crazy. Do you?

I dunno, rho. Ask the Mormons. I'm not sure what the political point of kicking them around would've been.

It's easy to grow up to believe what you were taught to believe as a child. Information learned early sinks very deep and stays there. I don't question the sanity of people who follow the faith of their fathers, though I often wonder how they explain to themselves some of the stranger bits of whatever that religion might be (and they all have strange bits). I won't insult anyone here by speculating that they haven't thought it all through, but I do wonder.

I'm inclined to doubt the sanity of someone who chooses in adulthood a radically different religion from the one learned in childhood. He doesn't have the same excuse for believing new preposterous things.

And, as lauraw pointed out, some of it is hard-wired. Human beings are master pattern-finders, and it's almost impossible to go through life without feeling the presence of destiny or fate or mind-blowing coincidence. The rationalist will tell you that true coincidence is not rare, but the human heart has a hard time buying it. Plus, it's almost unbearably scary to live with the idea that there isn't a Dad waiting in the sky, you will never seen grandma again and you and everyone you love are pieces of clever but highly perishable meat.

They--the Romans and Greeks, but also Christians and Muslims today--believe[d] in the supernatural. Atheists do not. These are diametric points of view, upon which a great deal of your opinion of the world around you is based. If you are a naturalist, then there is an explaination for everything based in nature. Supernatural, by definition, cannot be explained by natural means.

I do not find a person who believes that a rabbit's foot brings them luck to be crazy--they're wrong about the source of the supernatural, but they do accept that some things just seem to defy explaination.

Atheists who once believed but now do not, I'm not sure how to explain that. If you once believed, but now do not, you could once again believe in the supernatural just as easily. Is that even atheism? Just sounds like doubt to me.

Quoth rho:

However, I do wonder about atheists who do not find theists to be crazy. These two beliefs do not jibe. Either they're inconsistent, or they're not really atheists. (Apatheists, maybe?)

The two beliefs jibe just fine. I am an atheist, and in my life I know many theists, such as practicing Catholics including preists and nuns, as well as practicing theists of many other persuasions. I'm even married to a practicing theist. Maybe some of them are crazy, but not on account of their theism. They just look at the evidence before them, and in their hearts, and reach a different conclusion than I do. No big deal. People who disagree with me are not crazy; to think that would be narcissistic.

St Augustine of Hippo, for example, was a theist, but was also one of the wisest and most learned men in history and surely not crazy. Even atheists have something to learn from his writings.

Ditto for Karol Wojtyla (JP II). A great man, profoundly and postively influential in the 20th century, who taught a message of bravery, compassion, love, and respect for life. You may disagree with him for many reasons. But I wouldn't consider him "crazy" just because he is a theist and I am not.

It's like this: you might read a book and believe its conclusion means one thing; I might read the same book and believe it conveys a different, even contradictory, conclusion. That doesn't necessary mean that we should each believe the other to be insane. In this case the book is the Universe and our experiences in it. The conclusions are theism and atheism. The point is, we're both just looking for answers.

At least, that's MY position on atheism vs. theism. Obviously OTHERS in this thread take a more argumentative view...

Let's see. Popular acceptance of religious life really started going south in the 50's. Religious people started being ridiculed, then scorned (over a period of time), to the point where any mention of religious belief was avoided simply because offense would be taken by those enlightened enough not to be preached at (mentioning religious belief is preaching!?).

Of course, since the 50's, crime rates have soared, pregnancy out of wedlock has soared, divorce rates have soared, drug use is uncontrolled, etc., etc., etc.

How could anyone be so stupid as to think there might be SOME correlation between these social phenomena?

AlanB is free to worship himself as he wishes. I prefer a Being greater than myself to worship, for I know my own foibles, and those of other humans I know.

HEY, I LIKE ALAN B.

HE AND I HANG OUT TOGETHER ALL THE TIME.

I don't know that atheists can't believe in any sort of supernatural. It's a deity they reject. You could be an atheist who believed in fairies. Being a non-belief, atheism is hardly a cohesive set of principles.

I'm assuming that you, like me, are a lapsed believer in Santa Claus, rho. I'll further assume that, like me, you ceased to believe all by yourself when you realized it didn't make a lick of sense. What're the chances you'll ever return to Santa Clausism? That's the likelihood I'll ever again be a Christian.

I'm assuming that you, like me, are a lapsed believer in Santa Claus, rho. I'll further assume that, like me, you ceased to believe all by yourself when you realized it didn't make a lick of sense.

What are you saying?

No Santa Claus?

Quit foolin'

Mark: You're missing the point, I think. Theists don't have to believe anybody to be crazy. This isn't a two-way street. IMO, an atheist--meaning a person who does not believe in the supernatural--must find theists--meaning people who do believe in the supernatural--to be mentally unbalanced. Otherwise they're hypocritical. You can believe in the supernatural and believe in the natural; but you cannot believe in the natural and disbelieve the supernatural and accept that there's not something wrong with the former group.

Otherwise, if you don't find theists to be crazy, I question whether you're really atheistic. Perhaps agnostic--though I dislike the word--or perhaps areligious (if that's even a word).

I think the problem here is the word "crazy". It has too many negative connotations. I'd use another word but I can't think of a better one. I don't mean to imply that atheists should want to lock up theists in the nuthatch.

Double post for Weasel: I'd dispute your assertion that theism, in particular Christianity, does not make a lick a sense, and therefore your analogy is fatally flawed.

IMHO, the best approach in matters of faith is to accord the other parties with a respect derived from the acknoledgement that they may be right. Atheists may be right, Christians may be right, Mormons may be right, Buddhists may be right, etc. The humility of accepting the frailty of your own position, combined with the respect accorded others, would go a long way toward harmonizing the relationships among adherents of various belief systems.

This respect would also hopefully eliminate the smug attitude of the secular elite, who tolerate (barely) believers with the attitude: "I'll let him have his moronic religious pacifier, but only because it's an archaic guaranteed right under the Consititution, and because I'm so generous and enlightened."

In matters of faith, one can never definitively say who is wrong and who is right(unless, of course, they're advocating violence or intolerance). Christian Scientists, for example, may be right that seeking modern medical treatment is thwarting God's will. Claiming that they're wrong stems from a completely unjustified sense of superiority.

So, you think athiests are mentally unbalanced?

I think the problem here is the word "crazy".

Perhaps the old standby - 'irrational.'

I don't think the Greeks or Romans were crazy. Do you?

YES they were batsh*t crazy motherf***ers. Obviously you never had to scrap with them.

But, geoff, the notion that all the options are on the table and any one of them might turn out to be right is itself a faith. Let's call it Unitarianism, for lack of a better word. The central tenet seems to be "it's okay to have a religion as long as you don't really believe it." A Christian or Hindu would be quite right to reject this utterly.

Geoff, a true Christian does not believe that Hindus 'might be right.' If he did, he wouldn't be a Christian.

The central tenet seems to be "it's okay to have a religion as long as you don't really believe it."

That's not really what I'm saying - more like "I believe in my religion, but I'm willing to accept the challenge to my faith that other religions represent, and I'm willing to acknowledge that their faith may represent."

Kind of like saying: "My team's going to the Super Bowl!" when you know that a number of other teams have a decent shot. It doesn't undermine your faith in your own team, but you recognize that other teams have a legitimate shot.

Otherwise, if you don't find theists to be crazy, I question whether you're really atheistic.

Question away, though I think you'll find the answers unsatisfying; you already have formed your conclusion, and are merely in the process of clothing it with your 'inquiries.'

Geoff, I'm guessing it's not just the atheists who are going to find that approach to faith downright bizarre.

AlanB seems to think that Christians are not supposed to 'judge' other religions.

While I am an agnostic (worst. religious. position. ever.), doesn't the main holy book of the Christians have that list of Ten Important Rules?

Maybe it is in the second half where the christians become sweet and nice, but I do recall that one of those Rules is that no one is supposed to worship any other god except the Big Christian One (errr, except maybe the other parts of the trinity unless those three, The Big Guy, his Son, and the ever-fun holy Ghost are all like the Borgm but nevermind that).

That rule seems like a pretty clear statement that christians need to be able to make the distinction or judgement that their God is a better object of worship than the others.

This&That

Geoff, I'm guessing it's not just the atheists who are going to find that approach to faith downright bizarre.

Well, S., it's a tool I use as a secular humanist to remind myself that alternate views are as legitimate as my own. So here's one atheist who's pretty comfortable with it.

You Darwinists slay me. Hey, explain the skunk. Those guys have no reason to exist, no purpose, and no real natural enemies until the automobile. And why are they so damn cute? And what's with those stripes? Wouldn't those stripes make them look more like a painted highway divider? What kind of camo is that? "Think I'll hide in the middle of the road."

Sure, guys.

"Being a non-belief, atheism is hardly a cohesive set of principles."

This is flat out wrong, unless you've become the first person in history to *prove* God doesn't exist. Atheism is as much a belief system as any religion, the difference being, of course, that one of those tenets of the atheistic faith is there is no God.

Okay, brew, I'll bite. The only tenet I know about is the not believing in a god thing. Could you name one or two of the others for me?

I know one: Skunks just became the cute, stinky, worthless little buggers they are all by themselves. No help from any guiding hand or deity.

Just selected themselves.

Cracks me up just typing it.

A side note to the atheists here; I respect your belief. You've evaluated the evidence presented to you and have made a decision. Some of you need to show this same respect to those who disagree with your conclusions. You have not been given some 'divine' (forgive the expression) knowledge denied the other 90% of humanity.

S,

No 'biting' necessary. I'm not looking for a debate. Forgive my choice of words because my only point was atheism is a belief. This is a fact and really can't be debated either way.

Geoff, a true Christian does not believe that Hindus 'might be right.' If he did, he wouldn't be a Christian.

I separate faith from intellect. Faith in large part involves the surrender of the intellect to a higher power (hence the word 'Islam'). One can intellectually acknowledge the legitimacy of other faiths, allowing that acknowledgement to temper one's interactions and worldview, without undermining one's inner faith.

So, you think athiests are mentally unbalanced?

True atheists? Absolutely - they've removed 1/2 of the solution set from the game for no good reason whatsoever. They've declared it "off limits" because they simply have FAITH that is the way things should be.

Being a scientist/engineer type familiar with Operations Research and Linear/Dynamic programming, I know that solution sets include 3 types of points. Viable, non-viable, and optimal. The only thing that distinguished the viable from the non-viable are the constraints you choose to put on the problem.

The more constraints you apply, the smaller your viable solution set will be.

The atheists can't PROVE that dieties, fairies, gobblins, big foot don't exist, all they can do it stipulate it, the same way believers of such things are willing to stipulate their existence.

The only rational approach -- the one that doesn't require a leap of faith in either direction is agnosticism. When the earth was found to be spherical and there didn't appear to be dragons at the edge, flat-earth agnostics weren't left in an untennable position as the scientific data rolled in because round WAS within the solution set given their more expansive constraint set.

The flat-earth "believers" were shattered and reduced to the fringes of crankery -- yet it was THEY who were the established majority in the past and had "obviously!" on their side.

Purple A: Do you believe in goblins? If not, why not? If so, on what basis?

I believe in goblins.

Geoff, 'one' may, but most won't. When a religion makes it a requirement of their worshippers to convert or control others, your notions of ideological tolerance go right out the window.
The same goes for Athiests (Communists, anyone?)

Brew, belief and faith are two different things.

I believe that the Earth is far older than the Bible says it is, because this has been empirically proven to my satisfaction by the geologic record.

I do not have faith. Faith exists independent of empirical proof, in fact it either resists or explains away any contrary evidence within the framework of the particular faith.

If better evidence is discovered that irrevocably alters our understanding of the true age of the Earth, I will not cling to my prior belief or say that there is a supernatural explanation for the conflicting evidence.

Purple A: Do you believe in goblins? If not, why not? If so, on what basis?

I think most atheists, at least the ones who aren't annoying as hell, have the same level of confidence in the lack of the existence of God as they in the lack of the existence of goblins.

I also think that most atheists, at least the ones who aren't annoying as hell, accord God believers (Christians, etc.) more respect for their beliefs (i.e., they don't ascribe mental illness to such beliefs) than they go goblins believers (with the exception of Slublog, who's mentally aces). I don't always see that respect reciprocated, but it usually is.

Purple Avenger, it is true that no one can prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist. Of course, I can't prove that He DOES exist, either.

Therefore, let us all believe in Him. Let him touch us with His Noodly Appendage.

That's the difference between the natural and the supernatural. When something exists in the natural world, the odds of proving it DOES exist somehow go up dramatically. In the supernatural sphere, not so much.

Brew, belief and faith are two different things.

Granted. However, when it comes to atheism, which can't be proven empirically, if you say "I don't believe God exists", you are taking a position that requires faith to believe. If there was no evidence to support God's existence then your belief might not require faith, but I think you'd agree there is evidence (notwithstanding the fact you might honestly reject that evidence). Sorry if I mixed and matched those two ideas.

Spongeworthy

Upon Skunks: The great horned owl (which lacks a sense of smell) loves to eat skunks. Ditto for feral dogs.

Probably should google a bit before one starts to mock. 8^)

One link:

"Great horned owls eat a wide variety of prey, both small and large. Cottontail rabbits seem to be a prominent food, but the owls will take squirrels, shrews, jackrabbits, muskrats, mice, weasels, skunks, pocket gophers, snakes, domestic cats, bats, beetles, scorpions, frogs, grasshoppers, and a wide variety of birds, from small passerines like juncos and sparrows to wild ducks, grouse, pheasants, and even other owls. It seems that the world is one big smorgasbord to a great horned owl."

This&That
PS:On the other hand I ate crow recently after citing the Pepper Moth as an example of quick evolution.....sigh......

I am utterly confident that goblins do not exist. By your logic, BrewFan, that is an expression of faith on my part.

"That's the difference between the natural and the supernatural"

Do you believe something considered 'supernatural' today could be considered 'natural' tomorrow?

Some of you [athiests] need to show this same respect to those who disagree with your conclusions.

Uhh...I try to. It gets a little annoying when people put words in my mouth (athiests have to think theists are crazy because I say so), or tell me that I am a secret believer.

I would be shocked if the existence of goblins were proven tomorrow. If, however, someone wants to lay out the proof...

"By your logic, BrewFan, that is an expression of faith on my part."

Not necessarily. It could be a pitiful attempt at humor. But, if you're serious, give me a link to your source/proof that goblins do not exist and I'll concede the point.

I just gave you proof.

Here's more.

BrewFan: do you believe in God and not goblins? Give me a link/source/explanation for such a belief?

All I know is that, as of 1:00 CST today, no one has proven the existence of God or goblins. I am content to describe this as what I "believe."

"It gets a little annoying when people put words in my mouth (athiests have to think theists are crazy because I say so), or tell me that I am a secret believer."

An interesting observation from an anonymous commenter. Certainly nobody here did that. How could we? We don't know who you are.

Slublog: Just clicked your link. Now I know there is no God.

Oh, definitely.

"All I know is that, as of 1:00 CST today, no one has proven the existence of God or goblins. I am content to describe this as what I "believe." "

Well, it took awhile but I'm glad you came around to my point of view!

Oh yeah, the Horned Owl. The skies are dark with those bastards up in Bergen County. Like there aren't enough fluffy bunnies for them to eat, the skunk just had to up and select itself and be all cute and stuff too.

Look, the point is that no one can point to something as wonderful and inexplicable as a skunk when trying to justify his belief in the supernatural. But skunks and other odd creatures are not really convincingly (IMO) explained by Darwinism.

They're just cool and wonderful and a pain in my ass and they speak to me sometimes which has to be God and that's why I can't be an atheist. Seriously, goblinists having nothing like the skunk to point to.

Keep the faith, BrewFan.

ugh. sorry brew that was me. had a customer at the desk and just hurriedly hit send

"Keep the faith, BrewFan."

Thanks. As you might suspect, I do. Everyday. :)

Shoot. Called to a meeting and missed a good atheist dustup. Still, lauraw is articulating my point of view very handily.

I have seen exactly as much physical evidence of god as I have of pixies, which is zero. And, no, I've never understood how the very existence of this huge and wonderful universe is supposed to solve the problem "where did it all come from"? Because if the answer is it came from god, you just have to ask, "okay, then, where did god come from?" You've got the same "there was nothing, then there was something" either way. God isn't an answer, he's a bunch more questions.

Moreover, the organized religions are even less compelling. Religions involve these giant complex god-defining idea structures, some of which just don't make any sense at all.

lauraw:

Geoff, 'one' may, but most won't.

Hence my advocacy.

When a religion makes it a requirement of their worshippers to convert or control others, your notions of ideological tolerance go right out the window.

Yes, I excluded violence and intolerance above.

ugh. sorry brew that was me

Sorry for the snarky response, then. I think we can agree there really does not need to be animosity between believers and atheists because we can all agree that God can't be proven to exist. See? Common ground! Which way we go from there is strictly up to us. Now lets join hands and sing Kumb...er, nevermind. :)

I have seen exactly as much physical evidence of god as I have of pixies, which is zero.

I'm not suprised. Looking for physical evidence to support a metaphysical proposition does seem like a fruitless endeavor.

I have had two very religious people ask me if I believed in God; one was trying to describe some religious ritual to me, she is a West Indian lady. The other was trying to get me to come to her prayer group.

Well I felt compelled to answer truthfully, and both times said, 'No ma'am...' in as neutral and kind a way as possible.

The West Indian lady skipped a beat, then said, "Well, we won't get into that," in her delightful lilt, and continued her story.

The other lady's jaw dropped like I had slapped her, and she just stopped talking to me altogether.

I would never dream of treating a religious person that way!

Say what you will, the misunderstanding flows in both directions.
Except from me. Because I am perfect and good and always have my heart in the right place. AND I'm a compulsive liar!

Slublog: Just clicked your link. Now I know there is no God.

Heh. I prefer to think of it as He just had a bad day.

I'm not suprised. Looking for physical evidence to support a metaphysical proposition does seem like a fruitless endeavor.

A metaphysical proposition that can supposedly part seas and turn water into wine if he feels like it, which is pretty darn physical. That apparently didn't seem like too big an ask several thousand years ago.

"Because I am perfect and good and always have my heart in the right place.."

In my book you are all of those things and more (except the liar part!)

Say what you will, the misunderstanding flows in both directions.

Certainly does. Both sides feel persecuted, leading to rabid attacks on each other.

I had an atheist friend who was completely hung up on the presence of religious symbols in society. We had been debating politics via email, but then he decided to start in on religion. I don't have a dog in that fight, but as an intellectual exercise I accommodated him. By the third exchange he'd gone ad hominem on me, something he'd studiously avoided in the political discussions, even though he knew I didn't really care. We no longer talk.

Because I am perfect and good and always have my heart in the right place.

That's because you're one of AlanB's "beings who have increased their knowledge and understanding and thus have become godlike in nature." Plus being a fair flower of feminity and all.

"A metaphysical proposition that can supposedly part seas and turn water into wine if he feels like it, which is pretty darn physical"

My misunderstanding. I thought you were looking for physical evidence to prove God's existence. It seems you're looking for physical evidence of his interventions into human affairs. That will be hard, no doubt. You've rightly pointed out that God's direct physical interventions appear to have ended several thousand years ago. We do have eyewitness accounts though. Does that help?

Rho, you keep using that word "atheist". I don't think it means what you think it means.

Atheists don't "have to" believe what you say they have to believe. An atheist is simply a person who does not believe that there exists a Theos, a Godhead. Atheism can take many different forms and have many different reasons and conclusions, just as theism can.

Also, you keep telling atheists that they "must" think a certain thing about theists. You insist that atheists "must" believe theists are crazy, or unbalanced, or whatever.

This attitude tells me that you may not be familiar with the history of the various intellectual arguments for and against the existence of God. Great minds have struggled with the question of the Godhead's existence. It is a legitimate question for inquiry. Theists and atheists alike have tried to prove and disprove God.

People who believe one thing DO NOT HAVE TO believe that people who think the opposite are insane.

My misunderstanding. I thought you were looking for physical evidence to prove God's existence. It seems you're looking for physical evidence of his interventions into human affairs.

What's the difference?

Eyewitness accounts? Yeah, I think all the cool religions have those.

That was the most interesting debate I have seen online in many a day.
Good points all around. I tend to think that Purple Avenger had the most logical approach to the whole damn thing.

Of no one can prove God does or does not exist. That's why it requires faith.

Whether one finds the idea of it silly or not, faith is a transforming experience.

"What's the difference?"

I can't state it any better then that. Sorry if you don't understand.

"Eyewitness accounts? Yeah, I think all the cool religions have those."

I agree. I find it interesting, though, that only one of the 'cool religions' has a person who claims to be God as it's leader.

I'd dispute your assertion that theism, in particular Christianity, does not make a lick a sense, and therefore your analogy is fatally flawed.

Well, the St. Paul describes the faith as "foolishness" to this world. But, at a deeper level, I agree with you that Christianity makes way more than a lick of sense to anyone who understands it.

Best thing I ever read on this subject, and a great rejoinder for anyone who thinks Christianity is idiocy, is C.S. Lewis' The Case for Christianity. Just reread it a couple of weeks ago.

Michael,

I don't remember if it's in The Case for Christianity, but I love his proposition that Jesus had to either be a lunatic, a liar, or Lord.

Moronic interjection: "Annals of Crapola" has to be the coolest name here. First you've got "annals", which is so much fun to mispronounce, then you've got "crapola" which has to be one of the funniest words in the English language.

And Dave in TX, I am the queen of trivia. Have YOU Won Ben Stein's Money??? Well??

Jesus had to either be a lunatic, a liar, or Lord.

I remember my Dad (a preacher) telling me this when I was a kid, and I was a pretty impressed with this profound observation of his. Didn't find out until many years later that he had swiped it from Lewis.

You can't really read the NT and come to the conclusion that Jesus was just a wise teacher spouting universal truths. He was something much better or much worse.

For those not familiar with Lewis, BTW, he was an avowed atheist until he fell in with a group of Christians that included Tolkien and converted at the age of 33.

If I never see the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" tossed into a debate as if it were a response to anything meaningful it will be too soon.

Re: proof of God--there's not much in the way of proof such as photos of Yahweh juggling asteroids on the moon. However, we've got 4 thousand-ish years of consistent theology, written down, with the larger points still applicable today. Even though we're about as different from Moses as it's possible to be and not be a different species.

There were prophecies made and fulfilled, multiple witnesses to miracles whose testimony matches pretty well, and sociological evidence that the religion based on this was both beneficial and prolific even though it is ridiculously inclusionary. I suppose you can take the position that the Bible is a pack of lies, but that's simply another assertion.

Believers do not believe in God simply because they are told to without any reason whatsoever. That's a prejudicial position based in an atheist's attitude about faith. People who see God working in their lives believe. People who don't, don't. Back to predestination, scripture teaches that there are sheep and goats, and the goats will remain goats. Paul's "foolishness" differentiates the sheep and the goats--unregenerate Man will not believe no matter the proof or evidence.

(An example: none of the Jews disputed Jesus' miracles, they attacked Him from other tragectories--but remained unconverted. Call it the first case of a MSM lynch job.)

Re: the definition of atheism, I thought I made that clear. I'm using in terms of a person who does not belive in the supernatural.

I agree. I find it interesting, though, that only one of the 'cool religions' has a person who claims to be God as it's leader.

Eh?

And if god exists and never interferes in the lives of men, how is that different from there not being a god at all? Unless we just wake up one day in heaven or hell and that's how we know...but that seems a rather cruel, ungodlike trick, doesn't it?

Eh?

I only raised this point to distinguish Christianity from those 'cool religions' you want to lump it together with.

"And if god exists and never interferes in the lives of men"

I didn't say that. You earlier made reference to miracles performed by God through Moses and later by Jesus. God does not reveal Himself in this manner anymore but he manifests Himself now through His church. If you're not limiting this discussion to those types of physical miracles and your mind is open to a broad discussion of evidence that supports God's existence I'd recommend you read Josh McDowell's Evidence That Demands a Verdict. This book is the direct result of his attempt to disprove Christ's resurrection, which would in turn debunk Christianity.

I only raised this point to distinguish Christianity from those 'cool religions' you want to lump it together with.

All religions that I can think of feature eyewitness testimony of miraculous things (which I, personally, am not going to get to see for some reason). And there are fully three Abrahamic religions which claim to report to the same God, so I'm still unclear on your point.

God does not reveal Himself in this manner anymore but he manifests Himself now through His church.

Doesn't that strike you as a bit of a bait and switch? "No, sorry, we don't do demonstrations any more. But we have these written testimonials from other satisfied customers..." Surely, a thousand years is but a blink of an eye to the Almighty, so what changed?

I'd like to believe that God, a good God, exists. That appeals to my fondness for the notion of just desserts. I also have kids, and I want them to live forever -- a prospect more likely if there is a good God. I mean, I truly wish there were a God and that I believed in Him (which is actually 2 different things). Unfortunately, I've never experienced anything, or been presented with the slightest evidence, to foster in me the least bit of religious belief. Having said that, if I'm in a plane that's going down, I'd probably think it's time to take Pascal's wager. On the other hand, I have no reason to believe that if God does happen to exist, He isn't the sort of God who would be especially wrathful against people who take Pascal's wager only when their plane is plummeting to the earth, or against people who take that wager at some less dire time, or against people who beieved in him although they were never presented with the least bit of evidence of His existence. Why, there's just as much reason to think that God will punish people because they believe in Him as to think only the true believers will get the big payoff. What's the proof that He wouldn't?

Having said all that, the guy who did that crap science study referred to in ace/harry's post sounds like a huge religion-bashing tool. He's the most likely candiate, I think, for the description "mentally ill. Or just "liar."

I am a Frisbyterian.

We believe that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and you can't get it down.

yes, I occasionally am guilty of repeating dumb (jokes).

Lipstick, I just can't beat Stein and that damn ticking clock!

"And there are fully three Abrahamic religions which claim to report to the same God"

Make that two. If you think Islam reports to our God you need to do a little more research.

"Doesn't that strike you as a bit of a bait and switch?"

No. Because I don't require a miracle to validate my faith. I never saw Julius Ceasar but I'll take the word of those who were around then that did see him.

"Surely, a thousand years is but a blink of an eye to the Almighty, so what changed?"

Let's be clear. There are miracles that occur every day. We're talking about the 'Big Ones' right now. Your assertion by the way, answers your question. God's not bound by space or time. There are more 'Big Ones' on the way, its just a matter of when.

Yeah, back to the topic; that so-called scientific paper sounds like a crock of shit to me.

But that may be my cognitive dissonance talking.

Let's be clear. There are miracles that occur every day. We're talking about the 'Big Ones' right now.

Oh, I'll deny the little ones, too. Sometimes remarkable things happen in life. More often they don't. Sometimes good things happen to bad people, and sometimes bad things happen to good people, and sometimes just the right things happen to people who fully deserve it. I can discern no difference between chance and the Hand of a God who works in mysterious ways. Gods that don't always answer prayers, sometimes answer prayers in completely inexplicable ways, and sometimes answer prayers in completely ordinary ways, are indistinguishable from gods that don't exist. Unless there's actual handwriting on the wall, and he apparently doesn't do that one any more.

But the paper is a crock of shit, for sure. I was going to slam sociology for being a non-science, but then I read that the author is a paleontologist...which is a real science, but has nothing to do with sociology. So he's a real scientist dabbling in a quasi-science that isn't his field. Not that I hold much to titles, but that's no more persuasive than any other guy pulling a rabbit out of his...hat.

Religion can be a civilizing influence on a society, and I think it has more often been so than not in American society. Modern Western societies in general, for that matter.

You're a dirty infidel--what would you know about it? ;-)

Am not. I'm a filthy apostate. That's even worse.

Well this thread just proved the adage:

"For the Believer no proof is necessary, for the unbeliever no proof will suffice."

Oh, and for that misconception that Christians must be pacifists, that's incorrect. As an example, the Catholic Just War Doctrine explains the circumstances upon which it is permissible to fight.

What is interesting in modern arguments over religion, is that religion, Christianity in particular, is attacked on political grounds as if it were a competing ideology (which to the left it is) instead of on theological grounds.

"For the Believer no proof is necessary, for the unbeliever no proof will suffice."

Iblis, I cannot tell you how tiny a proof I would accept. I would love to believe. If God made this Cooler Ranch Dorito move six inches across my computer table, that would be miracle enough for me.

But, no. It seems no-one's God will do parlor tricks for souls any more. Isn't that strange?

"If God made this Cooler Ranch Dorito move six inches across my computer table, that would be miracle enough for me."

I don't doubt your sincerity (ok, yes I do) but let me point out that the Pharisees had miracles aplenty performed in front of them and it still didn't convince them. Iblis, that little devil, hit the nail on the head with: "For the Believer no proof is necessary, for the unbeliever no proof will suffice."

A post by the Commissar at the Politburo Diktat (with a great comment thread) completely demolishes the "study", and PZ Myers gets thrashed for buying it. Ardolino (who turns out to be a statistician) shows up to join the ass-whupping. Great fun, watching atheists go at it.

Let's be clear. There are miracles that occur every day.

BrewFan:

If you like Lewis, I HIGHLY recommend Miracles. It's a brilliant discussion of this topic, beginning with a careful analysis of the "naturalist" and "supernaturalist" points of view and going all the way to what you call "the big ones." And his writing style is always so engaging and easy to follow, despite the complexity of the topic.

I don't doubt your sincerity (ok, yes I do) but let me point out that the Pharisees had miracles aplenty performed in front of them and it still didn't convince them.

If I don't believe in your holy book, why on earth would you think anything it has to say about an ancient Jewish sect would interest me?

I am utterly and completely sincere. The moment I see anything in this world I cannot explain by any agency other than the supernal, I will be a convert. To whatever. And I can't tell you how happy that would make me.

Apparently, no deity is willing to so much as flick a snack food for my soul.

If I don't believe in your holy book, why on earth would you think anything it has to say about an ancient Jewish sect would interest me?

S. Weasel:

Point taken. I recommend Miracles to you also for a compelling discussion of all the things in this world that you "cannot explain by any agency other than the supernal."

Dangit. supernal = supernatural

Apparently, no deity is willing to so much as flick a snack food for my soul.

BTW, a word of advice. If that frigging Dorito moves, I wouldn't assume it was a deity who was expressing an interest in your soul. In fact, I would leave the room quickly.

Michael, a novel by CS Lewis made it to the very short list of books that I have flung across the room in wrath. And I was still very much a Christian at the time.

It was That Hideous Strength, the last book in the Space Trilogy. It's been a few decades, so forgive me if this is muddled, but the premise is that something evil is afoot in the world. The wife lands on the God side of the question, the husband lands on the Satan side. They reconcile in the end, and the God representative (I forget what it was) scolds the woman for not being on her man's side no matter what.

I'm all for old fashioned gender roles, but the stench of burqa was too much for me. I haven't read Lewis since.

p.s. No, "supernal" is correct. It's hymnal-speak.

p.p.s. And I'll follow anything that moves my Dorito. Even a poltergeist won't take up the Dorito challenge. Don't you find that odd?

S. Weasel:

It was a different era. Skip his fiction, skip the Screwtape Letters, skip his autobiography. They're not for you. You would be most interested in The Case for Christianity (it's a basic apology for Christianity that you can read in under two hours) and Miracles.

Even a poltergeist won't take up the Dorito challenge. Don't you find that odd?

I find it embarassing. Apparently they figure that they already have you in the bag.

On second thought, maybe you should read The Screwtape Letters. Even atheists find it highly entertaining.

And I was still very much a Christian at the time.

What a coincidence. I was an atheist once.

I've read the Screwtape Letters, thankee. It really is possible to get your whole message in its entirety and find it unpersuasive.

BF, just for the record, I ain't little.
Just had to clear that up.
Continue.

Oops. My bad, Iblis. Can you levitate snack food?

Purple A: Do you believe in goblins? If not, why not? If so, on what basis?

I neither "believe in" nor "categorically deny the existence of" gobblins.

I am a gobblin agnostic as any rational thinking person would be who hasn't personally encountered one would be.

New species are being encountered all the time. We might find a gobblin tomorrow. Then again we might not.

I haven't seen any convincing proof that a gobblin can't exist, so they have to remain firmly in the realm of "maybe".

You can assign a probability to that "maybe" of course -- say anything from .000000000000001 to .999999999999 and still be within the range of "maybe".

See this post as to why I think the way I do: Engineers versus everone else

I've read the Screwtape Letters, thankee. It really is possible to get your whole message in its entirety and find it unpersuasive.

Of course. But The Screwtape Letters is far from being "your whole message." It's really more of an extended joke for insiders.

Again, if you're interested in the intensely and elegantly logical reflections of a former atheist on the Christian proposition, I suggest, in order:

The Case for Christianity

Miracles

The Great Divorce

Oops. My bad, Iblis. Can you levitate snack food?

If you can, I'll give you fifty bucks to levitate Weasel's Dorito, provided I get a pic of the look on his face.

Hm. Yeah. I read The Great Divorce, too. I don't remember anything about it, though. I've read a lot of books in my time. Until that Dorito moves, it's all fiction.

Okay, not that Dorito. I ate the first one. But I have a whole bag.

Michael,

Your recommendations are excellent. I'd modestly add that my recommendation of Evidence That Demands a Verdict is excellent too (even though Mr. Weasel greeted it with silence). Its very analytical and even offers some statistical arguments for the probabilities of certain prophecies coming true.

P.S. Bite my sack

Goblins? Meh. Not real.

Chapacubras on the other hand...

Don't even get me started on the boogeyman. That bastard gave me so many sleepless nights as a child. Every morning just after dawn he'd transmogrify into a bunch of clothes, or a robe hanging on the back of the door.

Wily.

That last, Michael, should have been accompanied by a :)

Chapacubras on the other hand...

Maybe a Chapacubras is a gobblin?

Wasn't a new species of small doggish hairy thing discovered recently that may explain the Chapacubras stories?

It was too big for a bigfoot, no indications they were gay either.

Lipstick, I just can't beat Stein and that damn ticking clock!

I did in the second season. So therefore I am the Ace O' Spades Queen of Trivia!

You may all place tributes at my large and noble feet.

Thank you.

I'd modestly add that my recommendation of Evidence That Demands a Verdict is excellent too (even though Mr. Weasel greeted it with silence).

I tend to blow past posts that include homework assignments. If there's a point, make it. "Read this or I win!" is more cheek than it is responsive.

"If there's a point, make it. "Read this or I win!" is more cheek than it is responsive."

Not my intention. Read what you want when you want or don't. It really doesn't matter to me. Up until a few comments ago I thought we were having an honest discussion and an exchange of ideas. Silly me. One last suggestion though, take it or leave it. Try not to eat too much snack food or you're going to find out who's right and who's wrong in this debate much sooner then you want to.

Up until a few comments ago I thought we were having an honest discussion and an exchange of ideas. Silly me.

Well. As all my comments have been honest, I have to ask...?

P.S. Bite my sack

Y'know, Brew, I'm glad you brought that up. Cuz, I was starting to get this warm and fuzzy vibe between us as co-religionists and all. And I'm not comfortable with that.

So just drop to your knees and resume your former relationship with me. AND TRY TO CONTROL THE GAGGING.

As all my comments have been honest, I have to ask...?

In going back over the entire thread, I'll take the blame for misinterpreting the nature of the discussion (which is what I meant above, not that you were dishonest). You made it clear from the very beginning where you were coming from and I missed it.

What're the chances you'll ever return to Santa Clausism? That's the likelihood I'll ever again be a Christian

I wasn't trying to convert you but I'm alway interested in an exchange of ideas. After all, you've chosen to take a position on a subject that ~93% of the people in the United States would disagree with. Being an atheist suggests one would require knowledge not possessed by the others, superior wisdom/special revelation OR thought processes and experiences it might be interesting to learn something about. When you said this:

I tend to blow past posts that include homework assignments. If there's a point, make it. "Read this or I win!" is more cheek than it is responsive.

It dawned on me you really weren't interested in having that discussion after all; you thought we were having a debate that I was trying to win (or convert you). Not so, but thats fine. We'll agree to disagree. Sorry for wasting your time.

"Read this or I win!" is more cheek than it is responsive.

I'm not trying to win. This is not a contest. If you're not interested in Lewis, forget it. I just thought you might be interested. Your comments have raised issues (about miracles, for example) that really can't be addressed in a comment thread, so I referred you to books. If you don't choose to read them, I don't think I have "won" anything.

[Weasel responding to Brewfan] Well. As all my comments have been honest, I have to ask...?

FWIW, I think all your comments have been honest.

Don't expect a response from BrewFan. He's busy at the moment.

OK, looks like BrewFan responded. Damn gagger, always runs out of the room.

Speaking of reading, Michael. I've penned my autobiography and certain members of your family are prominently featured.

[I think I should have read the synopsis before posting that link, lol!]

Oh, c'mon. That's not you. That's Slublog.

My next post: BREWFAN OUT OF CLOSET!

Just kidding.

My next post: BREWFAN OUT OF CLOSET!

Wait wait wait, I thought Dave was the closet Powers Boothe fan.
You mean there's a fan club?

Ooo! Ooo! didja see that. I levitated that dorito!
Oh..no..wait, that was the city of Boston collectively smacking their heads.

Late to the party and all but I have a question. If you take the approach that all observable phenomena have natural explanations, and we go back to the origin of the universe argument:

"I've never understood how the very existence of this huge and wonderful universe is supposed to solve the problem "where did it all come from"? Because if the answer is it came from god, you just have to ask, "okay, then, where did god come from?" You've got the same "there was nothing, then there was something" either way. God isn't an answer, he's a bunch more questions."

I agree with the premise that the existence of the universe does not prove there is a deity who created the universe, but it leaves you with some interesting options when everything must have a natural explanation. Is the universe eternal? Did it cause itself to exist? Did it just spring into existence from nothing? Did it arise from a singularity that exploded (and that singularity arose from?) Is it a giant dorito fart 8-) ? We don't really know do we? Many more questions down this path as well. But, faced with these alternatives, is belief in a supernatural deity much different? For some people, clearly the answer is yes, it is, because...Ok by me, there are no easy answers (imho) on this subject. OK, rant over. Thank-you for coming out tonight and don't forget to tip your waiter/waitress.

I agree with the premise that the existence of the universe does not prove there is a deity who created the universe, but it leaves you with some interesting options when everything must have a natural explanation.

Everything MUST have a natural explanation?

So, no supernature.

I guess we know the altar at which you worship. In conventional theological terms, the worship of nature is called paganism.

After all, you've chosen to take a position on a subject that ~93% of the people in the United States would disagree with.

When a leftie tells you that "the whole rest of the world" disagrees with the United States on an issue, does that do anything to persuade you that the US is wrong? Yeah. I don't do argument via peer pressure, either. I have spent a significant chunk of my miserable life pondering the nature of God (which process included at one point, incidentally, reading a buttload of CS Lewis). There is no more important question.

In context, I don't really understand the difference between a discussion and a debate. You weren't any more prepared to be converted in the comments section of a blog than I was, were you? Me, I'm holding out for the Dorito. And you've got...whatever it is that makes you believe without it.

When a leftie tells you that "the whole rest of the world" disagrees with the United States on an issue, does that do anything to persuade you that the US is wrong?

No, because its factually inaccurate. Are you saying I'm wrong when I say ~93% of Americans claim to believe in God? Do you think that percentage is lower if I used the world instead of the U.S.? Whats your point?

In context, I don't really understand the difference between a discussion and a debate.

This would explain my misunderstanding.

You weren't any more prepared to be converted in the comments section of a blog than I was, were you?

No, I wasn't.

And you've got...whatever it is that makes you believe without it.

You seem to be under the impression that to believe in God requires one to commit intellectual suicide. In my opinion, this is the number one leading cause of atheism. Nothing could be further from the truth, my friend.

No, because its factually inaccurate. Are you saying I'm wrong when I say ~93% of Americans claim to believe in God? Do you think that percentage is lower if I used the world instead of the U.S.? Whats your point?

No, I'm saying the fact that a whole bunch of people disagree with me does nothing to persuade me I'm wrong. If arriving at the truth were a matter of adding up the numbers of people who believe a given proposition, atheism certainly wouldn't win, but Christianity wouldn't, either. People can and often are wrong in gigantic numbers.

You seem to be under the impression that to believe in God requires one to commit intellectual suicide. In my opinion, this is the number one leading cause of atheism. Nothing could be further from the truth, my friend.

Perhaps one day you could demonstrate that for me, instead of merely asserting it. My friend.

"This same guy has an old post somewhere where he thinks that inventors shouldn't profit. They should just give their ideas away to humanity." - lauraw

Actually, I think inventors should have credit and proper compensation for their inventions. I do not think that they or anyone else should be able to sit on technology and what not that can improve society, promote environmental friendliness and what not.

That, imho, is one of the flaws of our current thinking. Its the ME ME ME syndrome over the many.

"AlanB is free to worship himself as he wishes. I prefer a Being greater than myself to worship, for I know my own foibles, and those of other humans I know." - Carlos

Actually, I don't worship myself nor do I worship anything else. I do believe there are those who are of greater knowledge and power than humans.

But of course you all can continue to attack me as much as you wish. Twist and put words into my mouth and so forth.

Not one of you know me. You base things on comments I said, which I did apologize for in terms of where I had put them, and then assume exactly the type of person I am.

But whatever... I do know that not one response to my comments had any form of intellectual thought behind it. The attacks upon me were, more or less, just as childish as my first comment may have been.

Furthermore,

Comments that try to relate me to those who thought Hitler was right and what not are completely unfair.

I'm completely against what he and his regime did.

They were about *control* and I'm anti-control in terms of someone having control over another.

But of course, I'm crazy, or I'm an idiot, or I'm stupid because I believe that.

Here. I'll give you more information:

I do not believe humans have the right to destroy habitat for profits. I do believe humans have the right to create shelters to protect themselves from the elements. I think that special care should be taken to keep the balance of an ecosystem we build shelters in.

I believe that certain things should be free for all humans of all races and genders:

Food, Water, Shelter, Healthcare and energy.

I do believe that people should receive credit for their inventions but they shouldn't be able to sit on patents or buy them from others just to sit on it.

If there is a patent that exists that can greatly reduce pollution, greatly increase energy yield and so forth then no one has a right to sit on that patent to make huge amounts of profits at the expense of others.

I do believe people have a right to create intellectual properties and sell those and own copyrights to them.

One thing I do believe is it isn't the system that is generally flawed its the way in which that system is deployed and the people that deploy it that makes it flawed.

I do believe that everyone has a right to their belief and has a right to their OWN OPINION.

The above is just meant to clear things up before anyone else tries to put words in my mouth or twists things to say what I believe or tries to compare me, unfairly, to Hitler or some other figure.

Oh, well. I suppose we can all agree that AlanB has all the intellectual rigor of a ground squirrel.

"[T]here's just as much reason to think that God will punish people because they believe in Him as to think only the true believers will get the big payoff."

I suggest that until someone can present proof that that possibility is wrong, even the most fervent believer has reason to live in fear and trembling.

That proposition is unprovable, as is the proposition that God exists. A la Popper, they are equally unmeaningful.

That proposition is unprovable, as is the proposition that God exists. A la Popper, they are equally unmeaningful.

Rather, neither proposition can be proven false. Therefore, ....

As for all the statements that "one day, all these things for which there is a lack of evidence could be proven true," one day, we may find out that we actually die every day and then are reborn the next day with memories of events that never took place, etc. If that's how you want to proceed in conducting your everyday affairs, proceed.

Perhaps one day you could demonstrate that for me, instead of merely asserting it

Ok. Lets try. We'll begin our survey with Mr. Weasel. Can somebody who believes there is a supreme being arrive at that conclusion through the process of evaluating the evidence and making a decision based on that evaluation without sacrificing their intellectual integrity?

I want to add that I have no interest in "proving" that believers are wrong, because that is something that can't be proven.

I'm only trying to defend atheists against the charge that their position is somehow intellectually dishonest or psychologically twisted; and against the charge that unless they claim to be "agnostic" rather than atheist, they are somehow claiming more than they logically can. The latter charge seems like semantics, and probably attributes to atheists a smug certainty that many (most?) do not have.

I don't want to claim that I know what Brewfan's beliefs are, but I suspect that I am agnostic about God's existence to exactly the same degree he is agnostic about the existence of pixies. If he wants to say he is a pixie agnostic, rather than a pixie atheist, then I don't think anyone should have a problem with that.

Personally, I tend to privilege God believers over pixie believers because my interactions with God believers (i.e., the great majority of people) have been happier than my interactions with pixie believers, who tend to carry a certain amount of distasteful baggage.

Again, I don't want to come off as sarcastic about Belief, because, obviously (and tritely?), there are things that are unknowable. Even though I am an atheist (or agnostic, if you insist), I cringe at the more public representatives of this group, who do, as many here have charged, try to force their non-Belief on others. In fact, I am opposed to taking the "one nation under God" language out of the pledge, favor Christmas celebrations in public schools, and have no problems with, say, displaying the Ten Commandments in judicial buildings. That's not "tolerance" an my part; it's just an acknowledgement of the limits of certainty and a respect for the beliefs of others. From what I've seen, the traditions of Western Civilization, including a belief in God, work very well.

AT,

I'm taking a poll. Please answer the following question. Extra points for brevity:

Can somebody who believes there is a supreme being arrive at that conclusion through the process of evaluating the evidence and making a decision based on that evaluation without sacrificing their intellectual integrity?

Can somebody who believes there is a supreme being arrive at that conclusion through the process of evaluating the evidence and making a decision based on that evaluation without sacrificing their intellectual integrity?

Better minds than mine have been devoutly religious, but I'm not sure that answers the question. Isaac Newton was a passionate alchemist, after all (that is, someone who towers over me intellectually bought a load of complete rubbish).

I doubt many people have intellectualized their way into sprituality. While I can imagine being able to make a solid case for a vaguely deist proposition with observable phenomena (goodness knows, I've tried hard enough myself), the more specific one gets (a particular religion, a particular sect of a particular religion), the harder it is to point to anything one could call supporting evidence.

I think it more likely that people who are both smart and devout choose not to intellectualize their faith, believing the two occupy separate spheres.

I do believe that people should receive credit for their inventions but they shouldn't be able to sit on patents or buy them from others just to sit on it.

I do believe people have a right to create intellectual properties and sell those and own copyrights to them.

I don't think I've ever seen a finer example of cognitive dissonance. Bravo.

[BrewFan asked]
"Can somebody who believes there is a supreme being arrive at that conclusion through the process of evaluating the evidence and making a decision based on that evaluation without sacrificing their intellectual integrity?"

Yes.

[S Weasel said]
"I doubt many people have intellectualized their way into sprituality."

I agree with S Weasel.

That's not a criticism of intellectualized faith, although leaps of faith are less vulnerable to rigorous critique.

I also agree with S. Weasel about specific doctrines, although I think the specific doctrines of Christianity can be very beautiful.

Now, with regard to people I do have a problem with, the guy who publsihed that paper about the evils of religiosity, particularly in the U.S., sound like a total jagoff.

Thank you both for your answers. I have to admit to being confused by AT's though. You answered 'Yes' to the question then said you agreed with Weasel who didn't come out and say 'yes' or 'no' but seems to lean to 'no'. I say that because he qualifies his answer by 1) doubting anybody intellectualized themselves into spirituality and 2) indicating smart people can believe but its likely they can't arrive at that conclusion through reason and have to compartmentalize their faith. I don't want to put words in your mouth Weasel, is that a fair assessment?

Everything MUST have a natural explanation?
So, no supernature.
I guess we know the altar at which you worship. In conventional theological terms, the worship of nature is called paganism.
I wasn’t taking that position. I was paraphrasing this:

“The moment I see anything in this world I cannot explain by any agency other than the supernal, I will be a convert.”

I was making the argument that there is no natural explanation for the existence of our universe. The choices boil down to either the universe was created or you can’t explain its existence. Either position requires faith. You believe in a creator or you believe in an uncreated universe. I didn’t really take a position in my earlier post. I was just posing some questions that I believe show where an atheist position requires faith or assumptions if that word works better for you.

Ok, can someone eddikate me on this internets thing? It would make my posts much more clear if I could italicize qoutes from other posts. Thank-you. Carry on.

Well, Weasel actually said that he doubted many people intellectuallized their way into belief, not that he thinks no one does it. I'm sure there are those who do, but I agree with Weasel that there probably aren't many.

Weasel also qualified the other statement by saying it is "more likely" that people who are both smart and devout choose not to intellectualize their faith, not that it is impossible or that there are no instances of this. I agree with Weasel's "more likely" qualifier.

I'm not big on absolutes (not necessarily proud to admit that).

I will admit that I tend to appreciate the "leap of faith" approach to Belief more than the intellectualized "proof" approach. As I said, it's less vulnerable to critique. It also is aesthetically more pleasing.

doc,

enclose whatever you want to italicize between <i> and </i> tags

Hm. I'm struggling with the word "compartmentalize." A part of me thinks that's too strong, and another part is calling me a wussy for trying to wriggle. It implies that one is valid and the other isn't, or that reason would kick faith's butt if you left them alone in a room together. And I guess I sort of believe that, but spirituality is pretty powerful stuff.

And doc? I have no freaking idea how the universe got here. That is a position which requires neither faith nor assumptions. It's a gigantic, brain-hurting mystery. I just don't see how sticking God in there helps at all. Because then I would have no freaking idea how he got here, which is exactly the same dilemma.

"I'm struggling with the word "compartmentalize." A part of me thinks... and another part...."

Heh. That's funny.

To most: great discussion, I love the chance to honestly debate, no ad hominem attacks, etc.

Weasel, I agree that the origin of the universe is a gigantic mystery. That isn't much of a natural explanation though, is it? I am not saying that the only possible explanation is a deity. I am saying there is a really large natural phenomen (the whole universe) which you nor anyone else can explain the existence of, without assumptions/faith. No, I can't tell you God got here either. So, to some, belief in an eternal universe is preferable to belief in an eternal deity and vice versa of course.

Oh yeah, one more thing. Thanks Brewfan.

"I doubt many people have intellectualized their way into sprituality."

Well shoot, I agree with Weasel on this point also.

Damn, we are actually witnessing a moment of consensus on an AOSHQ comment thread among individuals with widely divergent viewpoints. History is being made. Who would have thought this was possible?

Seems like people are working at cross-purposes here, starting with the old (beat to death two millenia ago) faith/miracles problem.

Those of faith (Brewfan, Michael, et al.): Have faith and you'll know God and see His works

Those without (S. Weasel et al.): Show me God and his works and I'll have faith.

These two views are inherently irreconcilable.

at www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/kierkegaard.html.

Discussion of Kierkegaard’s Concluding Unscientific Postscript

"[According to Kierkegaard,] [r]eflection on the nature of existence may be objective or subjective. Truth may be reflected upon objectively or subjectively. Kierkegaard argues that the objective thinker finds truth by approximation, while the subjective thinker finds truth by appropriation. The objective thinker has a need to quantify certainty or probability, while the subjective thinker ultimately must accept uncertainty. According to Kierkegaard, faith cannot be attained by approximation, or by an effort to quantify deliberation into a higher degree of certainty. Faith can only be attained by an appropriation or acceptance of the condition of uncertainty. Thus, faith requires a leap from disbelief to belief. Faith is a state of objective uncertainty in which the individual affirms his or her own subjectivity."

AT,

I hope you'll forgive me, but I'm not buying what Kierkegaard is selling.

I have enjoyed reading all of these thoughts. The questions of religion and faith and God have so many meanings to so many people. Although I have complete faith in my religion-Christian Science-and have no doubt what so ever about the existance of God, I also feel that I am incapable of defending Him or of making anyone else share my beliefs. To anyone who wants to learn more about religion, there are plenty of books. But no book is going to convince a person to believe in what they choose not to believe. The same is true about God. What convinces me of the existance of God would mean nothing to someone else. And the same is true of miracles. As a life-long Christian Scientist, I can tell you first hand how common it is to have people "debunk" miracles-healings-because they choose not to give God credit. People see what they want to and attribute it to what they want to. As a Christian, it is understandable how so many of us try to share our faith because it brings us happiness and peace and we want all to experience those feelings. I think the hard part for us is accepting that some people choose not to believe in God. I do not see that as judging non-Christians-quite the opposite. Life for me without God would be dark, therefore by sharing my beliefs about God, I would only be trying to share what had brought so much happiness and peace into my life.

"I think the hard part for us is accepting that some people choose not to believe in God."

I think for many non-believers, it's like the words attributed to Martin Luther:

"I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. "

Of course, without the "so help me God" part, and without the physical peril part.

You cannot believe what you don't believe.

I guess food, water, shelter, healthcare (doctors, nurses, hospitals, etc.) and energy are just going to miraculously appear out of thin air, 'cause we all have the RIGHT to them (whether given by God, Big Bro, Grape Ape or whatever). If we have the RIGHT to them, they ought to be free, plentiful, and available for the asking.

Heck, it don't even work that way in the glorious wonderland of Cuba (everyone's Utopia)! People have to work, and there has to be an incentive to work. I prefer a profit to my government telling me I must, because pretty soon that government will start making exceptions that don't set well with me ("We're all equal, but some are more equal than others").

If someone buys up the rights to an invention that will save the world as we know it, then it's up to we, the people, to either pay that person's price or put him out of business by not doing business (individually) with him. It's not government's job, even if a good many people (not a majority, thank you) think it is.

That's the way of our world, has been for some time, and hopefully, if we can keep the whores of congress out of our knickers, will be for a long time to come.

"I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. "

Yeah, but if memory serves, Luther said that when he was on a diet of worms. Who would do that? Obviously, a good bacon cheeseburger might have changed the course of history.