“I have found it an amusing strategy, when asked whether I am an atheist, to point out that the questioner is also an atheist when considering Zeus, Apollo, Amon Ra, Mithras, Baal, Thor, Wotan, the Golden Calf and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I just go one god further.” – Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion
Certainly an amusing strategy.
And versatile!
You can use it anywhere, anytime against any claim.
For example:
I do not believe in the existence of book authors.
To be clear, I believe in books…
…I just doubt that they were authored.
I’m told Richard Dawkins authored a book called ‘The God Delusion’.
I’ve never seen compelling evidence for this.
Millions of people claim Dawkins wrote it.
They’re brainwashed.
So, how did the books get on the bookstore shelves?
I don’t know.
We may never know.
But Dawkins is highly unlikely.
Look, you don’t believe Dr. Seuss wrote ‘The God Delusion’.
You don’t believe it was Maury Povich, Sam Walton, Benjamin Franklin or Liam Neeson.
I just go one author further.
There are many thousands of alleged authors throughout history.
Every author claims to be responsible for their books.
You think Richard Dawkins is the ONLY correct theory?
You think all those other authors are wrong?
You’re so smug.
…so pious and conceited.
Consider this you sanctimonious prig…
…all the alleged authors ARE DIFFERENT PEOPLE!
And they all tell DIFFERENT STORIES!
What does that have to do with anything?
…if I have to explain THAT then you’re hopeless.
…
Dawkins is absolutely correct to say this strategy is ‘amusing’.
I had a ball writing this post.
*At some point you’re going to take a leap of faith. This ‘argument’ assumes that one God claim is as plausible another. The problem is obvious when we assume that all book author claims are equally likely.
When faced with multiple possible truth stories, it is illogical to conclude that they all must be wrong.
270 Responses
I’ve found a pingback on mrs.mcmommy’s site that might be of interest to a few, also.
https://mydoorisajar.wordpress.com/2015/03/01/is-mental-illness-curable-by-miraculous-intervention-by-god/
It seems her behaviour has a history.
Do you have any idea what a pingback is, Carmen?
Interesting… and sad.
Interesting because mrsmcmommy is simply recycling very weak apologetics, ignoring the central criticisms of it, and uses her incredulity as if this warrants a lack merit for physiological causal claims – brains through chemical signalling produces meaning and logic and reason and so much more – no matter how much neuroscience backs them up. I don;t know how one can just wave reality away if it conflicts with a belief. I just can’t do that and I marvel that some people can and feel pretty good about doing so.
Sad because I noticed MAL liked the post. I do miss his contribution. Has it really been a year?
And, no, I didn’t come across that meme from Godlessindixie but came up with it purely in response to Amanda’s trite comment.
If you have some type of damning evidence against me, you’ll have to speak English so everyone else understands what it is…
You have done that for me. You have failed at every turn to demonstrate what informs your belief in a creator god… other than your belief. You are using recycled and discredited apologetics – from Paisley’s watch maker to popularity to incredulity to design inference – none of which links your belief to your god.
That’s not my doing.
But what you demonstrate is that you are going to keep doing it over time no matter what anyone else brings to the table because your belief is intractable. Your faith-based belief in a creator god is immune from any and all honest and open inquiry using compelling evidence from reality that doesn’t first assume as you do that the causal claim you make is true. This approach you use defines what constitutes a closed mind. And that’s the most damning evidence you can have against the merit of your belief: it survives only by closing the mind to reality’s arbitration of it.
Blah, blah, blah.
I thought you were going to tell Carmen what a pingback is.
But you’re just doing more preaching and projecting…
See ya next time!
@Tildeb
It has indeed been a year.
We all miss him.
.
Funny thing about the post that Carmen linked to is the same dense questions mrsmcmommy has asked on this thread she was asking on that post from 2015. Almost 18 months. She also posted the same dumb video as well.
Based on this thread it would be a pretty safe bet she has been asking the same questions of other non-believers, before and since, and I presume she has received the same/similar answers too.
In my book, an intelligent person would have taken the hint by now and gone off and done some genuine study on the subject or at least wondered why she was getting the same answers?
Maybe her god ought to have a word about her behaviour? Jesus is not Happy.
Yeah, I noticed that recycling, rehashing, too. She doesn’t want an honest conversation; I think she’s trying her best to help her Dad sell his wares and couldn’t care less about their quality.
@ Jasmine Ruigrok
Talk to ME, Ark.
Jasmine is just offering her aside comments on a conversation between YOU AND ME that she’s following. (You’ll notice I’ve ignored Carmen and asked Tildeb to wait his turn, too.) This is between you and me, if you haven’t had enough.
“The freaks” Jasmine is referring to would be anyone whose behavior is not “conducive to the physical and mental well-being of the family/tribe.” Those with illnesses. Those who don’t perform their job. Those, like me, who ask too many questions. (Though society doesn’t literally KILL people like me, yet. Your current strategy is to attempt shaming me into silence. But, as that doesn’t work, you suggest institutionalization.) Do you really believe I’m mentally ill, Ark? Am I a freak?… seems to me that folks with your worldview tend to paint outsiders as stupid just as the Church has historically painted them as “heretics.”
I’m very glad to hear you have a good relationship with your kids. I know from experience how important Daddies are to little girls as they’re growing up. Loving them and loving their mother were two of the most important things you could have done for them–and you deserve credit for being present. (Sincerely! So much of the trouble in the world comes from both men and women trying to find the validation they never got at home.) If what you say about your adult children is true, then you should be proud of them. You shaped their success.
…you’re just lucky they didn’t ask too many questions.
“Because society says so.”
I have been talking to you, and you appear to not understand. That could very well be the fault of my poor communication skills.
I have heard it said there is no such thing as a bad student only a poor teacher. And I did teach for a short while so there is some merit in that observation.So perhaps it is better all round if you tell me how you would explain morality to your kids?
I presume you have had / will have this c]sport of conversation at one point, yes? As parents, most of do.Doing it that way we can compare notes.
Maybe you are correct and my take is nonsense, but I am never going to know unless I have something to compare it with.
Let’s hear your version, please.
How would this conversation go between you and your kids?
No, it wouldn’t be better all around to switch the defense/opposition of the two sides mid-debate. The only thing that will come of that is for you to smugly declare I’m “indoctrinating” my children and that you “feel sorry for them” again.
The goal here has been to show that–by your definition–EVERYBODY indoctrinates their kids. And I wondered how you would handle one of yours who asked “why should I?”
You keep repeating that humans ought to do what’s best for other humans. We ought to do what’s best for the tribe. But if one of your children asked WHY–would you know how to answer?
Surely you wouldn’t tell them that asking why makes them sound like they have special needs. I really hope that’s a special side of you that only comes out when you don’t have the opportunity to see the face of the person asking.
You don’t need to hear a conversation with my kids to have one with yours. What would you tell a child who was sharp enough to understand that everything we think and feel is reducible to instinct… but, we have evolved to a point that we are AWARE of our instincts. Why should we control them?
For the sake of this part of the thread you have my word I will not say you are indoctrinating them.
So, you have a perfect opportunity without the need to of a soapbox, a sort of captive audience, and my word I will not immediately respond to your explanation by saying you are indoctrinating your kids.
How much farther backwards must I bend?
You also have a captive audience.
And I believe it’s pretty apparent at this point.
“Because society” is a terrible answer.
“The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a ‘what’ created the universe; the theist believes a ‘who’ created the universe.”
― Criss Jami, Killosophy
(If it’s just a “what,” then we all might as well do whatever we want.)
So, you have no genuine basis for telling my the morality I taught my kids is wrong and when offered a no strings attached opportunity to demonstrate why your morality is better you whine, back-peddle and
return to falsely quoting me and childish sniping.
I never said ”Because society”,you are, among other things, a damn liar…
He is the paragraph. And there is always context.
” …behaviour(that) is conducive to the (physical, and mental ) well-being and general stability and positive growth of the family/tribe/ society then this ( to my mind) would be seen as good behaviour.”
Sadly, mrsmcmommy, your slip has been exposed.
You have been afforded the opportunity to exp[lain exactly where and how you believe morality derives and an even better opportunity to show us how you imparted this knowledge to your kids. Incuding a promise I would not mention indoctrination.
And even then you squirmed.
You have revealed yourself as a coward and a probably a fraud;someone whose entire argument is based on faith alone, yet wants to rip into everyone else because they do not genuflect to your make believe Canaanite deity.
You have no integrity in this matter and as corny and old-fashioned as it might sound, no honour either.
(sigh)
You never told me because society. But you never gave me a better answer, either. I’m still waiting for that one.
Look, I’m only explaining to you what whipper-snappers my age are doing with the information we’ve been fed by the Pure Naturalism or Pure Materialism dogma. We’re using our brains and shrugging off the “indoctrination” of our parents, teachers, and politicians… We’re asking, quite logically, why should I care whether the human race lives or dies–if matter and blind chance are the only reasons I’m here.
As I’ve explained to JZ in the past, the suicide rate has risen by fifty percent in the last three decades…and it’s still climbing.
They’re hopeless. And, the worst part is, they’re LOGICALLY hopeless, if the godless reality they’ve been taught to accept really, truly is Reality.
blockquote>You never told me because society. But you never gave me a better answer, either. I’m still waiting for that one.
Feel free to apologise anytime you like.
I’m sorry you can’t answer my question.
I am disappointed you are ignorant and without integrity.
If you don’t like my answer – evolution – and refuse to tell me what you believe is the answer, then you’re a bloody fool, then aren’t you?
Ah. So “because evolution” is the answer which is better than “because society?”
I’m proposing to you that: humans have evolved to the point where they know there is no ultimate purpose in the universe.
You still keep insisting they SHOULD feel compassion and a sense of loyalty for other humans, right? You say it’s evolved human nature to act a certain way. And if they don’t have an in-born instinct to be compassionate and to seek the greater good, then they have a mental illness. Is that correct?
So tell me where you believe morality derives?
Ah, we’re going to keep trying to divert to a new question over and over again, eh?
Quote time!
“Every instinct that is found in any man is in all men… with every being the primal emotions are there. All men have an emotion to kill; when they strongly dislike some one they involuntarily wish he was dead. I have never killed any one, but I have read some obituary notices with great satisfaction.” –Clarence Darrow, Atheist
(Hey, look, there’s Clarence Darrow again. He was such a peach. I guess no one ever said, “Evolution” to him, and transformed his ugly heart.)
What is it that induces you to be so purposely dense ?
I have stated often enough that I believe morality is derived through evolution and there are oodles of scientific data to demonstrate this if you care to look. ‘
My kids turned out alright based on this and millions of others seems to also.
Now,I accept that you don’t agree with this.
Fine. But don’t keep getting all pissy about it, have the integrity tosimply demonstrate why what you believe is right and what I believe is wrong.,
You can start by stating where you believe morality derives then after you can explain how..
You’re answering your question about “where morality derives from.” But not MY question about what to do when humans no longer want to play along. We’re now aware of what evolution has been mindlessly doing, remember?
Love and justice and right/wrong and even the fear of bucking authority are just electro-chemical responses. What if one of your children had decided to rebel against ALL authority, because it really doesn’t matter whether humans as a race die now or die later.
What’s wrong with that sentiment?
Then let me rephrase my question.
Do you believe all morality derives from your god? Yes or no?
It’s a good thing none of your children were as logical and consistent as this guy:
So, do you believe morality derives from your god, yes or no?
“Imagine an underground world made of concrete and steel, full of stairways and tunnels…with just enough light to read the signs on the walls… imagine there are people down there all there lives and never allowed to visit the surface and that these people were told from the time they were born that this world is all that exists. Wouldn’t they believe what they were told to believe?”
–David Wood, in the video you won’t watch
What an ignorant child you are!
If you were touted as the go-to-girl for what your god belief was all about, a True Christian, Christianity would be ”dead” in five minutes.
The Pope would likely take you aside and give you a metaphorical clip around the ear. and tel you to bloody well grow up already.
If you can’t answer a simple question about where you believe morality derives and explain why then you are a poor excuse for a Jesus-Follower
I’ll stake you 5 -1 any other proper christians reading along are cringing at your responses
You truly are hilarious.
“A tomb, no matter how spacious, is still a tomb.” –David Wood, in the above video.
So many people in this tomb are proud of themselves for learning to read the signs on the wall. “We can demonstrate in our laboratories that these signs point us in the right direction every, single time!!” like geniuses. But they’re too dumb to ask, “Who painted these signs?” And they’re too dishonest to admit that concluding “They painted themselves” is the LEAST likely answer in history.
So, where do you believe morality derives from. A god?
“The people say ‘We understand our world just fine, without you rambling about another. Go back to your flying spaghetti world, Fool. We’re the enlightened ones down here.’ And, in rejecting the world above, they sank a little deeper into the world below…” –David Wood again.
Lol…Wood? So, morality from Yahweh, yes or no?
“When I heard about [my friend’s death] after knocking on his door, I had the same reaction I’d had when my dog, Goliath, died. Namely: so what? But this time it was different. It seemed like I SHOULD be bothered by Jimmy dying. So I started wondering if something might be wrong with me… but, after pondering this for several months, I realized WHY. I had evolved to a higher stage of humanity. These sad little emotions the rest of you have are like vesigial tails left over from more primitive lifeforms. But humanity 2.0 had arrived, and you older models were now obsolete.” –David Wood, same video
Just a ”heads up” to save you time. I watched this video some time back. I didn’t bother with his tripe this time round so you don’t need to keep quoting it. He’s a Dickhead.
So Yahweh, is he your go to god for all that’s good and right, yeah?
“The following year, I had a life-changing experience…. I found myself in someone’s back yard. In front of me, was a beautiful garden. I started to walk around the garden, but then I stopped to philosophize.” [note: philosophy is what most natural scientists desperately need to study. They’re great at their concrete jobs. But they’re not great as asking why.] “I thought, ‘I don’t care about the people in that house. So why am I going out of the way to avoid stepping on their vegetables? Why am I being so courteous?’ Because I’d been brainwashed, that’s why!” -D.W.
Lol, I told you I haven’ read one of these quotes so why do you keep posting them?
Are you so dense?
Have you learned any honesty yet?
This often goes hand in hand with integrity.
So Yahweh, yes or no?
If continuing to do the same thing over and over and over despite being told it does no good is “dense,” then yes. I’m dense.
Welcome to the club, my friend. 😉
…Did I mention that I was an Atheist? I understand that most of you Atheists out there live perfectly normal lives, but I could never understand why you would want to. Think about it. We’ve got this massive Universe, and over here is this tiny little crumb of a galaxy. Circling a ball of hot gas is this pathetic speck of cosmic dust we call “Earth.” And crawling all over the earth are these feeble, selfish, self-destructive lumps of cells CONSTANTLY DELUDING THEMSELVES into thinking that what they do is so important.
And the point of his comment is …?
The Universe couldn’t conceivably care less whether you love your neighbor as yourself, or you torture him to death for fun. So you might as well do whatever you feel like doing with the little bit of time you’ve got.
And I would generally choose to get on with my neighbor. And because I am a reasonable bloke I usually do.
On the other hand, having you as a neighbour might give me serious cause to consider moving.
Sure, most people don’t want to rebel against the norm. But for those who do, our Materialist Indoctrination makes it a perfectly logical option.
What does a good life look like? Let me guess: you’re going to go to school for awhile and get a job. Work for a few decades? Maybe pick up a family along the way? [And then be proud when your kids grow up to do the exact same.] How original! Free thinkers, huh? Believe it or not, some people don’t WANT to live like cattle. Some people don’t want to follow this pattern that all of us are expected to mindlessly follow…
Some people want to shoot up a theater or walk down the school hallway stabbing people. And why shouldn’t they? Because it’s “wrong?” Says who, your grandma? Or should they try not to hurt people because people have intrinsic value? And here I thought humans were nothing but machines for propogating DNA. Most people don’t want to kill and slaughter, but for those who do, our civilization is rapidly destroying any reason they might have for resisting the urge. [And, I would add. Those who actually THINK about this stuff who don’t want to kill others often end up killing themselves instead.]
So once again what is the point that you are making?
Young people are lining up to dance to the music of their DNA.
I was born this way, they chant, proudly. Don’t judge me.
All you can do now is hope their biology produces nice, content, not-too-logical humans, who are happy to cooperate. And then lock up the ones who think TOO freely.
Again, if you can put down the joint or the glue bottle for a moment, and simply state as succinctly as possible what is the point you are trying make?
I went to take a shower, thinking you’d need time to process a thoughtful reply. But you’re back to “I don’t understand” again?
Come on, I don’t buy that.
I DON’T think you’re crazy. I DON’T think you’re stupid. And I DON’T think this is the first time you’ve wondered why we keep telling our kids to behave like “good” humans…
And your point is …. what?
Well, if you can identify with everything I’ve said about the godless worldview so far, then I guess it makes sense why you never have anything to contribute to a discussion.
I don’t understand why someone would want to spend their short time on earth picking fights with Christians about whether Jesus was a real person, when…you know…who cares?
But. To each his own.
So where do you believe morality derives from?
I have small children, Ark.
Ignoring repetitive questions is basically my profession.
“Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe–a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we, with our modest powers, must feel humble.” –Albert Einstein
Fine. Good old Albert. And where do you believe morality derives from?
I’m not going to spend megabytes laying out the philosophy when real philosophers have already done it.
Go do the research. It’s all there.
I am not asking for a philosophical treatise I just want to know from where or whom you believe morality derives.
Evolution is like a code.
And morality has been coded into the universe, too.
Both had to be written by the Coder.
And who do you think is the coder?
The other day, I asked my 5-year-old out of the blue, “If you saw a sandcastle on the beach, how did it get there?”
She didn’t even look up from watching Team Umizoomi. (Math show. So you wouldn’t call it religious. Don’t panic.) Her reply was, “Somebody made it.”
I asked her, “But couldn’t the waves have made it? Or the wind?” She said, “No.”
And then I asked, “How do you know?” And she said, “They just don’t make stuff.”
That was the end of the conversation. I didn’t badger her because she couldn’t tell me the builder’s name.
Yes, but you believe you know the ”builder”. So as you would like me to believe there is a builder why don’t you tell me his/her/its name?
That is, if you think you know it, of course …
Well, do you?
Thanks for the example. That’s exactly what I didn’t do to my daughter.
“Well, sweetie, if you want me to believe in a builder, you have to tell me his, her, or its name.”
If you agree with the very, very, very first thing I wrote to you (waaaaaaay back), that all of us believe in God and EVERYTHING is spiritual, well then we’re ready to start asking WHO God is.
But if you need to know everything about him beforehand, you’re going to be disappointed.
So, are you a Deist now?
Me a deist? Good heavens, no! Are you?
So, in the simplest terms, this cosmic sandcastle did, indeed, build itself?
I have no idea.
So, are you a deist?
As you know, I am a Theist. The Builder/Coder took great care to make sure humans had/have everything we needed/need to reason our way to him.
But, with all due respect, I can’t tell you much more about MY view…because you aren’t being honest about yours. To say you have “no idea” whether sandcastles build themselves just isn’t true. You have a very good idea that “things” don’t build other “things.” People do.
“I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence.” –Michio Kaku, Physicist
A theist? Really? So you believe the god Yahweh built the universe. Interesting. And just where did you find this out from?
I mean, is there any sort of evidence or source material that identifies the builder as Yahweh as opposed to, …Atum,
Enki,
Nammu,
Marduk,
Ahura Mazda,
Awonawilona,
Abassi
Abira
Adroa
Ahone
Aiomun-Kondi
Alatangana
Altjira
Amotken
Anansi
Anulap
Aramazd
Ataguju
Awonawilona
Bagadjimbiri
Bai-Ulgan
Baiame
Baiameskyfather
Banaitja
BataraKala
Bathala
Brahma
Bumba
Bunjil
Cagn
Cghene
Chiconahuiehecatl
Chirakan-Ixmucane
Chiuta
Cocijo
Daksha
Damballa
Elkunirsa
Enki
Eskeri
GitcheManitou
GreatSpirit
Gukumatz
Heryshaf
Huracan
Hœnir
Imra
Itherther
Ixpiyacoc
Izanagi
Jah
Kaang
Karora
Khnum
Khonvoum
Kneph
Kuk
Kukulkan
Mangar-kunjer-kunja
Mbere
MelekTaus
Muluku
Nanabozho
Ngai
Nogomain
Noncomala
Numakulla
Obatala
Olelbis
Omai
PachaKamaq
Pangu
Pariacaca
Prajapati
Ptah
Pundjel
Pluga
Qat
Quaoar
Quetzalcoatl
Rod
Ta’aroa
Tabaldak
Tengri
Tezcatlipoca
Tonacatecuhtli
Tupã
Tzacol
Unkulunkulu
Unumbotte
ViliandVé
Viracocha
Wak
Xamaba
Xumucane
Yahweh
YuanshiTianzun
Zamba
Exactly how do you know it was Yahweh?
How can you possibly trust the source? And just what is your source?
My source is logic and reasoning–which I can trust, because I believe logic and reasoning were built intentionally into the Universe, and not just tendencies that cause me (and hippos and grass) to try and survive by any means possible.
As I’ve already said, you can call God any of those names you want. But you can’t even begin to start searching for which of those most closely reflects the True character of God until you let go of your pride and admit he’s there.
What I have said is that a Theistic worldview does the best job of explaining ALL my questions. Not that I have all the answers–but that a godless Universe is even less likely.
I’ve said this and implied it many times.
But you don’t want to talk about what happens when you take God out of the equation. You want to keep bringing up Onatala and Viracocha. You want to keep naming the builder who doesn’t exist.
How silly.
Oh, I have never ever said the builder doesn’t exist. That would be pure arrogance.
Then I would be as bad as those hypocrites who claim the builder does exist and yet have no evidence to back such a claim.
No. That’s not me at all. What I have said … what I always say in fact, is the evidence put forward for a builder does not pass muster and certainly the Judaeo-Christian builder, and can, therefore, be summarily dismissed.
However … if you feel you have evidence that is worth considering and can be verified then please, present it.
Oh, and not the bible, of course as this is simply nonsense.
Fire away.
“…those hypocrites who claim the builder does exist and yet have no evidence…”
Here we go again, I guess…
Have you EVER seen a building without a builder, Ark?
Is my daughter arrogant for claiming someone built the sand castle?
She may laugh at the Bible one day, but she’s laughing at your suggestion that “things” can build “things” right now.
What is the matter with you? I have stated time and time again I am prepared to accept that there could be a builder but based on the evidence for the builders so far presented they can be summarily dismissed with impunity.
Now, as you believe that the builder is Yahweh, feel free to present the compelling evidence that sets this builder apart from the claims of all the others.
Is that clear enough for you to understand?
So you won’t say “I believe in the builder” until you know his name.
Brilliant.
No, I want to see the evidence for the builder YOU claim is responsible. Do you understand?
No? I was wrong about the last comment?
So you WILL say “I believe in the builder.” ???
Come on, don’t be shy. You’d be in good company:
“I strongly believe in the existence of God, based on intuition, observations, logic, and also scientific knowledge. Science, with its experiments and logic, tries to understand the order or structure of the universe. Religion, with its theological inspiration and reflection, tries to understand the purpose or meaning of the universe. These two are cross-related. Purpose implies structure, and structure ought somehow to be interpretable in terms of purpose. At least this is the way I see it. I am a physicist. I also consider myself a Christian. As I try to understand the nature of our universe in these two modes of thinking, I see many commonalities and crossovers between science and religion. It seems logical that in the long run the two will even converge.”
–Charles Hard Townes, who received the 1964 Nobel Prize in Physics
Still waiting for the evidence for Yahweh.
“I believe in God. In fact, I believe in a personal God who acts in and interacts with the creation. I believe that the observations about the orderliness of the physical universe, and the apparently exceptional fine-tuning of the conditions of the universe for the development of life suggest that an intelligent Creator is responsible. I believe in God because of a personal faith, a faith that is consistent with what I know about science. Being an ordinary scientist and an ordinary Christian seems perfectly natural to me. It is also perfectly natural for the many scientists I know who are also people of deep religious faith.”
—William D. Phillips, who won the 1997 Nobel Prize
At last!
A Yahweist.
A make believe Canaanite deity.
And there is evidence to back this up.
I knew you couldn’t resist eventually confessing.
You truly are a fraud.
Does “fraud” mean something different across the pond? I should clarify: posting quotes isn’t considered fraudulent behavior in the U.S.
“For many years I have believed that God is the great designer behind all nature… All my studies in science since then have confirmed my faith. I regard the Bible as my principle source of authority.”
—Sir Ghillean T. Prance (You should email him about Gilgamesh IMMEDIATELY, Ark! The Bible CAN’T contain truth, if other cultures wrote similar stories first!!!!!!! EMAIL SIR GHILLEAN!!!! HURRY!)
You can read? Check the dictionary.
To state that Yahweh is the creator of the universe is a fraudulent claim.
GASP! It is??? Maybe we should call God “Bill” then.
“I build molecules for a living. I can’t begin to tell you how difficult that job is. I stand in awe of God because of what he has done through his creation. My faith has been increased through my research. Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God.”
—James Tour (BUT JAMES….WHAT IS GOD’S NAME?!?!?! You MUST give him a NAME!!!!)
A believer in a Canaanite deity.
A deity rejected by those who ancestors adopted this deity, the Jews.
A deity found in the Pentateuch, a collection of ”books” that form part of the Hebrew bible, the Tanakh, and regarded by all serious scholars as a piece of Historical Fiction.
A work regarded as completely untenable by scientists and archaeologists alike, the consensus being it is nothing but geopolitical myth.
From the nonsense of Adam and Eve, demonstrated beyond doubt by the Human Genome Project to the plagiarized Flood tale to the erroneous story of the Captivity, Exodus and Conquest of Canaan.
All fiction.
And there is scientific evidence to back up every single claim
Where as you, my dear , have absolutely nothing.
You are living a delusion.
To the question, “What do you think should be the relationship between science and religion?” Walter Kohn replied: “Mutual respect. They are complementary important parts of the human experience.”
And to the inquiry, “What do you think about the existence of God?” Walter Kohn gave the following answer: “There are essential parts of the human experience about which science intrinsically has nothing to say. I associate them with an entity which I call God.”
—Walter Kohn, winner of a 1998 Nobel Prize in Chemistry (But Walter really needs to sit down unless he can call that entity something more robust than “God!” Call him YHWH… Or Bill.)
Yes, but your god is a work of fiction from a book of historical fiction.
And even worse … you are a Christian.
It’s too bad Sir Derek Barton is dead now. If he had a blog, you could go ask him what God’s name is.
“God is Truth. There is no incompatibility between science and religion. Both are seeking the same truth. Science shows that God exists.”
“The observations and experiments of science are so wonderful that the truth that they establish can surely be accepted as another manifestation of God. God shows himself by allowing man to establish truth.”
–Sir Derek Barton, winner of the 1969 Nobel Prize in Chemistry
*Smile* You truly are one of the more obstreperous, fearful … and most notably ignorant Christians I have ever engaged.
You may consider science shows a god exists, but YOUR god is a Canaanite make-believe deity.
I am busy listening to a marvelous concert by the band Wishbone Ash. Probably before your time.
You should do yourself a favour and get some reality …in case Jesus of Nowhere sends you to Gehenna
“The vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator. I find it AS DIFFICULT to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality…as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.”
“Although I know of no reference to Christ ever commenting on scientific work, I do know that He said, “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” Thus I am certain that, were He among us today, Christ would encourage scientific research as modern man’s most noble striving to comprehend and admire His Father’s handiwork. The universe as revealed through scientific inquiry is the living witness that God has indeed been at work.”
—Werner von Braun, Rocket Scientist (But…but…but… the Canaanites, Werner! What do you have to say about the Canaanites?!?!)
The character Jesus of Nazareth is a narrative construct.
Fascinating! And yet BILLIONS of people have had their minds and spirits awakened as a result of that story…
What do you make of that?
Mass delusion, right?
“The impossibility of real science and real religion ever conflicting becomes evident when one examines the purpose of science and the purpose of religion. The purpose of science is to develop–without prejudice or preconception of any kind–a knowledge of the facts, the laws and the processes of nature. The even more important task of religion, on the other hand, is to develop the consciences… —Robert Andrews Millikan (Hey, you remember Millikan, right? I like his perspective a lot more than Clarence Darrow’s, don’t you?)
Indoctrination. Plain and simple. You are a living, breathing example.
The character, Jesus of Nazareth is a work of literary fiction for whom there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
Aaaaaand, now we’re back to indoctrination again!
Are you ready to admit yet that you are worried about “indoctrination” because you believe in the Truth yet?
…or do I need to start giving more examples of ways YOU’VE been indoctrinated again?
“There was a time when skepticism was an act of rebellion. Since to a degree I both believe in evolution and have faith, I can only conclude that, as prophesied, to have faith will someday be an act of rebellion.”
― Criss Jami
The basis for your belief is founded on fallacious doctrine and a make believe Canaanite deity.
Christianity has no verifiable evidence for any of its central characters including those those referenced from the Old Testament, many of whom are fictitious.
The character, Jesus of Nazareth references the character Moses several times, which does not bode well for someone who is claimed to be the creator of the universe ion human garb.
There is not a scrap of verifiable evidence for him. Not one.
Here’s the problem, Ark.
I don’t trust YOUR source. I can’t even begin to have a conversation with you about why even a “fictional” story can reveal truth. I can’t give you the explanations of the many historians who say you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Why?
Because we have to use logic and reason to have those conversations. (My source, remember?) And we still haven’t cleared up this little issue where you can’t explain where logic and reason came from. You take them as givens which have been coded into the Universe and then try to use them to cast doubt on the Code-Writer.
Discussions about what God is like, and whether the Canaanites understood a little piece of his character and whether Jesus was an historic or fictional character would all be interesting conversations to have…. with people who have proven they are good thinkers.
But I don’t trust you for the job.
I don’t trust you because you are a God-denier and you have been indoctrinated.
Using logic and reason is why archaeologists have shown there is nothing to the Exodus story, that the evidence uncovered shows a completely different history of the Israelites who were simply part of the Canaanites. There was no biblical exodus, no Egyptian Captivity and no conquest.
The Human Genome Project has demonstrated beyond doubt that the Adam and Eve story is nonsense, a Mitochondrial Eve not withstanding.
The flood story is a plagiarized Babylonian myth adapted from the Epic of Gilgamesh.
The New Testament is such a mishmash of fallacious hogwash and historical drivel not a single historian has put his name to paper stating there is any veracity to the outrageous nonsense it claims.
It is rife with error, interpolation and outright fraud.
And there is not a single shred of evidence for its central protagonist the character Jesus of Nazareth.
(sigh)
Too much text last time? I’ll shorten it:
I don’t trust your judgement of logic and reason, Ark.
Please stop telling me what “Archaeologists have shown,” until you’re ready to accept all the philosophy that goes with their discipline…
” “I have looked into most philosophical systems and I have seen that none will work without God.”
-James Clerk Maxwell (Mathematician)
1.Do you accept the findings of the Human Genome Project?
2. Do you dispute the Ugaritic tablets re Yahweh? If so, on what basis?
3. Do you accept the geological facts that refute the Biblical flood?
4. Do you have evidence to refute the archaeological and scholarly consensus – including the acknowledgement of the majority of Rabbis that the Exodus story is simply geopolitical myth?
5. Do you have any secular evidence that validates the biblical character Jesus of Nazareth?
Ark.
Seriously, buddy.
You’re embarrassing yourself.
If you have to ask these questions so that you can sleep tonight when I haven’t answered them (telling yourself, “She didn’t answer because she’s scared and she can’t and she’s clinging to her faith!”) then so be it.
But, I’m telling you right now, I’m not going to answer them. I’m not a biblical archaeologist, for one thing.
But more importantly, as I’ve already explained, you have no foundation upon which to build this discussion. You’re trying to construct a body of knowledge in thin air.
We can’t talk about tablets logically until you can explain where logic comes from.
And you can’t.
Do you really think I’m going to pick apart individual people and cities in some holy book, when you can’t even answer “Do Sandcastles build themselves” with a definite no???
Uh….not happening.
I agree. It is pretty hilarious that this whole discussion started with me saying everyone believes in God and everything is spiritual.
But, you think only one of us is “indoctrinated.”
See your trouble yet?
And what god are you talking about this time?
See your trouble yet?
Lol. No. And no one else does either.
Bodies of knowledge are built on foundations. You don’t have to name the Code -Writer before acknowledging that the SIMS didn’t write themselves.
True. But as a measure of your integrity, and as you are a Christian, would it be fair to say that you believe the Code-Writer is Yahweh/Jesus of Nazareth?
It would be fair to say I don’t know what to call Him.
That would be the gut-honest, totally-candid, can’t-find-another-way-to-explain-it-to-you, truth, and I’ve already said it in different ways.
I’ve already said God doesn’t have a single name, and he doesn’t need one.
AND, I’ve already said it wouldn’t matter to me if the entire Bible were 100% fiction, from beginning to end. I’ve said that my source is logic and reason–and I’m almost ready to declare that one of God’s names is Logic (though I’m still asking Him to guide me regarding whether that’s an acceptable–True–way to say it.)
(Incidentally, I find it interesting that the Bible refers to God as the “Logos.”)
BUT, those are the types of conversations I have with people who aren’t too full of pride to admit what’s right in front of them. People who are Theists–or, at the very least, Deists–have shown they are following the evidence and not just Googling fun facts to feel superior to Christians who don’t know anything about textual criticism and archaeology.
I would love to have a conversation with C.S. Lewis (may he rest in peace), or Dr. Hugh Ross or Dr. William Albright or anyone who’s willing to examine ALL the evidence. They have a starting point because the concede that logic and order are reflections of God and he wrote those features into the Code of our world.
So, I really (really) don’t know what I’m going to do if you try to dive down the rabbit hole of biblical specifics one more time, when we’re still miles from that step. (Probably start sharing quotes again.)
I think there’s a reason no one worships Baal or Mithra or Zeus anymore… I think the character of Jesus more closely reflects the True God, and so we’ve done what humans do and evolved our understanding of Him. BUT, it occurred to me this morning that even some tribe in a remote place which might be discovered bowing to Baal–even THEY would have more authority on the subject of “Which God?” than you do…
They at least recognize that creation has to have a creator. And that a “Who” Creator (rather than a “What” creator) is the only logical explanation.
“For myself, faith begins with a realization that a supreme intelligence brought the universe into being and created man. It is not difficult for me to have this faith, for it is incontrovertible that where there is a plan there is intelligence—an orderly, unfolding universe testifies to the truth of the most majestic statement ever uttered—-‘In the beginning God.’” –Arthur Compton
If logic and reason are other names by which a creator god can be known, then you’ve answered nothing, explained nothing, justified nothing. All you’ve done is move the goal posts further away. From whence did the creator god get endowed with logic and reason? And, if you’re suggesting that the creator god created them for some unknown reason, some unknown but internally consistent logic of the creator god Himself, then you’re assigning to the premise that which you are using for your conclusion. This ‘explanation’ uses the infantile Godidit substitute that answers nothing.
Now, I don’t have a degree in philosophy it’s true, but I studied enough metaphysics to recognize its familiar warren when I encounter it. That’s all this is, pure metaphysical meanderings and word games unrelated to reality in any way yet used as if to legitimately describe it… in this case a reality predicated on containing a creator agency – a reality from which we inconveniently cannot find any evidence at all to link to a creator agency.
The hypothetical border so cherished by those who try to sell the idea of a meaningful difference of domains between religious claims and scientific ones is once again crossed effortlessly by religious folk like you… switching from the metaphysical domain to the physical one by fiat. The ‘who’ assertion – a creator god – immediately becomes a stand-in for the ‘how’ explanation – POOF!ing reality and all it contains into being – and thus substituting a religious belief as if a stand in for an empirical claim.
The claim about logic and reason – or love or wonder or sandcastles or the Ebola virus – as evidence for a creator god doesn’t do the job you think it does, doesn’t explain anything. At the end of the day, you’re going to have to make a special exemption for this god from the very same strict demand you insist justifies the need for a creator god: Who created the creator god because all things must have a code writer!
This apologetic meme is undone by its own infinite regress, hoisted by its own petard.
I’m so glad Reality is bigger than YOUR tiny reality, Tildeb.
Mrsmcmommy, your precarious philosophical position is evident with every derisive response you make to sensible, logical, insightful points.
Even you must realize this.
Thanks for your input, Carmen!
I’m sure Tildeb is encouraged by your support.
I’ve been posting quotes from great thinkers and Prize-winners–both Theists and Atheists…
We had someone with a Doctorate in Microbiology comment in another thread.
…so it’s good that Tildeb has you to impress!
Consistency is definitely your strong suit. . . 🙂
JB just posted a new thread.
See ya over there! 😉
Anyone can cherry pick quotes, and anyone can use them to cover up a host of sins, not least of which is honest thinking. What’s hard is to think critically and organize one’s thoughts into a coherent and consistent model so I understand why you’d prefer to avoid this. Your quotes have added nothing to this conversation.
My quotes have added nothing, but Carmen has?
Ah … so you do think the biblical character, Jesus of Nazareth is your god?
Is this correct?
There are almost 300 comments on this thread. JB just posted a new one.
See you over there! 😉
We can’t talk about tablets logically until you can explain where logic comes from. And you can’t.
I can and have and you’ve simply waved these explanations away. You use logic and reason as if they were linked to your god causing them and so you use them as if they were evidence. They are not linked to your god,. They are linked to how the brain functions and that is linked to biology and that is linked to evolution and that is demonstrated in reality. You deny all of this, wave it away as if you’ve got an argument You don’t. You have only your faith based assertion.
Back again, Tildeb?
We’ll talk another day. (But I’ve already explained to you that your answer to the question, “Did the brain or logic come first” is problematic. I “waived it away” because it’s a philosophic impossibility.)
It’s the plank upon which you’ve built your garrison mentality and one that is rotten.
Philosophy isn’t part of your “reality,” huh?
😉
http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/godlessindixie/files/2016/03/AccidentalLewis.jpg
So reality isn’t part of your philosophy, eh?
I see that meme came from Neil Carter’s blog – Godless in Dixie. Do you suppose mrsmcmommy read and THOUGHT ABOUT the response Neil had to that meme?
Is this you? It sounds so very familiar.
https://youtu.be/1XrOscFu1y8
Perhaps, Ark, you’d do better speaking to David Wood.
You might find someone credible to quote instead of this half-wit.
Shouldn’t you be feeding kids or praying or something?
Morality? God given, yes or no?
Oh, you want two quotes at a time now?
You can just say so.
“Recently I have gone back to church regularly with a new focus to understand as best I can what it is that makes Christianity so vital and powerful in the lives of billions of people today, even though almost 2000 years have passed since the death and resurrection of Christ. Although I suspect I will never fully understand, I now think the answer is very simple: it’s true. God did create the universe about 13.7 billion years ago, and of necessity has involved Himself with His creation ever since. The purpose of this universe is something that only God knows for sure, but it is increasingly clear to modern science that the universe was exquisitely fine-tuned to enable human life. We are somehow critically involved in His purpose. Our job is to sense that purpose as best we can, love one another, and help Him get that job done.” –Richard Smalley, 1996 Nobel prize
So, Yahweh for morality, yes or no?
By the way I haven’t read a single quote you’ve typed.
Why not do a blog post of them all and I promise not to read those either.
Very impartial of you. Way to consider both sides. 😉
I have read enough apologists in my time thanks.
So, Yahweh the source of your morality, yes or no?
Or maybe Beelzebub?
As I said, it’s a good thing your children never met this “apologist” (who was an atheist). They’d see he has thought about life more thoroughly than their dad has.
“As I stomped my way through that garden, I had an incredible rush of freedom. The world has all of us on a leash–a leash made of rules: Do this. Don’t do that. But it’s a leash the slips right off when we realize we don’t have to do anything anyone tells us to do.” –A Logically Consistent Atheist
So, Yahweh, yes or no?
So, in your world non-belief is a belief. You must also believe baldness is a hairstyle.
Yes, Ark. He’s an odd person, indeed.
The Bible warned me I’d be an ‘odd person indeed’.
There’s your religious background peeping out again, Carmen!
I’m not sure how you see my religious background in that statement, JB but I have learned that most comments people make to you, you SOMEHOW construe god underpinnings. It’s the sign of the heavily indoctrinated.
Heavy indoctrination is why my writing is entertaining, insightful and relevant.
The opposite of ‘content free’…
For your listening/viewing pleasure. 🙂
I LOVE this video, Carmen! Seriously. Thank you for sharing!
(I think it would be an excellent addition to the next of Heck’s conferences. Don’t you think, JB?)
No internet here. Tornadoes.
… Probably because God doesn’t want me to see Carmen’s video.
Given JB’s love of analogies, I think he (and his sidekicks) would LOVE Kissing Hank’s Ass! 🙂
You DO know what synonym means?
I do indeed.
That’s why I used the word evidence in the first place.
How can atheism be a faith based position?
All God claims are faith based. They cannot be proven beyond all doubt.
Fair enough.
So your belief in your god is simply based solely on faith – not evidence. I can agree with this, no problem.
Nope.
Faith isn’t belief without evidence. It’s belief without PROOF.
Consult a dictionary for the meaning of the word proof.
Actually, I’ll help you out. Here it is:
“EVIDENCE” or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
“you will be asked to give proof of your identity”
synonyms: evidence, verification, corroboration, authentication, confirmation, certification, documentation, validation, attestation, substantiation
Proof is generally reserved for mathematics so I’ve heard.
Judging the veracity of most everything else is based on evidence.
For example. There is enough scientific evidence to demonstrate beyond all reasonable doubt that the biblical flood is a work of fiction.
Of course Ken Ham would say …”Were you there?” but he is simply a fool.
That’s how it works.
So I agree with you; your belief in the veracity of your god, Yahweh, is based on faith as there is not enough evidence to demonstrate otherwise.
I agree 100% with this.
Yes.
So is your atheist position.
I have no real problem with this.
But then I have no doctrine or religious text that my beliefs are based upon.
My lack of belief does not require me to show evidence for a narrative construct that is claimed to have risen from the dead.
Nor does it require me show evidence for a fictitious octogenarian mountain climber who is claimed to have met a make-believe Canaanite deity called Yahweh atop a fficticious mountain.
Whereas you, on the other hand, do have to show evidence.
And you can’t can you? Not for any of it.
And this is where any such truth claims go out thew window, John.
Of course you have doctrine and religious text. You’ve linked to them before. They are the writings that you accept as plausible enough to convince you that atheism is true.
Not doctrine in the least. What a very silly thing to say.
Merely historical, geological and archaeological text books.
Few, if any, mention your god any more than an engineering book or an astronomy book would and where /or if Yahweh comes up it is simply in an historical context or a reference from an archaeological perspective.
If this is what you consider doctrine then I presume would you apply the same criteria to a university-level geography textbook that describes how the earth is flat and the best way to avoid falling off the end.
What an odd person you are.
Silly is suggesting that you don’t have a doctrine. If that’s true, what are you trying to convince me of by commenting?
Everyone has a doctrine. Not all doctrines are correct.
The whole point of these posts is to explore which belief is best.
Excellent! And what do you propose is the best way to tackle this?
I’m already ‘tackling’ it.
Your contributions have been very helpful.
Maybe I missed something. In what way?
You have helped me establish which of our doctrines is better.
I must apologise re the doctrine thing as I thought you meant in some sort of religious context, which of course is nonsense.
So yes, the doctrine I adhere to would embrace things scientific, archaeological, historical etc.
Which doctrines do you consider better, and why?
Really?
Nothing better than science, archaeology or history. I embrace all of those as well.
And yet you believe in Yahweh?
May I ask, based on what?
I believe in a transcendent reality that created the physical universe. Call it Yahweh. Call it ‘Science’. Call it whatever you want.
As I’ve said dozens of times under dozens of blog posts: Intelligence doesn’t come from chaos. I did not will myself into existence.
How does your doctrine explain intelligence?
Correct me if I am wrong. I was under the impression you are a Christian?
Gosh, whatever gave you that idea?
Ah .. irony?
So you consider the biblical character, Jesus of Nazareth to be some sort of divine entity?
Could you explain based on what evidence?
Not until you answer my question.
How does your doctrine explain intelligence?
Fair enough.
Will you accept the synonyms understanding, reasoning power, comprehension?
Of course!
Then, evolution.
Okay.
Then, God.
And which god would this be, John?
The one that explains your evolution.
And the name of this god is….?
Like I said, you can call it whatever you want. I don’t care.
I am interested in what you call it? Surely you aren’t embarrassed or in any way ashamed of your god?
Or do you have a personal prohibition about uttering it’s name?
Nope. Not ashamed in any way.
Your relentless request for ‘God’s name’ is just one of the things that’s helped me figure out your doctrine.
I’m not hung up on his name. Call him ‘Evolution’ if you like. Or call him ‘Al’ if you’re a Paul Simon fan.
God created your evolution. He created your science. He is the author of history. I’ll concede whatever name you think is appropriate.
You are making a truth claim and yet you will not reveal the name of what you consider is the source?
And you have not provided any evidence either?
I do not consider any deity’s name appropriate as there is no evidence to support any such claim.
Thus your position is fallacious.
I did provide evidence. We agreed to call it intelligence (and whatever synonyms you chose). I claimed intelligence arises from intelligence, not chaos.
My doctrine is rational. I dont require you to define your doctrine in any specifics in order to respond to your queries. This is why my doctrine is better than yours.
You’ll also notice which one of us has taken to calling women names.
Calling my position fallacious is unimpressive when you haven’t articulated your own.
Okay. So we are looking at a creator deity, yes?
Why are you still asking? You’ve rendered your verdict. My position is fallacious. You think I owe you another answer?
You boast a rich doctrine of science, history and archaeology and are mute until I give you a specific piece of religious hocus for which you have a cut and paste reply all ready to go.
Time to pull out the ad hominem. I suggest something like: “I am usually quite an accommodating bloke when it comes to intransigence, but blatant stupidity lie (sic) your, I prefer to draw the line.
You are an idiot.”
That’ll show me!
You seemed intent on defining your terms for evolution as ”God” as being an intelligence behind the universe.
I am now asking if your are proposing a Creator Deity?
Are you?
Methinks JB is on the “Intelligent Design” team, Ark. Although why he’s reluctant to admit it, I have no idea. Unless, of course, he realizes that ID is a pseudoscience and knows how much criticism he’s in for if he admits it. I mean, let’s face it, being ID is a little more sophisticated than being a creationist and certainly one up on atheism, as he gets to retain his fairy godfather. 🙂
Well, I am not going to presuppose anything, Carmen, and rather let the man speak for himself.
I just struggle to comprehend why they are always so cagey with their replies.
So much obfuscation. It’s just plain odd.
If someone asks me a straightforward and honest question if I have an answer I will give it.
How difficult is it?
We’ve been waiting for him to speak for himself for . . . how many threads now? 😉
I have not engaged him before this thread. It has its moments.
“If someone asks me a straightforward and honest question if I have an answer I will give it.
How difficult is it?”
HAA HA HA HAA HA HAAA HA…
*sniff*
Sorry. I’ll compose myself.
You know I’m proposing a Creator Diety. I’ve said as much multiple times. I have answered your question (though I doubt it is ‘honest’ or ‘straightforward’). I acquiesced to your synonyms. I allowed you to pick any name you like for God. I haven’t called you a single, derogatory name.
Intelligence is the evidence for this Creator/Diety/Evolution/WhateverTheHellYouWantToCallIt.
I invite you now to decimate my doctrine. Reveal the evidence that demonstrates the ‘fallacious’ state of this position. Show no mercy! I’m yearning to hear your truth!
(I will NOT answer another question.)
I have no problem with deism or deists.
You recognize this conversation, right, Ark?
Tell JB about Gilgamesh and the Canaanites!!!
I am sure he is aware of the evidence, as are you.
Aw, come on. You know you want to repeat it! What else are you going to say?
Oh… wait… I see.
“Evolution.”
lol.
For someone who follows the narrative construct, Jesus of Nazareth, whose major plagiarized credo was ”love thy neighbour”, you have a very childish yet almost asinine bitchy streak.
Is this part of your indoctrination defense?
If so, it isn’t working and makes you come across as somewhat of an idiot to be honest.
It’s probably just a chemical imbalance…
Not my fault.
Ah.. PMS then?
Yeah, PMS is natural, right? Not too “religious.” You seem to think I ought to be able to control my bitchiness, but I’m just doing what I evolved to do.
Oh well, in that case you carry on.
As with evolution, truth is a bitch, right?
(No capital T necessary)
If I wanted to kill a small boy, would you be my defense lawyer?
If you wanted to?
Would you not rather consult a shrink beforehand?
In fact. all jests aside, I truly think you ought to.
I realise humour takes many forms but I dont do too well with … excuse the term … sickos.
You know exactly why I’m asking, Ark. 🙂
The “sicko” lawyer who defended killers on the basis that they were just doing what nature made them to do was an atheist.
If you will let me carry on and be a bitch because nature caused it, then why wouldn’t you let me carry on and be a murderer?
We already had this conversation and I stated I thought Darrow was wrong.
I am usually quite an accommodating bloke when it comes to intransigence, but blatant stupidity lie your, I prefer to draw the line.
You are an idiot.
You said, and I quote, “What those boys did was an aberration. Human nature is replete with such examples.
No further explanation to Darrow would be needed…”
So, I asked a follow up: “Are right and wrong just things that most humans do?”
You didn’t answer yes or no. You said it’s a straightforward as “evolution” again.
But, if I evolved THIS way and you evolved THAT way, then what gives you the right to judge me?
“Materialism sets us free from sin-by proving that there is no such thing as sin. There’s just antisocial behavior, which we can control with measures like laws and educational programs.” [and telling people they’re crazy when they ask questions that we can’t answer].
― Phillip E. Johnson
You see, I really do not mind having intelligent conversations with genuinely honest people who are willing to explore all sides of a topic.
However, there is no compelling evidence for your position – none whatsoever – so you trying to deny evolution is just ridiculous.
And no matter how you want to wheedle your questions you cannot cherry pick your way through this scenario.
Thus, anyone who denies evolution and accepts Adam & Eve, Noah’s Ark. Moses and Exodus et al as historical fact is either severely indoctrinated and thus suffering a mental health issue or is willfully ignorant.
I could not state for sure which one you are.
But if you have an intelligent, non- supernaturally loaded question, then please, fire away.
See, I haven’t denied evolution.
Not even once. And I’ve even granted you that the biblical stories of Moses, et. al. May be fiction.
But you suddenly got very angry (and creepily interested in my personal life) after that point.
The uncomfortable thing is: we both agree this court case really happened. There’s no question of the historicity of Clarence Darrow. There’s no question that his Atheism led him to conclude that killers are no more responsible for their actions than a river getting pulled over rocks. There were real life consequences when he successfully got two murderers a lesser sentence by arguing, “Who can cast blame?”
And you can’t answer that question. Why punish people for being what nature intended?
So, any position which has to stick to the same, tired script about “2000 Year Old Myths” and can’t answer basic questions about right/wrong that affect life TODAY isn’t very impressive.
Interested in your personal life? No a bit I can assure you.
Let’s keep it simple shall we?
So, you accept evolution, yes or no?
I have screen shots. You asked at least three times about some “deep dark sin” as if we’re girlfriends at a sleepover…
And if you think others who are reading have missed the fact that you’re always trying to steer the conversation by asking the questions instead of answering any, you’re mistaken.
Oh, you think this is creepy? In my experience with internet reborns it seems the standard ”sin fodder”.
So, let’s forgive and forget all the other stuff shall we and try to have a grown up conversation.
Do you accept evolution as fact? Yes or no?
Yeah, you’d like to forget all the other stuff….
“No one disputes that seeming order can come out of the application of simple rules. But who wrote the rules?”
― Robert J. Sawyer
Not in the least. And I do find born again testimonials fascinating I was simply hoping we could get back on track.
So. do you believe in evolution, yes or no?
When you define “back on track” as “being in command of the conversation” then no. We’re not getting “back on YOUR track.”
You have three choices. You can answer my question. You can claim you don’t understand it (which you’ve done several times in the past). Or you can ask your question about evolution over and over and over and over…as many times as you want to get responses of random quotes that I like…
(“Of all the major religions, or lack thereof, the atheist’s is one of the best pretenders: his foundation for all existences, as well as moral behaviors for the permanent good of mankind, begins at science but ends at himself, the Napoleon complex of both intelligence and imagination. On the other hand the anti-theist wouldn’t survive without a deity beyond himself to hunt. He doesn’t pretend, he simply nullifies his own position.”
― Criss Jami, Killosophy
I covered your question before. I thought it was done?
If you require me to answer again ask the question differently.
So, do you believe in evolution, yes or no?
“Science and religion are very much alike. Both are imaginative and creative aspects of the human mind. The appearance of a conflict is a result of ignorance. We come to exist through a divine act. That divine guidance is a theme throughout our life; at our death the brain goes, but that divine guidance and love continues. Each of us is a unique, conscious being, a divine creation. It is the religious view. It is the only view consistent with all the evidence.” —Sir John Eccles, 1963 Nobel Prize.
So you don’t believe in evolution. Why didn’t you just say instead of playing silly games and being ingenious?
So you are a creationist then, I take it?
“But, if I evolved THIS way and you evolved THAT way, then what gives you the right to judge me?” –Mrs. McMommy, approximately 90 minutes ago.
“There were real life consequences when he successfully got two murderers a lesser sentence by arguing, “Who can cast blame?”
And you can’t answer that question. Why punish people for being what nature intended?” –Mrs. McMommy, approximately and hour ago.
“Oh, didn’t I answer that? Hmm…could you ask it one more time???” –A paraphrase of Ark, approximately 5 seconds ago.
I’m sorry, I thought I told you I considered Darrow was wrong? And I would have told him the same.
Apologies. I must have missed this.
I tend to switch off with comments that are too long-winded or conflated.
Your behavior is judged by your immediate peers, and if this behaviour is not conducive to furthering the general stability of the tribe (family/society) or is seen as overly disruptive ( fill in activity you consider relevant) then in general your ”arse will be grass”.
Ark.
So, right and wrong is a majority rules thing? You can’t judge me individually. But if you get enough people together who don’t agree with what the chemicals in my head are doing, you all can decide together to lock me up?
Might is right, as they say?
Depends. How would you define right and wrong?
Oh, brother….
Define it however you need to define it to answer the question.
Imagine you’re explaining to a child the question which they are experts at asking: why should I or shouldn’t I do whatever I want to do?
As I said, if the behaviour is conducive to the well being and general stability and positive growth of the family/tribe/ society then this ( to my mind) would be seen as good behaviour.
Of course one must allow for the odd quirky stuff. Creativity, Arts and maybe at a push Tammy Wynette and the Back Street Boys)
Good heavens, we are not talking Dictatorship here.
However, if you want to do drugs, overindulge in alcohol, drive like a maniac, beat the shit put of your spouse/kids, kill people at a whim, chop off people’s heads because your god said so, and in general exhibit behaviour that would hurt, hinder or might label you as a complete Dickhead then this would very likely be regarded as ”bad behaviour” and one would probably be sent to the Naughty Step.(or local equivalent)
Did I miss anything?.
That’s how you would explain it to a child? 🙂 Okay, I’ll reply like a child with an impressive vocabulary.
I’m not sure you’ve really thought this through. What are the implications of saying that humans are the be-all, end-all of morality. How can groups of people possibly be the standard? First of all, families, tribes, and societies clash with each other all the time. Who’s to say which is right in cases of war?
Second, you gave a whole list of things which most humans just happen to agree is bad behavior. But they have been conditioned (one might say “indoctrinated”) from very young ages to believe those things are WRONG. They are punished for hitting each other. They are warned they will be jailed if they break local laws.
What should stop a child from saying, “I reject religious rules AND I reject society’s rules, too” ?
” …behaviour(that) is conducive to the well being and general stability and positive growth of the family/tribe/ society then this ( to my mind) would be seen as good behaviour.”
Is there anything in particular about that statement you do not agree with or do not understand?
I’m a child, remember? I want you to spell it out, because a good, curious, skeptical child wants to know WHY.
Because society says so?
I did. Maybe you are ”child” with special needs?
You certainly appear to be behaving like one.
I managed to teach my kids without such problems and they have grown up to be rational, intelligent well rounded people who dont seem to have any emotional needs with regard make believe deities.
Maybe you nee to have another talk with your dad on these issues and if you stamp your foot and behave in such a petulant manner, please let me know how he deals with it, will you?
In you get no joy from your old man,then maybe you might need a professional who has the training to deal with such recalcitrance.
I have neither the patience or the inclination to deal with such willful ignorance.
Ark,
I do not revel is the suffering of fellow human beings. You are toast. You should stop saying things immediately.
Your ‘whateveryoucallit’ doctrine doesn’t have what it takes to stand up to even basic scrutiny. And you are not the skillful debater you apparently believe yourself to be.
The answer mcmommy is looking for is an honest admission that morality isn’t just a social agreement between groups of people. Everybody, INCLUDING YOU, knows that can’t be true.
…Yet that was your ‘arse is grass’ summation of how right and wrong are determined. It’s hogwash.
So now you’re back to name calling. Funny how you only do that with women. I have some personal insight about what makes McMommy tick. She is a rational, intelligent well rounded person who doesn’t have any emotional needs to be affirmed by online nitwits. Her identity isn’t derived by amassing the approval of trolls.
She’s smarter than you.
She’s probably smarter than me because she’s not yet stooped to this childish level of engagement.
You don’t even have the capacity to UNDERSTAND her questions, let alone answer them.
If you want to engage an adult, you’ll need to become one yourself.
JB, just a little reminder about mrsmcmommy. She has certainly gone ad hominem on me, and when reminded of that (although I’m not sure she knew the actual definition of it but, no doubt, does now) her reply to me was that she was just simply speaking the truth.
The irony.
Evidence, Carmen.
Send me the evidence.
I have no intention of scrabbling through past posts this morning, JB. You’ll just have to take my word for it. But, you know, heathen that I am – that’ll never happen. 😉
Of course you have no intention of backing up your claim! That would require research. Evidence is something that you require from theists, not something you need to produce yourself.
But I believe you. You are an authority on ad hominem since it is your primary method of argument. You are defending Ark with ad hominem this fine morning.
Right, JB.
Is it dark in that hole you’re digging yourself?
Is it dark in that hole you’re digging yourself, Carmen?
Oh, I only resorted to a bit of playful name calling, JP as she seemed to be getting so wound up by my refusal to cow-toe to her Creationist line and hadn’t the simple integrity to answer whether she believed in Evolution.
You god-botherers are all the same. and I have sparred with far more knowledgeable than you two, believe me.
But I am not partisan when it comes to calling a spade a spade and take no note of whether I am discussing with man or woman.
Evangelical stupidity is a non-sexist form of indoctrination and makes half- wits out of the best of them.
You will note I haven’t yet called you a Dickhead.
But your obfuscation and imbecilic intransigence which you try to mask as ”intelligence” is the repartee of the almost terminally.
But carry on and I might well bring it out, just for you.
But on a serious note …if I am unable to understand her questions then she needs to dumb them down.
After all, it is your duty to spread the Word is it not? The Great Commission and all that, right?
Think of me as a Test Case for your marvelous brand of Evangelic Bulldust. If you can convince moi, then you could probably convince anyone.
Go for it Tiger. I know you’ve got it in you and Jesus of Nazareth would be so proud …if he were real that its
You err in thinking that your perpetual skepticism is warranted by the weakness of my position. I know people who believe there’s no American flag on the moon. I know people who believe the Earth is flat. And I know you, Ark.
You must attack Evangelic Bulldust because you’re doctrine is devoid even of Bulldust. You cannot write a blog post outlining any aspect of your beliefs. That’s why you’re here. My doctrine provides topics of conversation. My robust worldview is big enough to accommodate you. My questions confound you. And you are fascinated.
You can have the last word.
Three words ….. You’re a Dickhead.
So, if one of your grown children wanted to know where you got the morality you always encouraged them to follow, you would take them to a psychiatrist?
Why?
But you are denying evolution, mresmcmommy. You are showing that you don;t even understand it. But rather than ask in an honest and straightforward way why Ark would submit ‘evolution’ to explain intelligence, you just barreled forward with your incorrect beliefs and presumed to define Ar’s position as incorrect.
You use Darrow’s words to try to support your position, as if another atheist’s words must be representative of some ubiquitous atheist position. You quote, “Who can cast blame?” and continue on with your belief that “you can’t answer that question. Why punish people for being what nature intended?”
Right there. I highlighted it for you in bold because this is the gross distortion that stops people prefer a creation explanatory model from understanding evolution.
You demonstrate this time after time.
Evolution is a natural, unguided, process of change over time. From this process arises not just biological complexity but emergent properties that include what your Dad calls ‘intelligence’. There is no intention in nature, no guide, no blueprint, no design. I say that with the understanding that I mean there is no evidence linking what we find in nature to these selected effects. None. If there were, I would soften my claim. This is why Ark offers the process of evolution as a reasonable, evidence-adduced explanation for intelligence. It’s not an equivalent kind of religious belief but a scientific understanding adduced from studying life.
Evolution also produces behaviour we can use as evidence for moral concern. In neuroscience, we call this biological awareness about what is fair ‘reciprocity’. This biological awareness is often the key element that is missing in heated debates about free will – compatiblism – and physics (I could not have chosen differently). The argument reminds me of two selected frames in a movie tape where the intervening frames are ignored. Until we better understand how the brain processes moral considerations and reintroduces the missing frames, we’re mostly arguing from the extremes. This is the case of eliminating moral responsibility from human behaviour because the underlying assumption is that natural function of the brain cannot include moral responsibility OR some extra agency, some supernatural agency, must be responsible.
Neither is the case.
The brain is perfectly capable of performing various considerations including behaviours to which we ascribe morality and ethics and ownership. As I said, reciprocity is a built-in biological function and so I think consideration about its key role has to be front and center of any such discussions. Right now, our understanding is at an elementary level. That’s not good enough so we have lots of work to do.
Atheism, as a null set, offers nothing to this discussion and so to use it as if it does is completely misguided. Offering Darrow’s words because he’s an atheist is completely misguided whereas the role of evolution in the emergence of intelligence is not.
To deny evolution and claim nature itself must have intention is a theological statement contrary to and in conflict with the very foundation of understanding that informs all the biological sciences. There simply is no evidence for this claim to be taken seriously nor evidence that the evolutionary model is incorrect. This is why Ark claims you must have a mental disorder to deny the explanatory power of the evolutionary model – that nature is unguided and not intentional – that informs all kinds of applications, therapies, and technologies you yourself bet your life and the lives of your children on… but just can’t quite bring yourself to honestly admit versus supporting your contrary theological beliefs.
This is a problem for you, mrsmcmommy. And it has everything to do with you accepting a creationist explanatory model as if it had some merit beyond your imported confidence. Reality is not your ally in this matter, and so denying reality its say regarding beliefs held about it really is a form of delusion… a mental dysfunction. You can correct for this and drop the belief that is not supported by any compelling evidence. And a great way to do this is to drop your theistic assumptions entirely and come at important questions honestly and openly and with a desire to learn rather than pre-loaded with theistic bullshit that you are prepared to launch scatter-shot at anyone who takes issue with its truth value.
Don’t distract us, Tildeb. You’ve had your chance to answer my questions.
I want to see if Ark is any better at philosophy than you are.
If we were to live in a world of Ark’s right and wrong that is ruled by the majority’s decision to protect and harbour community, then our slogan would be “kill the freaks, fit in or die”.
Yep.
I suspect he knows that.
It’s hard to ask yourself the question “why” for very long without running into Nietzsche-esque dilemmas. Submit to the idea that Right and Wrong are bigger than us…or go crazy.
But, right now I’m trying to focus on Ark’s inexplicable anger at me for “indoctrinating” my kids. (He was on another thread when he lashed out.) He has no right to tell be upset, when he isn’t prepared to answer the earnest questions of today’s youth himself.
As we both know, JB is excellent at spinning his own narrative. I gave him that exact definition yesterday, but he imagines something else.
Atheism is very simple, isn’t it?
…Very, very, very, very simple…
Yes.
And it’s kinda whiny too.
If you’d like to balance “whiny” with a little “unnecessarily hateful,” you can visit my blog again.
I’m back to quoting scientists, which always causes rage, for some reason.
(I’m sure science can tell me.) 😉
I’m getting so bored having to read the same definitions over and over again. When will these atheists give us credit for having any brains, as they expect us to give them? We have no solid evidence they have a brain. What brief ray of intelligent thought we sometimes glimpse isn’t enough to be called documentive proof. Don’t get me wrong, I dont BELIEVE they are brainless. I just have a LACK OF BELIEF in their brains.
…And that’s a wrap everybody.
When will these atheists give us credit for having any brains? A good start would be to demonstrate good reasoning and honesty and stop making confident claims – especially anti-atheist claims in particular – that have nothing but your disreputable belief to back them up.
I’m hoping for too much, aren’t I?
Can I answer that? 🙂
A good start would be to demonstrate good reasoning and honesty and stop making confident claims.
Oh, you mean like you’re doing to Christianity? Asking questions we already answered, and trying to make something more complicated or ridiculous than it really is? Like the way you assume about my beliefs or lack thereof? Like the way you just assumed that my answers are dishonest? Like the way you slur my reasoning? Like the way you allude to honesty as something that is “right” yet you are without a moral foundation? And I’m supposed to take YOUR brain seriously? I have further proof to add to my lack of belief.
I see you’re still having trouble getting started.
Yes, very simple indeed… and yet John still gets it wrong again and again and again. Funny, that. It’s almost like the term has to be defined this way to make the straw man he needs to have to justify his vilification of atheists… oh wait… John’s back to making his dolls to stick pins in, right? But isn’t that practice voodoo? Maybe John B’s really a voodoo Christian. I’d best put away the chickens and hide the candles.
Nothing to get wrong.
Atheism is nil. Void. Nothing.
Can’t get simpler than that.
Right. So why do you keep assigning it all kinds of bullshit… like it’s a belief with doctrine and religious text when you know it’s contains nothing?
Because you keep offering all manner of comment. Apparently you’re the one who doesn’t understand there’s no content.
Now that we’ve defined “Atheism,” let’s talk about “irony.”
Don’t worry about it. I’m jamming a pin in my Tildeb doll right now.
Clearly.
They’re ALL super grouchy today…
I’m sure a neurologist could explain EXACTLY why…
Grouchy is what happens when you have nothing to contribute to a dialog but keep talking anyway.
Humor can also happen at those times but not when you take yourself too seriously.
You don’t know anything about humor.
Just wait until they discover the joy molecule.
Science is going to put you out of a job!
When that happens, there will be scientific proof of successful, evangelical comedians!
Yes, there’s always a silver lining…
Instead of “comedian” we will call you “pharmacist.”
And everyone will love you because you maketheir lives brighter. (And also, because you will distribute “love” pills in addition to the “joy” ones.)
All I said was that your analogy failed and explained why. You’re the one who then started spouting all kinds of anti-atheist bullshit in response.
Anti-atheist?
How is it possible to be Anti-atheist when Atheism is a void?
How is it possible to be Anti-atheist when Atheism is a void?
Well, let’s look at how you manage to do just that, John B.
You do it by pretending when convenient that atheism is something it’s not, that non belief in your god contains principles it does not contain, supports immoral behaviours when it does not, that its ‘followers’ are hyper-skeptical to the point of unreasonableness, that if any non believer takes issue with your false portrayal and offers you clarity and simple corrections, you assign to them that they are just being whiny, and so on. Furthermore, you attempt to sell your faith as if it were an appropriate tool for guiding behaviour when it’s not, a means to understand various life considerations when it’s not, a reasonable explanation for causal effects when its not, and so on. Again, criticizing these claims you make for lack of merit is blamed on the criticizer rather than the lack of good reasoning you demonstrate, the lack of evidence that undermines any of your claims, the lack of any means testing required to justify the sweeping causal claims you make either about your beliefs or the lack of belief others may have regarding them, and so on. You target those who raise these issues with you by demonstrating contempt for them, for their lack of belief as if this were both a character flaw and an intentional and willful contrary belief, and assigning to them false motivations and negative stereotyping for not believing as you do and daring to say so.
You exercise anti-atheism but try to divert away from being responsible for your behaviour by rationalizing that you’re free to do so if atheism is actually simple non belief. Sorry, John. You can’t have it both ways.
That reply made no sense.
If Atheism is a void, there is nothing to demean. It’s like you’re accusing me of hurting Santa Claus’s feelings.
Tildeb’s reply made perfect sense, JB.
It’s too bad you can’t see what I see – that you have an emotional need for an invisible, comforting friend. It’s that simple.
Well, that and the possibility that Tildeb raised in another thread – that you are scared witless that you’ve indoctrinated your family completely and now realize it’s complete foolishness.
Of course it made sense to you Carmen.
If Atheism is a void, there is nothing to demean.
Right. Yet you do. How do you manage this? Easy peasy… by you importing negative attributes to atheism and then vilifying those who you presume to have and share those same attributes!
Good grief, John B, but you’re dense on this topic. I keep asking you to stop importing this bullshit and smearing atheists with it and you continue to do so until challenged and then using the defense that there’s no smearing because atheism is a void. That’s why I say you can’t have it both ways.
I felt that. Oh wait… nope, just gas.
Yes, let’s.
Tildeb, aren’t all of our analogies pre-programmed to fail though, because you choose disbelief every time? Even when John is batting for your side of the argument in his analogies you still find fault. I’m confused. You believe in nothing, and get offended at us for finding a delusion that brings our lives meaning and joy. If you truly believe in the void, then why don’t you just prove it exists by enjoying it for yourself?
When you say atheism I think you mean hypocrisy.
The analogy doesn’t work… yet again.
Remember, the analogy is based on common lack of belief. For your analogy to work, everyone has to share a common lack of belief in all authors… except one. This is clearly not the case in your analogy; you’re not dealing with another person who, like you, doesn’t believe in any authors whatsoever except one, namely, Dawkins.
Now, given that the analogy doesn’t work at its most basic level, we can also include the criticism that, unlike belief in your creator god, there is gobs of evidence Dawkins did write that book and this evidence can be complied to make a very compelling case,.. not that theists think any amount evidence matters to a pious belief where the case is simply presumed to be true. The analogy should include the trivial matter of one person imposing a faith-base rather than extracted evidence-adduced belief for the exception and then use that faith-based claim as a justification for the exception.
You still have all your work before you.
The atheist, faith-based position is that no Gods exist. Lumping all God theories together is exactly like lumping all book authors together. Reasoning that all authors are equally likely to have written Dawkins book is what atheists do with Zeus, Mithra and Spaghetti Monster in regards to creation narratives.
The analogy works perfectly.
The atheist, faith-based position is that no Gods exist.
No. That’s factually wrong. This is not what an atheist believes. We’ve been over and over and over this, John B.
Again, atheism is defined as lacking a belief in gods or a god. Look : LACKING A BELIEF! Read it again. Memorize it. Imprint it in your brain: a LACK of a belief.
I’m an atheist. I read lots of atheists. I should know what the term means for me (and for all of the atheists I read) because I’M THE ONE USING IT AS AN IDENTIFIER. And it means that I LACK a belief in gods or a god BECAUSE I have never encountered any compelling evidence to the contrary.
Anyway, you’re not lumping disbelief in all book authors in your analogy John B. Nor are you making a single exception. That is the basic requirement to make an equivalent analogy. That – not any BELIEF you are imposing on me without my consent – is why your analogy fails. Your analogy… and not the belief you claim incorrectly I maintain.
Lacking a belief in gods is a position.
Protesting in all caps doesn’t change that fact.
Now comes the mandatory word game where a lack of belief is now a belief because it’s a ‘position’.
Good grief.
So is a non car now a car because it’s a ‘position’? This is stupid. The non car is anything BUT a car. Duh.
John B, are you a non 8 foot tall immoral alien sex organ with just enough intelligence to help you reproduce because this is how I decide I wish to define you? And do you seriously think this definition of mine about you in these terms is okay because it’s a ‘position’?
What are you so obtuse about taking THIS position about non belief is another kind of belief? It’s not. It’s anything BUT a belief.
Oh look… isn’t it remarkable that in this one instance your non-belief-is-a-belief just so happens to serve you claiming that atheists hold a similar faith position as a theist. It’s so transparently stupid, it burns.
Great, you used the word “Atheist” and sidetracked him…
:/
Next time, say exactly what you said before–but change all uses of the word “Atheist” to “Whatever You Are.”
Very insightful analysis of the logical flaw in Dawkins’ argument.