Open thread for episode 21.39: Tracie and Phil

Tracie talks about Foreclosed identity using video examples. She and Phil take viewer calls.


Links of interest in this week’s program:



  1. Doug Hayden says

    To the Bernie supporter: If you DIDN’T vote for Hillary Clinton, your vote was EFFECTIVELY a vote for tRump.

    So be ashamed of your inability to maturely accept the better of two possible choices, demanding the impossible ideal.

  2. Kennita Watson says

    Someone called near the end of the 10/8 show who seemed to believe that all the Jews in israel were original Hebrews, or at least from that bloodline. But as Tracie pointed out, people convert. For example, Eddie Cantor convinced Sammy Davis, Jr. to convert to Judaism.

  3. Peta Milton says

    8.30am to 10.30am 09/October here in Australia, I only ever get to watch this if I have a flex day on Monday unfortunately, this was the first time I was able to see it live, was a bit disappointed so much time spent on Atheist Callers that didn’t really get to their point very quickly but hey the rest was good, would have liked to hear Phil more too. Thanks though mostly enjoyed it.

  4. Tim Presley says

    I particularly enjoyed the last exchange between Tracie and the Christian caller. I think it was frustrating for her but listening to the way the caller’s argument shaped itself was satisfying in its predictability. Anyone who might call in thinking they’d have an easier time of it with Tracie than with Matt are in for a serious surprise. I have enjoyed the program for a couple of years and have listened to many recorded broadcasts. I continue to learn. Thanks.

  5. Fred West says

    Hey Tracie, thanks for not letting that fool Haymish on the show today. He was fun to laugh at when he first started calling but it has gotten a bit old over the years.

  6. Mobius says

    Bless you, Tracie, for not going on to Hamish’s call.

    As for Keith, the last caller, just .

  7. Patrick Harris says

    This is the first live broadcast I’ve been able to see. Watching you all from Afghanistan. It is great that you guys are doing community service! Keep up the great work!

  8. says

    Keith in NY- If you can’t explain something then you don’t understand it. Your experience explains nothing and neither did you. If you want to discuss Cosmological Physics or your new understandings/misunderstandings of the Universe, I am willing to believe that (while I am only an Engineer who studies Cosmological Physics as a hobby) I can help you to validate or invalidate your “divine” experience/s. If you read this, please feel free to engage…let’s see what your “God” has to say. At some point in your conversation with Tracie, you asserted that there is something beyond our universe. You also stated that our universe is “under pressure”. I would like to probe these statements. I hope you read this and reply.

  9. Experienced Atheist says

    I believe Keith said “you know” 17 times during the first minute of his call. I had plans to count all “you know”, but, you know, lost count after 33…(after three minutes or so)..

  10. StonedRanger says

    No Hamish this week? Thank you , thank you, thank you. I am loving having Tracy as a host. You will talk to a theist until you are done and you hang up. I love that. If I had more hair, Keith would have had me tearing some out. The delusion was strong with that one.

  11. tjd0515 says

    The argument Keith gave at the end is nearly the exact argument my dad gave to me… and my dad is Mormon.

    What my dad would say about Keith’s personal experience is that it was from god, but that he’s misinterpreted the experience. He would say that Keith has felt the “love of god” but it doesn’t mean that mainstream Christianity is true or that the Bible is the only scripture god has revealed to man. He also needs to have a specific experience where god confirms to him that the Book of Mormon is true and that Joseph Smith was a prophet of god.

    And because of the specificity of the personal experience from god, which no one could dispute since it wasn’t anyone else’s experience, it could not be seen as a misinterpretation of the experience.

  12. lenny says

    Could someone make a Hamish canon compilation? I would love to see more Hamish. It was great finally attending one of these live!

  13. Monocle Smile says

    Keith was an atheist for bad reasons and then converted for more bad reasons. Not surprising from a guy who thinks with the wrong head. Your boner is not god, and neither are the hallucinogens that you apparently dropped. Keith, you don’t know shit about shit, and you need to stop pretending otherwise.

    Meh, after spinning off into the “origin of the universe” bullshit and making shit up basically on the spot about “god is everything,” I’m not sure Keith was a real caller. If he was, I would not want to spend time with this guy; people who actually behave like him are extremely obnoxious and a threat to both temperament and brain cells.

    HOLY SHIT I wanted to punch through the phone and clock Keith in the jaw when it came to the prophecy bullshit. This is a dangerous, jilted person who probably needs an adult monitoring him.


  14. Ron Phipps says

    I think it might be helpful to share the first part of the video where Tracie discussed and shared about the being open and closed minded. This videos and their comments were very valuable to me to share with others. It will cause some to reflect.

  15. RationalismRules says

    I was a little surprised that Tracie hadn’t encountered John Lennox – he’s a well known Catholic apologist in the UK, highly credentialed in academia, and has built his profile as an opponent of Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins. Xtians like to cite him as he’s associated with both science and philosophy. What I’ve seen of him has left me thoroughly unimpressed.

  16. Bestrides says

    Listening to Keith brought to mind a thought that often occurs to me when I listen to theists, which is that they’re so concerned about the fact that people don’t see things their way because they have doubts themselves. For instance, if a group of people went around simply asserting that the phenomenon we call gravity doesn’t exist, I’d blow them off and wouldn’t give them a second thought. If the existence of God was so obvious, why give the time of day to non-believers who can’t or won’t see it?

  17. elwood says

    I’m a long-time listener to the show, but it’s usually on too late in my time zone so I tend to listen to the mp3 audio on the following day. I just wanted to mention that for the last few weeks the audio on the mp3 has been “glitchy” and is hard to follow because there seems to be some kind of fault that effectively removes about 1/2 a second every minute or so. (I’m not talking about the last caller on this particular show who had his own audio problems, but of course this just added to the difficulty for me to follow the conversation.) I’m not always able to see the Youtube videos but when I can they seem to be fine. It’s just the mp3 format which seems to suffer from this. Has anybody else come across this problem? (It’s not my system either, I can play mp3 files from other sources perfectly.)

  18. jaihare says

    I have to admit that I had never heard of John Lennox, either. I looked him up on YouTube, and I do recall seeing him speak in some videos before – but I didn’t know who he was. Like RationalismRules, I wasn’t impressed by his arguments.

  19. jaihare says

    elwood… I have never used the mp3 version. The show is simultaneously broadcast to YouTube, so why don’t you just catch it on YouTube the next day? If there’s a problem with the mp3s, though, why not send a report to the web admin?

  20. Wiggle Puppy says

    Keith has gotten into apologetics hardcore… it was fairly obvious at the point when Tracie challenged him and he came back with the incredibly predictable “well, you don’t know that reality is real so we’re all equally justified in our beliefs” nonsense. One has to wonder why an all-knowing, all-powerful deity has to rely on such sloppy and stupid non-arguments.

  21. thebookofdave says

    Tracie, you may not be a prophet, but today you were a stern but righteous ruler. Thanks for dropping Hamish, and enjoy your Indian food, as was foretold.

  22. Monocle Smile says

    I always have the same thought pop in my head when John Lennox speaks: “your academic accomplishments should prevent you from saying such inane nonsense, you shameless shill.”

  23. Murat says

    John Lennox sounds like a fake name. As if someone wanted to hijack the lyrics of “Imagine” in an attempt to make religion look good.

  24. says


    >Tracie, you may not be a prophet, but today you were a stern but righteous ruler. Thanks for dropping Hamish, and enjoy your Indian food, as was foretold.

    When I arrived at the table for the after show dinner, one of our regulars bellowed, “Behold! The prophetess!” since I was, indeed, arrived to eat Indian food, as was foretold. 😉

  25. Ryan Boone says

    Kei, from Lonaconing, MD,

    My girlfriend lives in your town, and I’m visiting on October 13-14. I think she reached out to you previously. We would love to meet up and grab coffee or something and talk. We are both open atheists and understand you’re questioning. It’s a very tough area to be quietening your faith. It seems like the bookstore in historic La Vale is atheist/agnostic friendly, considering their selection. If you want to get in touch, I’m on Facebook or you can email me

  26. Murat says

    Hence was born Tracism, which was going to take a whole new direction in the centuries to come, and lead humanity to new levels of well-being… Who could have known it was not even a legend, but just a joke back in the day!

  27. RationalismRules says

    @MS #25
    I entirely agree. Followed immediately by “Oxford University must have much lower standards than I thought”.

  28. RationalismRules says

    Keith… sheesh!

    Apparently God personally explained to Keith the origins of the universe. Which means God is either incredibly bad at explaining things, or incredibly bad at selecting which people to explain things to.

  29. Monocle Smile says

    @Jeff LeBert
    Anthony Magnabosco has been on AXP before, just FYI.

    Looks like Glenn Beck was a silent partner in the funding. It’s far from the first of its kind (blatant christian propaganda with zero basis in reality), but I guess when campy “tear jerkers” don’t do it, go for the thriller, it seems. Read the reviews to learn more.

  30. john4antitheism says

    It’s hard to comprehend an atheist becoming a theist. Why discard logic, reason and free thought for total and utter non sensical thoughts and beliefs. I think someone like Keith should discard his phone for a carrier pigeon, give away his car for a donkey and cart, and go live in a cave. His beliefs originated in writings from nomadic goat herders who slaughtered a goat (or maybe a child) to offer to their god to ward of famine and pestilence, the times when the earth was flat. All topped off with some extremely young female impregnated by something that doesn’t exist, to give birth to some dude who was crucified, died and came back to life then conveniently disappeared never to be seen again. Makes perfect sense to me.

  31. Errational says

    Yes, Elwood and Conversation Tube, me too. I wasn’t sure if the audio dropping out was some kind of Devine experience and just some god f-ing with me. Good to verify that it’s not just me, it’s screwing with all three of us.

  32. Mavvy says

    Brilliant show. Always very informative and entertaining from start to finish when Tracie is presenting 😄 I happened to see both those videos on Cordial Curiosity’s channel this week also, it’s interesting seeing the different types of belief and personalities between the 2 examples. Loving his channel, and the street epistemology videos.
    Bad luck Hamish, better luck next week!

  33. Safudas says

    Though there are no pre-requisites for being an atheist, the Keith guy in the end just sounded too gullible to ever have been one….or so he claims to have been.

    John Lennox is a distinguished professor of mathematics, and a Russian linguist. They are two disciplines which require massive amounts of mental powers, logic, and an ability to understand complex structures and patterns.

    Sadly, the few remaining free kilobytes left in his brain could only accommodate lazy concepts such as the god-of-the-gaps, or the fallacy-from-incredulity for which he is most famous for.

  34. Robin says

    Keith is basically has a mixture of confirmation basic ,circular reasoning and god of the gaps

    I had an personal experience, thus it is god.
    God is the only one that gave me an experience.

    And the dumbest thing is that his experience is his own ignorance in reasoning where the universe comes from. Which is answers by god of the gaps.

    I think Keith has a fear of the words “i don’t know” to this topic of the origins

    But I don’t think that is the reason why he believes. I think this just a topic to try and convince an Atheist

  35. says

    >It’s hard to comprehend an atheist becoming a theist. Why discard logic, reason and free thought for total and utter non sensical thoughts and beliefs.

    I’m replying to this one, but there are several folks above who expressed a similar question. I know it’s not news to anyone here that an atheist is just about not believing a god exists. For many folks, and I think in Keith’s situation as well, it’s not about being an atheist because you have considered the question and decided it’s not credible. It’s more about never having really considered the question. Keith started out by saying something about having had a “perfect” worldview as an atheist–or so he thought. When I heard that, a red flag rose immediately. Science exists as a method of discovery about the world around us. If we had a perfect worldview, there would be no need for science, as there would be no gaps in our knowledge. Gaps in my knowledge are gaps in my worldview. There are simply things “I don’t know.” And as someone said above, once Keith realized this, he seems to have considered this a flaw in the worldview–that it wasn’t omniscient. The god worldview provides an answer to everything (seemingly). As we joked during another call: How was the universe created? God! How did life form? God! How will the world end? God! Where do we get our morality? God!

    If a person is looking for a worldview that helps them *feel* as though they have no outstanding questions, then religion is it. Ironically even things they don’t know–“God knows, and that’s all I need to know.” Keith expressed a variant of this when he tried to describe god as knowing things no one else knows. In other words–it gives Keith comfort to feel as though somewhere, someone has this all figured out–and it’s all “known.”

    I don’t think he was ever a critical thinker. And I say that without malice. Before I converted to Christianity, I was maybe 17 or so? I was not well equipped to analyze or assess information sufficiently to come to any sort of informed/coherent decision on the topic of god’s existence. I had no critical thinking skills to speak of–and yet, before becoming a theist, I was an atheist. And now I’m an atheist again, but as we discussed on the show, I understand *why* now. I have looked at it, and this is a conclusion I have come to based on a far better understanding of the issue than I had previously as an atheist or as a theist.

  36. paxoll says

    @DanDare, The big problem with that video is that it is the equivalent to a god of the gaps argument. Just because you can show that certain nucleotides can in certain circumstances self assemble means absolutely nothing. First you have to show that these nucleotides were likely present in prebiotic earth, that they can interact with likely prebiotic vesicles, that they can self assemble in a prebiotic environment. One huge problem is that in a “primordial soup” you have EVERYTHING in there, and thus everything that can happen from chemical thermodynamics, does happen. In lab experiments you often have to make the conditions perfect to get what you want to happen. This is like trying to prove that it is possible. Well its possible god exists. It takes WAY more evidence to rationally go from it’s possible, to I believe it is likely true.

  37. nrjfalcon1 says

    Wonderful show. I have two little boys and I always have concerns over indoctrination. I am an atheist, but my wife is more an obligatory Christian (raised by Christian family members, but doesn’t practice), she and I have differing viewpoints on the vocabulary to use when our children come up with questions about the world around them. I don’t want to give them information that anywhere closely resembles Christian beliefs, yet my wife wants to use all the Christian vocabulary. I’m torn and don’t know how to handle this situation. Love the show.

  38. RationalismRules says

    It doesn’t mean “absolutely nothing”, it’s just not the whole answer.

    I don’t think the vid is claiming “this is what happened”. What I got from it was “here is a mechanism that can achieve the result we’re looking for”. It’s a rebuttal to the claim “abiogenesis cannot have happened by natural processes”.

    This is like trying to prove that it is possible. Well its possible god exists.

    The substantive difference between this mechanism and “it’s possible god exists” is that no-one has ever demonstrated that a god could exist, even under the most unlikely of laboratory conditions…

  39. paxoll says

    @RR The problem is scientific evidence that it COULD have happened is to actually make it happen. This is exactly the same as the god of the gaps argument, where big gaps are waved around and say science. Right now the answer to how life came to exist is we don’t know. Right now abiogenesis is a partially formed hypothesis.

  40. Monocle Smile says

    That’s a bit of a misunderstanding and it’s disingenuous to compare the current state of abiogenesis research to fuckin’ magic.

    The question is no longer “did abiogenesis happen?” The question is “which abiogenesis hypothesis is most likely?” There are a number with varying strengths. You’re underselling like crazy. Personally, I don’t give a fuck if some creationist gets butthurt about my confidence in this.

  41. Simon & Mrs Wendy Hosking says

    I just want to thank Tracie and anyone else responsible for the links. What a great resource.

    I’d also like to remind people that not all Atheists get there by examining the evidence. Ideally they shouldn’t have to.

    I work with someone that has almost no knowledge of religion. They’re not sure what the difference between Christian and Muslim is and doesn’t know the difference between Protestant and Catholic.

    They are an Atheist. They don’t believe the god(s) claim. They have no interest in looking into it either.

    Of course I’m not in America – this would almost be impossible, but you’ll get there one day!

    – Simon

  42. RationalismRules says


    The problem is scientific evidence that it COULD have happened is to actually make it happen.

    Assuming I’ve correctly understood what you’re arguing here – that the only way to confirm it could have happened is to make it happen again – this is an absurdly simplistic argument, which ignores how we investigate complex processes.
    Do you also subscribe to the anti-evolutionists claim that species change (what they call ‘macroevolution’) is not possible because we haven’t directly observed it?

    I also don’t understand why you are making this odd equivalence to ‘god of the gaps’. You make it sound like scientists are saying “we don’t know how life came from non-living matter, which proves it must have happened”. That’s just silly.

  43. paxoll says

    @Monocle, you are obviously not a scientist where everything needs evidence and precision in things stated are paramount. I have seen many scientists making presentations or speeches on their area of expertise where they are passionate about and make bold and exaggerated claims about what is going on. But that is not science, and that is not real evidence. This is why so many people claim that science is always changing and that it is not reliable. They don’t understand the science, and they accept unscientific claims about the science (think the global cooling BS from the 70s). So, while you might not give a crap about your over confidence in this matter, you are contributing to the problem.

    @RR, I understand very well how complex processes are investigated. They are broken down into pieces and each piece is fitted to the one next to it like a puzzle. Let me ask you, if you have a puzzle piece that is not attached to any other pieces, how do you know it belongs in the puzzle? How do you know if even two pieces that fit are part of the puzzle? In most science you have a beginning and an end that have been observed, thus you have at least a complete border. You don’t have that in abiogenesis, simply two corner pieces and an reasonable assumption that a picture will appear if you can find pieces to connect the two. Abiogenesis unfortunately is unlike evolution, in the fact that evolution has fossils. Predictions are made and fossils are found to prove that it is an accurate prediction. Most science is like this. Unfortunately abiogenesis and other fields like evolutionary psychology don’t have that. If the theory of abiogenesis is ever completed, it will essentially be unconfirmed. For most people like me the chance that it is possible will be plenty enough evidence for me to believe it is true.
    What scientists “say” is that the earth is over 4 billion years old, there wasn’t life and now their is, how did that possibly happen. What non-scientists are saying is either god did it, or natural processes did it. The only evidence right now that people, including myself, have who believe natural processes did it, is that we only have reliable natural explanations of anything, but to conclude there is a natural explanation for everything is an induction fallacy.

  44. Monocle Smile says

    For someone who tosses the “you’re not a scientist” line around, you sure get lots of stuff wrong. Notice that my statements are more precise than yours.

    Abiogenesis unfortunately is unlike evolution, in the fact that evolution has fossils. Predictions are made and fossils are found to prove that it is an accurate prediction

    A great deal of abiogenesis research includes testable predictions. We’ve witnessed self-replicating compounds form in specific environments in different ways. The fact that you are both unaware of this AND go to fossils instead of DNA when it comes to evidence for evolution shows me that you don’t understand this topic at all and are merely spouting from your butt. I can drop 77 links to peer-reviewed publications on abiogenesis here if you wish, although I suspect it may be a waste of time and space.

  45. paxoll says

    @monocle, “We’ve witnessed self-replicating compounds form in specific environments in different ways.” again that is completely irrelevant, we know that life contains self replicating elements that is 1 of 2 pieces of a puzzle we already know, and the pieces you are claiming might not even be in the puzzle. You can drop 77 irrelevant individual puzzles pieces that might not even belong to the puzzle, claiming they do when the science hasn’t demonstrated that is ignorant and not helpful. Why did I jump to fossils instead of DNA? Because criticism from ignorant people jump to fossils, because fossils are straight forward yes or no. I’m not going to bother explaining how chromosome 2 fused to someone who doesn’t understand the fossil record (I used the example for other readers benefits not just yours/RR).

  46. Monocle Smile says


    again that is completely irrelevant, we know that life contains self replicating elements that is 1 of 2 pieces of a puzzle we already know, and the pieces you are claiming might not even be in the puzzle

    No. You’re just wrong here. This reads like a creationist nuclear option where because an event happened in the past, you can always deny, deny, deny that the current explanations are insufficient. If we have a cake, a bunch of ingredients, and a recipe that uses some or all of the ingredients to make the cake we observe, it is not ignorant to laugh at people babbling about evidently nonexistent ingredients and recipes that could somehow also make the cake. Again, you’re severely underselling the case. Hell, a Nobel Prize was won for some of the groundbreaking RNA-world discoveries in the friggin’ 80s.

    Stop screwing around with absolute certainty. Pointing out fossils has never stopped creationists from lying and making shit up to dismiss them. They are not “straightforward.”

  47. paxoll says

    @monocle, It reads like a scientist who can read and understand the literature. If you want to understand go get an education. I’m not talking about absolute certainty, and no where can you even pretend to get that bullshit from my posts. Please take your straw man and ignorance and go play on some SJW thread.

  48. Chancellor of the Exchequer says

    Has paxoll been hacked or something? These recents post are weird to me. Granted I haven’t interacted with them enough to know their character but this “SJW!1!” post was alarming.

  49. Devil Travels says

    The caller with Lupus…I wonder if her parents now realize their mistake and understand the consequences of their inaction?
    If they do, are they immobile with guilt or are they active in preventing this mistake from happening to others?
    If they remain in denial, that’s as sad of a condition as the woman with the illness.

  50. paxoll says

    @Chancellor, I have not bothered to post because most thing on these threads are irrelevant to atheism, and irrelevant to science which is my particular interest. I do read these threads though and have often seen Monocle have these tantrums where she dismisses arguments or evidence and throws up a straw man to the opponents position. Which is so ridiculous on a comment thread where everything is easily referenced, which in my experience is exactly what I see from the SJW threads where there is stupid ridiculous hyperbole on both sides.

  51. paxoll says

    Sorry meant he/she but my fingers are not as fast as my thoughts and there doesn’t seem to be any way to edit posts (which is probably a good thing, to keep people from changing what they said in the past.

  52. Robin says

    The Negative votes guy is just a sore loser.

    If you vote negatively, then you are suppressing the vote of others who has voted positively for a candidate
    It is better to just withhold your vote or vote as a blank vote.
    Or vote positively for the opposition if you do not agree with the other candidate.

    The only reason why one would like to have a negative vote is bragging rights. Just to tell others that you disagree and don’t want to conform to any candidate. You can remove the whole bragging rights by not telling who you voted.

  53. cameramanush says

    i love hamish! he is a religious nut but a hilarious one to boot. please take his calls!

  54. sandythehippy says

    Those videos of open/closed mind to ideas were awesome… ima be using them on my little bro…. currently in a TEEN CHALLENGE (UK) program of brainwashing… sorry I mean indoctrination… sorry I mean “help program”…

    Went from one day thinking that the Templars were devil worshipers were at war with masons… to ending every with God bless… after a half hour “chat” with a “councillor ” … made him give a house, a great job because he clearly “needed help” from substance abuse (tea and coffee, and PRESCRIBED and USED AS PRRSCRIBED medication for a very serious injury… twats lol…. thanks for the resources people’s… keep up the good work

  55. Alec says

    The best way to handle the issue of the Israel prophecy issue is to point out that if the prophecy was never written, Israel would never have been reestablished. Well, “never” is a strong word. Perhaps it’s better to say “extremely unlikely”. In other words, prophecies don’t predict future events, they cause them.

  56. SamFromUK says


    There’s no point in arguing over scientific evidence when it comes to proving the existence of God with most of the atheists on this forum. The reason is that even when they see God and all the angels they’re just not willing to obey God as per Matt D. So what’s the point in proving the existence of God using science?

  57. SamFromUK says


    “How was the universe created? God! How did life form? God! How will the world end? God! Where do we get our morality? God!”

    Just because we know God created everything it doesn’t mean we have to stop asking questions or carry on learning using faculties. There are some things in which we just have to have faith in God, as in what will happen to us in the future. Other things we can use science to learn and understand how God creates or simply study the vast number of phenomena he has created for us. Or we can use our minds to ponder and think about them philosophically.

    Just because we know God did everything it in no way means we stop thinking and learning. This is just who we are and is part of our design.

  58. SamFromUK says


    “What non-scientists are saying is either god did it, or natural processes did it”

    Sorry but there is no such thing as a natural process. Everything is done by God. The only way we test for God is by testing his claims and studying our reality.

  59. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @SamFromUK #67:

    Everything is done by God.

    Hello God!
    Since you’re directly moving Sam’s fingers to write, could you please do a better job. You’re really making him lood bad. I know you’re terribly conflicted about that, since you’re writing this too and talking to yourself, but surely he’s not destined to loudly waste his life repetitively whining about his own futility like this? Surely he’s been punished enough. Maybe send him off to experience the joy of learning a craft, by which I, of course, mean witnessing your glorious handiwork firsthand – as a passenger in that marvelous body you chauffeur him around in.

  60. Monocle Smile says

    LOL Sam, you’re from the UK. Go get a price quote from an orthodontist and tell me how “marvellous” [sic] your body really is.

  61. SamFromUK says


    We are evidence of God, we are the likeness of God. God creates, destroys, carries out justice, loves, hates, thinks, etc. We do all of these things as humans. Isn’t that enough evidence?

  62. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @Monocle Smile #70:
    Ehh, you didn’t need to sink to regional stereotype & body shaming. =/

  63. Monocle Smile says

    @Sky Captain
    If it somehow makes him fuck off and stop spamming the blog every so often, I’ll take the hit.

  64. RationalismRules says

    @Sam #71
    I have no idea why you directed this comment at me as it bears no relation to any of the comments I’ve made on this thread. But, given your previous interactions, I guess it’s silly of me to expect even that most basic level of coherence from you.

    we are the likeness of God

    Why would a god need a reproductive system? Why would a god need a hole at one end to put food in, and a hole at the other end to eliminate waste? Why would a god need legs for walking? Why would a god need vibrating vocal cords to communicate through the inefficient and subject-to-misinterpretation methodology of language?

    It makes sense that ignorant early humans inventing an idea of a sky-daddy would base it on themselves, but it makes no sense for anyone in the current age, with all that we know about human physiology, to hang on to this absurd notion.

    God creates, destroys, carries out justice, loves, hates, thinks, etc. We do all of these things as humans. Isn’t that enough evidence?

    No, of course it’s not. Simply listing shared properties between two things does not make one evidence of the other.
    Dragons live, die, kill, eat, fly, breathe, reproduce etc. Birds also do all of these things. Are birds evidence of dragons?

  65. SamFromUK says


    “The substantive difference between this mechanism and “it’s possible god exists” is that no-one has ever demonstrated that a god could exist, even under the most unlikely of laboratory conditions…” #48

    “Why would a god need a reproductive system?”

    God doesn’t need one and doesn’t need a body. However he has a likeness to us in that he creates, destroys, has morals, intelligence, feelings, etc.

    “but it makes no sense for anyone in the current age, with all that we know about human physiology, to hang on to this absurd notion.”

    You’re very ignorant about the human physiology and science which is why you say it makes no sense.

    “Simply listing shared properties between two things does not make one evidence of the other.”

    Isn’t this how evolution supporters justify the existence of a common primate? Or do we think primates had no legs and slithered around the earth?

    Or how do you think the model the Big Bang? Is it no based off similar phenomena we can see today?

    Life is evidence of intelligent design. If you take a look at biology it’s obvious. For some reason atheists are in denial. Probably because atheist just don’t want to accept God and if they don’t want accept God then why do they need evidence?

  66. SamFromUK says


    “Are birds evidence of dragons?”

    Birds are evidence that some living organisms can fly. Because of the way birds are we wouldn’t find it shocking that dragons used wings to fly since we’d know the mechanism. If the dragon breathed fire some may find it hard to accept since there is no animal that we know of which breaths fire. If the dragon had horns, teeth, scaly skin, etc all these wouldn’t be shocking to us.

    To some primitive tribes current modern day humans could easily be seen as gods since we could cure illnesses, make huge structures, talk to people around the earth, etc.

    Problem with non believers is that first they have no idea about the definition of God yet for some reason they’ll simply say there is no evidence. Is it not right to first ask which god and what this god does?

  67. RationalismRules says

    So many things to respond to… Which to choose? Let’s pick one and dig down, shall we?

    You’re very ignorant about the human physiology

    What is it that leads you to this conclusion about me, Sam? You and I only know each other through this blog, so you must be basing this on something I’ve said. I don’t remember ever referring to human physiology elsewhere on this blog, so I assume you’re taking issue with something I’ve said in this thread.
    What is it exactly?:
    – we use our legs for walking
    – we have a reproductive system
    – we have one hole for taking in food and another for expelling waste, at opposite ends of our torso
    – we use our vocal cords to communicate with language

    Which one of these do you disagree with?

  68. SamFromUK says


    “but it makes no sense for anyone in the current age, with all that we know about human physiology, to hang on to this absurd notion.” #74

    Problem with atheists like yourself is that just because we have studied things in great detail, such as human physiology, you think that somehow that can be used to explain away certain beliefs. You think that because we understand certain processes in human physiology it somehow makes it “natural”. You’re unable to see and comprehend the miraculous phenomena and truly appreciate it because of the way you approach at looking the phenomena.

    Take for example the amazing phenomena of a human making something out of clay. To you that is nothing special. But if you take a look at it from a different perspective then it truly is amazing. Firstly the human is made up non-living elements. Those non-living elements combine together to form what we class as a “living organism”. Humans are made up of billions of separate living organisms all of which work together in some form to support what we call the human. How the human body works in keeping each cell in the human body “alive” is in itself vastly complex never mind the complexity of the individual cell or the the components of a cell. On top of all that this human is able to process the environment it lives in and derives “meaning” and “purpose”, things which are objective but subjective.

    Your response clearly shows your lack of appreciation of what you observe. I’m not putting you down. I’ve been there myself, many believers don’t appreciate it either. We’ve been designed to not be over awed by the many miracles that are in our reality. However if you want you can choose to take a deeper look at what you observe and truly appreciate it. Problem with most atheists like Matt D. is that they just don’t care. All they are concerned is about what makes them happy.

  69. RationalismRules says

    None of what you’ve just written has anything to do with my knowledge (or lack thereof) of human physiology.

    Whether or not I lack appreciation of what I observe has nothing to do with ignorance, it has to do with perspective. According to what you have just written, the most knowledgeable physiology professionals – doctors, anatomists, physiotherapists etc. – are all ignorant about human physiology if they don’t share your religious beliefs.

    Have another try.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *