Sometimes these kooks reveal that they even read the blog…somewhat obsessively and angrily. This one seems to be a follow-up to yesterday’s email, and I think he’s unhappy that I put up that other crank’s letter and not his. I’m sorry, but I don’t even remember what his previous letter’s point was, and if this one is any indication, it was another spittle-flecked disjointed ramble, and I’m afraid I don’t read those with much attention. However, since he really wants to join the pantheon (a very crowded pantheon) of irate readers, I’m happy to oblige.
Don’t get any ideas, though, all you other crackpots! This guy got away with it, but if you all start demanding your tirades be posted, I’m not going to be accommodating.
Well sir,
I hesitate to believe that your silence is some kind of assent to the truth of what I tried to express in my previous e-mail message yesterday. I notice in your “blog” today—somewhat amazingly considering the typical time constraints on an associate professor—that you graciously acknowledged receiving
“11 weird harangues . . . in my mailbox this morning.” Perhaps my harangue was one of these? Well mister you need to get a few harangues in your mailbox in the morning, if you don’t mind my saying so. You opened up this silly door by being a “public figure” with an exceptionally big mouth who likes to put down other people—seemingly every day of his life—so take it like a man, would you please? Go ahead, dismiss me all you want, laugh at me, lump me in with all the other people you marginalize and stereotype. Oh I know, you probably feel so useful in your roles as atheist “blog-meister,”
small-town scientist, condemner of “inferior people,” Lord over ALL “creationists” and defender of truth (as you seem to perceive it anyway), and you probably don’t have time for my little rants. So be it. I don’t care, I will write my rants anyway. Really, I am not trying to be clever or to persuade you of anything. Why would I do that? What would be the point? You’ve obviously heard it all before and you obviously know everything you need to know for your own personal fulfillment. So be it. What I am doing, in fact, is condemning you, as best I can. Why? Because in my estimation your actions reflect something that is fundamentally wrong and disgraceful, and I feel that it is my duty to write whether you read it or not—whether you butcher up my comments in your silly “blog” or not. Since we will probably never meet in person, this is the best I can do. It is, for me, a matter of principle or I would not feel or speak so strongly about it. Like you, I will not remain silent when I am offended by something or someone, especially something or someone in the public eye. This is not an attempt to offend you, rather, it is me telling you what I think about you since you have chosen to enter my world with your public presence. How is that you say? When, as of late, I have often to read about a certain person named “PZ Myers,” often just in my ordinary non-specific reading, and when this person often does ridiculous bizarre things, apparently to gain attention to himself in furtherance of what appears to be a
self-perceived “cause,” it becomes a nuisance to me, and to many others who don’t take the time to write you. Since you are a “public” person, I am entitled to tell you what I think and feel, whether you care or not. I am not writing depending on whether you care or not, obviously. Why do you think so many people write these “harangues” anyway, professor? Or perhaps you ONLY prefer to listen to the people who react favorably to you as a public entity? Wouldn’t that be nice, if everyone thought you were peaches and cream? Think about it, would you please? To pretend to worship you, as others might, for sharing some superior insight you believe you have into the nature of things, would be lying on my part to say the least. I don’t think that in much of any way, obviously quite the opposite is what I think: I think that you offer NO insight into the nature of things of any real or lasting value, and the only reason that you persist is most probably because you enjoy being a nuisance for its own sake. I think that if you actually did value getting at the true nature of our planet and the cosmos of which it is part, it wouldn’t be so important for you to have daily opportunity to belittle others in a public forum like the internet—you would instead, as most decent people have in ages past, offer your particular contribution to knowledge humbly and with respect for others. You have earned my disrespect with your actions and words against others, and you do no service to humanity with such behaviour, no matter how strongly you feel about your scientific insights—they are not worth the pain you cause to others. Of course, you probably don’t care to hear this.Think about these two statements for a nanosecond:
What do you know that I don’t know? What do you know that I need to know?
I don’t believe that you can answer these questions at all. “Ahhh”, you might say, (just to give a random example I picked up from your so-called “blog” today. You might say: (imagine a real arrogant guy with a beard for a second saying this)
“You need to know that whales had babies on land at one time, and what a profound revelation that is!”
This is an example of what you daily worry about? This is what I, therefore, need to worry about? I need to worry and think about how scientists think whales used to reproduce in the past? Or, I need to overly concern myself the fact that scientists believe that whales may have changed over millions of years? That’s IT? That is an example of the kind of earth-shattering insight that you would share with humanity as a scientist? This is why you are so incessantly noisy and bothersome and offensive to others who don’t happen to be scientists? This is why God is dead for you? Because whales like everything else in this incredible universe, have changed over time? That’s just wonderful. Great. Do you think it is then justifiable to condemn other people because (for whatever reason) they may not believe just as you do as a professional scientist, (and who gives a fig whether it’s about whales, it could be anything, that’s just my example). Should we condemn the “common” people if they do not subscribe to certain ideas in other academic areas as well? Should this be the calling of all practitioners of academic subjects, to condemn others in an offensive manner, oh yes . . . in the name of truth? I honestly don’t think you really care a bling for any brand of truth, but unfortunately that seems to have made you especially vociferous, and miracle or miracles the internet allows you to fully vent.
Probably you protest that we are strangers, and you object to receiving this kind of e-mail where I ask these kinds of questions and make these kind of observations. Perhaps we are strangers, but only in the sense that I have never met you in person as a fellow human being, that is to say, as a flesh and blood person; but your persona, which is to say, your social facade via the internet, and your actions as a person in the public forum are regrettably there for all to see, and this is what I know about PZ Myers; and it is this public persona that offends me that I am addressing. You are a professor at a university, but that of itself engenders nothing special to me, nor does it earn my automatic respect. You went to college and majored in biology. Would you like a medal or something? You seem to equate the noble profession of science, and particularly the subject of biology with atheism? My question is, why? And by what authority do you speak for scientists? Do you have a right to speak for all scientists? Or even all atheists? Can you see how your arrogant, dismissive attitude towards others might be offensive and an embarrassment to many, if not most scientists? Or, to many if not most atheists? Do you think scientists or atheists want to be thought of as being like that “communion-wafer maniac.” Based on your example, should all scientists crusade against people of religious faith in the most offensive possible manner? I may have majored in biology myself, for all you know, I may have more degrees than you, but that is not the point. I have known and worked with many fine professors, and you sir, are not one. Not because of what you do or do not know, but because of your actions as a public figure and your lack of comportment as a supposedly learned man in the public eye. You undoubtedly believe that you are in some sense “saving the world” by condemning others, but what in God’s name do you hope it will accomplish ? In the hope that there will be more “intellectual”, sarcastic, blow-hards such as yourself? How liberating! What a positive boon for thinking people everywhere! What a vision for the future well-being of the human race! La-de-dah-de-dah-de-da. I have looked hard for a while now to find some redeeming qualities in all your brouhaha, but from one intellectual and humanist to another, they just ain’t there.
You are a curiosity to me, as I find curious anyone—and forgive me here but I think that you yourself have made this a fact—as I find curious anyone who holds themselves in the public spotlight as possessing “special revelations” that we all need to know about as educated human beings. For those who daily “blog-in” to praise you for your “special insights,” it seems perfectly natural to them in their eagerness to identify with you, and you become a kind of (forgive me) messiah to some of them undoubtedly in their zeal. I repeat: What do you know that I don’t know? What do you know that I need to know? Answer: you don’t know anything that I need to know. You think you know something profound about the way the world works? So what. Many people have this same delusion. You think evolution explains the world. So what, could be. I don’t object to your science, I object to your arrogance in the public forum. I have known and admired some wonderful iconoclasts who had some genuine insights worth considering, but my God, they knew when to shut up! You are an embarrassment to the academic world. With all your knowledge, your are in my estimation a failure as an educator, at least as far as one can judge from your public utterances and actions. You educate others in the false way to behave. You are doing more damage than good. You are a negative karma engine. As an atheist, perhaps the idea of doing damage while you can is for you a point of personal pride, but not everyone on the planet really gives a rat’s behind about how you inject your personal vengeance against faith into your professional career, or how good you are at pretending to be superior to others. It would be a hoot, I am sure, to sit in on one of your classes. Who cares what the “truth” might be if it comes from some arrogant, prattle-mouth such as yourself. God forbid that one of your students may not think as you do! Do you really think you are doing scientists, your students, and the general public a favor by pretending to be some kind of lunatic, defacto “defender of the scientific cause”? Even the other atheist scientists of the world find you obnoxious, and wish you would be quiet. Probably never happen.
Don’t let all the insipid praise that you may receive on your “blog” go to your head. Do something surprising and print this e-mail in your little internet newspaper, I would love to read 500 tons of criticism of what I have just written by your fellow maniacs.
just another human being,
David Hartmann
Man, this guy really needs to learn that if I put something on the web, he is not required to read it, especially since he has declared that I don’t know anything he needs to know. I’m very concerned for his blood pressure.
Where’s fucking heddle when you want him? No, wait, I take that back.
I was really quite determined to read it all, when I saw how long it was… and I didn’t last a page. This drivel is useless. It’s not even humorously stupid – it’s just banal idiocy from some jealous little nothing who thinks his opinion matters. Well, you’ve done it, Hartmann. You’ve gotten your mentally meager quaverings posted on a Major Blog. Now go away.
BULLSHIT BINGO!!!
Dead Thread
One of the reasons I could never have made it as an academic is that I can’t read fast enough. With ridiculously long, incoherent rants like this guy’s, I was reminded of that again: It took me for-fucking-ever! And it was completely senseless. I don’t know how you do it. I guess years of having to grade students’ essays gives you something of an advantage.
I’m trying to decide what’s worse for the brains of Pharyngula readers: concentrated super-strength stupid, or the kind of stupidity in David Hartmann’s e=mail: a great volume of vague vapid vacuity.
Hah, we have created the 500 tons of reason.
I am the chosen one, the 500th one, the anointed Son of PZ…
No more an acolyte, but a priest of…ummm, well…
But I swear I’m important now…
Help me out here, PZ…
Now I’ve managed to slog through it. My opinion of it has only gotten worse. Now I’m pissed off that I had to see inside this pretentious, self-important, anti-intellectual toad’s hideous little mind. People are disgusting. I’m going to go read my Herodotus and pretend the world is better than it is.
“Somewhat amazingly considering the typical time constraints on”….me, I am unable to read Ramblin’ Dave’s
unabridged tirade in its entirety even though he feels it’s his duty to write (whether you read it or not) to inform you that he has “known and admired some wonderful iconoclasts who had some genuine insights worth considering, but my God, they knew when to shut up!”
That’s why my irony meter input has a heavy duty fuse. And I buy fuses by the gross.
I liked that guy’s email better when it came from Nigeria and offered huge sums of money in return for a small token of trust. On the plus side, at least his writing style hasn’t changed much.
Maybe instead of 500 tons of comments, he meant five hundred ten? That’s exactly how many there were when I clicked…
DAMMIT! I read through the whole pile of steaming elephant turd just to get to the punch-line “Respectfully” at the end… and it wasn’t there!
How can a diatribe like that NOT end with a “Respectfully”?
I feel SO cheated…
I’m not sure how to feel about what I posted back at 406 now. I didn’t catch that Garfunkle actually already was one of our special ones. On the other hand I did see he had the potential.
I’m calling it a wash.
Taking one for the team:
Yeah, because a busy blogger who gets lots of email couldn’t possibly have decided it wasn’t worth his time.
Scare quotes are fun.
You speak as if PZ broke down and cried over it. He was just commenting with what I read as a mixture of mild annoyance and amusement. Perfectly normal.
If you want to be elevated above the stereotypical Creationist, try acting against the stereotype. Oh, and PZ’s a professor, teaching actual useful science to students of a nation that’s desperately in need of scientists. PZ doesn’t lord over Creationists. He ridicules those people who demean themselves into the newage postmodernism of believing in bronze age myths at the same time as technology disproves it.
Okay, I’m already sick of this guy. Carry on.
“Do not question me, or I will smite thee.” -PZ
Who the hell needs Comedy Central? This is why I read Pharyngula.
HA!!
I swear I’ve seen at least one 1950s Ph.D. thesis in mathematics that was shorter than Hartmann’s email.
As for the Unabomber being able to write precise prose (ice9 @ 15) — fwiw, he has a math Ph.D.
That was a horrid case of tl;dr.
Either way, I managed to pick up a good bit of upset from reading it, although he didn’t seem to be going very far with it.
We could all learn a thing from minimalist Dave Huffmann;
“know when to shut up!”
Why can’t these people paragraph properly?
Over 500 comments. ROTFLMAO!!! I hope David enjoys reading them.
Maybe he meant to say “500 _short_ tons of comments” — which translates to around 551 metric tons of comments.
…though “short” didn’t seem to be anywhere in his vocabulary…
Any time I write a science post, even an innocuous one that doesn’t involve evolution or animal research, I get at least a few crazies chiming in. But never have I gotten such an entertaining one! Well done, sir, you’re clearly doing your job!
Clearly Hartmann isn’t up to writing a Shakespeare yet – back to the typewriter!
Okay, this one made my brain hurt, a lot.
Read this sentence, David.
David, read this sentence too.
Hope this helps.
Feel free to start again with the first sentence, David.
Nerd – Put a magneto and a kick start on your irony meter, she’ll run no matter what the ‘knuckle head’.
(Right Scooter?)
Of all the blog topics to point out, he points out one that is actually pretty significant in terms of science on a science blog?
Wow. So like, the guy must REALLY hate whales or something. Especially when people try to force knowledge of whales down his throat by posting it on an internet blog that is about science that he would have to visit by his own volition and then read and continue to read after realizing it is not something he cares to know about.
Teehee.
I believe it is (or should be) considered poor etiquette to respond to a blog posting by direct email to the poster. Isn’t that what the comments are for?
I was getting a very good kick out of this email (what I gathered from it anyway) and the responses. Then I got to post #129, and felt compelled to say something.
Christophe Thill: Thank you for pointing out that we are indeed friends with the whales. We should care about them for all the reasons you mentioned: scientific understanding, the fact that whales are intelligent, and their endangerment.
Here’s something else to consider. This is just a theory based on my limited knowledge, i.e. what I have read or learned in biology as well as what I know about dolphins, which are very closely related to whales. I will say right now that I could be wrong, but it is still worth the thought experiment.
We should care about whales because maybe, just maybe, they care about us.
Everyone knows that whales beach themselves, sometimes in droves. Does anyone really know why? I’ll tell you right now that it’s not for a lack of Zoloft. Some experts think that it is because the sonar from naval ships screws up their navigation ability. But whales have been beaching themselves for much longer than sonar technology has existed.
Whales are social creatures. Suppose one whale gets stranded because it got confused while navigating its way through the water (due to sonar interference or otherwise). That whale might send out a distress signal, and other whales will come swimming to the rescue. This would mean that whales care about one another.
The idea that they may care about us does not seem impossible. Their cousins, dolphins, have been known to show altruistic behavior towards other species, for example, swimming around surfers to protect them from sharks and even bumping the sharks away with their beaks. If a whale beached itself because of sonar interference, could it POSSIBLY be responding to a misinterpreted distress call, from another species no less?
Let me ask you, Mr. Hartmann: if a whale beaches itself in an attempt to rescue another living creature, and dies because of it, is this not similar to the story of the Jesus you so love and worship?
Whales are sentient creatures. They have feelings. They care about others. And they are REAL.
If there is a qualified person out there (a marine biologist for example) that has information to either support or refute my theory, I’d very much like to hear it.
Thank you.
#376
“From what I’ve seen of Myers’ daily rants on Pharyngula,
Hartman’s characterization of the man is spot on.”
It’s not so much his rants but what he rants about. Apparently, he has a respectable amount of education is evolutionary biology. That, like any other science studies the physical universe. He doesn’t rant about that. He rants about people believing in God. That is metaphysics and as far as we know he has no appreciable training in that field. He and his devoted followers want proof of the existence of God. He has no grasp that faith, by definition, is the belief in something unseen. What he proposes is using physical science to prove the negative proposition that there is no God metaphysically. You can see the frustration that this would provoke.
“Well sir, “.
Welly-welly-well?
“He rants about people believing in God.”
And how those people organize witch hunts against those who they suspect of heresy, see the “atheist in Texas” thread.
“That is metaphysics and as far as we know he has no appreciable training in that field.”
Does this training include snatching objects from the Master’s hand?
“He and his devoted followers want proof of the existence of God. He has no grasp that faith, by definition, is the belief in something unseen.”
In other words, making shit up. Gotcha. You guys have fun with that. Just keep it out of our schools and government.
Silver Fox at 531
Well, it would seem to me that PZ is actually railing against people who believe in silly superstitions without any evidence whatsoever.
Your God is so good at hiding, it is completely indistinguishable from his not existing.
I would say he is also railing against the despicable actions by so many religious people (priests raping children, genital mutilation, stoning rape victims to death), many of which are directly sanctioned by your sky-daddy.
You want people to stop insulting Christians? Fine, how about Christians stop persecuting others, and quit trying to get creationism taught as science? How about religion people stop forcing their views upon children and defenseless people?
You want respect? Show us any credible evidence that you are not just blabbering to yourself every time that you pray; how about showing your beliefs are any more valid than people who believe in djins, fairies, alien abductions or any other religion you don’t believe in?
“And how those people organize witch hunts against those who they suspect of heresy, see the “atheist in Texas” thread.”
Heresy and witch hunts have nothing to do with evolutionary biology or any other physical science. If they are problematic, they are religion problems, not science problems and the solutions to those problems rest with schools and government not with scientists. There are indicators from science which point to an intelligent designer. This is a part of science and should be taught as a science indicator. This is problematic for naturalistic, materialistic scientists who would prefer not to consider these indicators. But that is a part of science and should be taught as such. Religion, of course, should be taught in religion class.
“In other words, making shit up.”
If faith is “making things up”, again, that is a religion problem, not a science problem.
Silver Fox:
There are people who claim that there are indicators from science which point to an intelligent designer but any intellectually honest person who knows anything about science knows they are lying.
Fixed it for you. No, no – that’s alright. You’re welcome.
No, it is a science problem, because you and people like you are attempting to have what you’ve made up accepted as science. Limit your nonsensical, childish fairy tales to church and you’ll hear far fewer complaints from the defenders of science.
“PZ is actually railing against people who believe in silly superstitions without any evidence whatsoever.”
What does that have to do with evolutionary biology or any other physical science?
“I would say he is also railing against the despicable actions by so many religious people (priests raping children, genital mutilation, stoning rape victims to death).”
What does people behaving badly have to do with evolutionary biology or any other physical science?
“How about religion people stop forcing their views upon children and defenseless people?”
What does evolutionary biology or any other physical science have to do with the way parents choose to raise their children?
“Show us any credible evidence that you are not just blabbering to yourself every time that you pray”
Why? What do people praying have to do with evolutionary biology or any other physical science?
More to the point, this is PZ’s personal blog, and the word “godless” is right in the subtitle. This means he can “rant” about religion and its pernicious effects all he wants, and he has as much authority to do it as any cloistered theologian, since neither of them are actually studying anything real.
“If faith is “making things up”, again, that is a religion problem, not a science problem. ”
It’s a problem for everyone caught in the crossfire of all the power plays of the religious out there.
SF, in his profound stupidity, wrote:
Your god you are obtuse. When parents tell their children that the Judeo-Christian god created the world in six days they are fucking lying about physical science.
When they tell their children Noah put one pair (or seven pairs, take your pick) of animals on the ark and every animal on the earth is a descendant of those animals they are fucking lying about physical science.
When Christians say that Jesus brought Lazarus back to life, healed the lepers, chased a demon into a herd of pigs and rose from the dead after the crucifixion they are fucking lying about physical science.
Or is that too complex for you to comprehend?
You might as well be asking, what does religion have to do with evolutionary biology? The answer of course, is sweet fuck-all. But all those religious folks just keep getting in the way anyway.
I think PZ could set up a second blog where he does nothing but post his Gumby mail.
But then, perhaps he (and the rest of us) have wouldn’t want to spend ALL of our time laughing at the lunatics among us.
What does being an evolutionary biologist have to do with not being able to talk in other fields? I’m assuming that you only speak on matters that you are academically qualified to talk about and on all other matters refrain from even the slightest comment?
Honestly, if Silver doesn’t see how his question is so divorced from the first statement, after his many months of being a moronic git around here, then he is too stupid to live.
PZ, it’s time to get this disgusting troll out of here. I’m heartily sick of his infinite godbotting and insipidity.
Silver fox,
Are you seriously asking what superstitions like creationism have to do with “evolutionary biology or any other physical science”?
So, because he is a biologist he can only comment on biology and science?
First of all he does have threads to do with biology. Second, geez, you really think that someone who studies a field, teaches it at university, and does it for a living maybe doesn’t want to write ONLY about in their free time? This is his personal blog. He can write whatever the fuck he wants. You’re not required to read it.
SF @ 531,
Incorrect.
2 issues here:
-Generally,the burdon of proof is on the person trying to postulate a being or fact where there is no need to do so and reality is well explained without doing so.
-You cant prove a negative,and noone is trying to prove with scientific means that no god exists,because it cant be done.See above.
Its a fallacy often made by the religious,youre not alone with it.
Again,a fallacy,you do not require training(whatever that would be,do you mean reading the bible,or philosophy?) in what you call metaphysics to apply Occam’s razor and ask for proof of this deity that you want to introduce into a reality that works well without it.
What you call metaphysics(I assume you mean faith,theology,this kind of “meta”physics) is mythological woo from the bronze age,and irrelevant in any other than a historical sense to anyone capable of rational thought.
#536
“any intellectually honest person who knows anything about science knows they are lying.”
Of course that’s not true. I’ll give you one example. The Director of the Human Genome Project, Dr. Francis Collins, Ph.D, M.D., says you’re wrong. There are few if any who know more about genetic science than he does. He wrote the book “The Language of God”. Now, of course, you are going to find some way to discredit this intellectually honest Christian man of science. But again that is your problem, not a science problem.
So, the scientific indicators of intelligent design are science and should be taught as such.
I think Francis Collins would be surprised to hear that he believes in an intelligent designer. Last thing I heard from him, he seemed fairly outraged at the intelligent design movement.
“This means he can “rant” about religion and its pernicious effects all he wants”
Of course he can. He can also rant about whether Milton wrote some of Shakespeare; about whether Napoleon was a great military leader; about the mental health of Henry VIII. What he can’t do is hold himself out as an authority on literature, history or religion.
Uh… And what does this “intellectually honest Christian man of science” is proposing in said book?
Do we agree that even any intellectually honest man of science can be plain wrong?
“they are fucking lying about physical science.”
If in the course of raising their children parents decide to lie to their children, including about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, if they decide what view of physical science they present to THEIR children, what does that have to do with you or evolutionary biology. Just don’t lie to your’s.
Silver Fox,
Obviously you’re unaware of what the expression ‘intellectually honest’ means. Why am I not surprised? Ignorance is bliss I suppose.
From Wikipedia, Intellectual dishonesty: the advocacy of a position which the advocate does not know to be true, and has not performed rigorous due diligence to ensure the truthfulness of the position
If he – or anyone else for that matter – has ‘performed rigorous due diligence to ensure the truthfulness of the position’ – then every thinking person on the planet would love to know exactly what was discovered.
Silver Fox @546,
There are actually *quite a few* who know as much about genetics as Francis Collins – they are called his “peers”.
It’s not like he’s the Pope, or anything.
“What does being an evolutionary biologist have to do with not being able to talk in other fields?”
Evolutionary biologists, like carpenters and plumbers, can speak in any field they wish. The difference is that carpenters usually have enough sense not to try and give you an expert opinion as to why your toilet doesn’t flush. Scientist on the other hand have no reluctance in telling people that they have no reason to believe in God.
“PZ, it’s time to get this disgusting troll out of here. I’m heartily sick of his infinite godbotting and insipidity.”
I guess this means that if you’re not up to handling the discourse, then get rid of the opponent so that you can end your own embarrassment.
@365, norm! said
I was hoping that I’d get to the end of the email and the last line would read:
You and me are fucking done professionally.
Alas … it wasn’t an elaborately-crafted Poe.
Because, you obtuse lackwit, unless they are homeschooled, these children will attend school with children whose parents haven’t lied to them, and teachers who don’t want to lie to them either. Sadly, the parents who lie don’t want their children taught the truth, because it will (obviously) counter the lies they’ve been telling them their whole lives. In order to protect these lies, these repugnant people join school boards in order to subvert and undermine the truth.
We can’t do anything about parents lying to their own children. But when they attempt to make science teachers lie to other people’s children then it most certainly affects me and everyone else.
If you and your deluded co-religionists want to go down the Amish path and separate yourself from the rest of the world so you may lie to your children about the world, knock yourselves out. But while you are interacting with people who want to tell the truth then you’re going to meet with stiff resistance.
@554
I’m glad you didn’t say worthy opponent. o.O
His paragraphs are too long. And his e-mail was way longer than it needed to be. Some posters here could probably compete with that.
So anyone who does say one should believe in God has to be an accomplished theologian, both with extensive studies into comparative mythology, astrophysics & cosmology, human psychology,and understanding of both history and sociology? Or can any man give reasons for believing in God? It seems a misplaced attack to have a go at scientists for talking about believing in God when almost every person on this planet has an opinion on the matter. At least with scientists you know they have a decent understanding of the natural world and so can have some grounds to comment on it.
Would you apply these same restrictive standards for anyone who talks about the existence of God, or just those who talk against it?
I occasionally remark that if such things are required for a person to have before they are allowed to criticise a religion then they should be required for a person who wishes to join a religion.
As it is you don’t even have to know how to spell Jesus to be counted a Christian.
And what are the credentials of Dr Collins in the field of metaphysics, pray tell? Has he “appreciable training in that field”?
I find it an immense double standard. In order to even begin to criticise religion, one is expected to be an intellectual superpower; having extensive knowledge in multiple fields. Though in reality, no matter what field you have expertise in, it’s never the right one. A scientist may be able to tell you in intricate detail how a complex organism replicates, or how quantum physics works both on a quantum level and on a macroscopic level, they can tell you about the history of the universe – but all hell breaks loose if they do anything more than personally think that there’s no god behind it. Likewise a philosopher doesn’t have the historical knowledge, or a historian doesn’t have the theological background, or a theologian doesn’t have the historical background. No matter what your qualification, you can always be criticised for not having the right one.
Whereas on the other hand, in order to preach about religion, to say there is one or more gods, all you need to do is be able to preach in the first place. Not many ministers have many qualifications, and it seems the only qualification of being a witness or a beginner of a religion is to be credulous in the way one evangelises the religion. All it comes down to in the end is Silver Fox doesn’t like the authority on which PZ Myers or anyone else says religion is wrong. Who cares if PZ Myers is a scientist, or a philosopher, or a historian, or a mythologist, or psychologist, or anything else? His qualification is irrelevant to the message that religion is bogus. By claiming that he shouldn’t say so because he’s a science is making a backwards appeal to authority.
“Generally,the burden of proof is on the person trying to postulate a being or fact where there is no need to do so and reality is well explained without doing so.”
The problem there is that reality is not well explained with doing so. You’re either caught in eternal causality or an eternal reality, neither of which makes any RATIONAL sense.
“You can’t prove a negative,and noone is trying to prove with scientific means that no god exists”
The problem there is that the atheist lives the negative proposition: He does NOT believe in God. So if he can’t disprove the positive proposition then he has no basis for his disbelief.
And really shouldn’t it be the other way around? That it’s not those who criticise the concept of God that need the intellectual qualifications, rather it should be those who make the positive claim in the first place. On what authority does one make the statement “God exists” or anything of that ilk? What qualifications does one need to obtain in order to be able to talk about the supernatural and the afterlife? Surely these are questions that need a proper answer, questions that should have been there from the beginning. Instead it’s anyone who dares to doubt stories that have no empirical merit who are the ones out of their intellectual depth.
Honestly, how much qualification does one need to say that the Judeo-Christian construct of god has as much credulity as the Australian Aboriginal construct of god (the giant rainbow serpent)? How much qualification does one need to call religion mythology? It seems that any critic of the critics is really saying “you don’t have any authority to tell me I’m wrong” yet demand they aren’t treated to that same standard.
I do so love it when people say stupid things like this.
Okay, then Silver Fox – please provide your disproof for the gods of all other religions. You don’t believe in every god that’s ever existed, do you Silver Fox? If not, then you must have disproved all the gods other than Yahweh.
Just to get you started, here’s a list of those beginning with the letter ‘A’; please present your specific disproofs for each of them:
Agdistis or Angdistis
Ah Puch
Ahura Mazda
Alberich
Allah
Amaterasu
An
Anat
Andvari
Anshar
Anu
Aphrodite
Apollo
Apsu
Ares
Artemis
Asclepius
Athena
Athirat
Athtart
Atlas
Once you’ve done that let me know and I’ll post the ‘B’ list. What are you waiting for?
“Last thing I heard from him, he seemed fairly outraged at the intelligent design movement.”
Francis Collins’ subtitle to his book The Language of God is Intellectual reflections of a Christian geneticist. He believes the world was created by God, that God chose evolution as the process of creation and he believes in Jesus Christ. I know he does because he said so in a public forum just a few days ago. Now he thinks the proper term should be BioLogos, not Intelligent Design.
You are misrepresenting atheism there by focusing on the negative. The atheist argument is that there is no reason for belief, he does NOT believe because there is no reason TO believe. If one cannot find a reason to believe, they don’t believe in it. Hence atheism. It’s not the absolute certainty that God doesn’t exist, it’s that there is no reason to believe that God DOES exist.
Yes, he does. But that’s different from an intelligent designer. The intelligent designer is the rebranded creator, not the type of deity Collins believes in.
Don’t worry Kel, we won’t be hearing from Silver Fox again. As he’s said, you can’t disbelieve in something unless you can prove it doesn’t exist; ergo, he must now prove that every god other than Yahweh doesn’t exist or he admits he is wrong.
Which is it, Silver Fox? Are you going to withdraw your claim, or start listing proofs? I’ve got a pretty comprehensive list of gods in front of me; you forget even one and you’ve lost the argument.
SF,
It is also foolish to proclaim that the Emperor is naked when one has not studied the field of Imaginary Fabrics .
“If he – or anyone else for that matter – has ‘performed rigorous due diligence to ensure the truthfulness of the position’ – then every thinking person on the planet would love to know exactly what was discovered.”
Many on the planet already know it because they read his book The Language of God.
A tome stuffed with self-indulgent waffle and distinctly lacking anything other than the same old discredited and lackluster apologetics hardly counts as ‘due diligence’, Silver Fox.
But why are you wasting time on that old comment anyway? Thanks to your mistake you’ve got literally hundreds of gods to disprove. Or you admitting that atheists need not prove that Yahweh does not exist in order to make their claims?
“All it comes down to in the end is Silver Fox doesn’t like the authority on which PZ Myers or anyone else says religion is wrong.”
It’s not that I don’t “like the authority” on which PZ says religion is wrong. I don’t think he has the authority. He assumes it. What he has is an opinion which is no more or less authoritative than that of the man on the street.
He assumes authority? I think you are misrepresenting PZ and the nature of his arguments if you think it’s an argument from authority.
Silver Fox – are you gonna answer Wowbagger?
Silver Fox, I see a comment from you but I don’t see any proofs for the non-existence of gods other than Yahweh.
Why aren’t you responding Silver Fox? Are you a coward? Do you lack the courage of your convictions? If you aren’t afraid to answer, which is it? It’s a pretty easy decision to make: do you believe in every god ever posited, or do atheists not have to provide disproof for Yahweh?
Alternatively, provide your proofs that Yahweh is the only god that exists. I even gave you a head-start with the ‘A’ gods.
I recommend that anyone responding to Silver Fox’s post should remind him of his claim that, in order to disbelieve in a god, one must have provided proof that that god does not exist – and then ask him to disprove all gods other than the one he believes in.
You really screwed the pooch on this one, Silver Fox. And I’m going to make sure you never forget it.
All claims of the supernatural always state its ability to interact with the natural, so, in principle, the supernatural is subject to natural observation, interactions, etc., and therefore subject to being knowable by science. Stephen J Gould’s NOMA is therefore hogwash.
Based solely on the claims of believers that the two magisteria do interact, then they do in principle overlap and science has something to say about the spiritual. And if they do not overlap and the spiritual does not interact with the material, then it is immaterial and for all practical purposes can be ignored, and using Occam’s Razor safely sliced away.
I’m looking forward to Silver Fox demonstrating that PZ Myers argues on assumed authority. To me it just seems like he’s dismissing PZ on the illusion of authority, so it would be nice if he could demonstrate where PZ has ever said anything along the lines of being an authority on religion because he’s a scientist. Come on Silver Fox, it just seems like the last few posts of yours have been unfounded assertions. Please show some validity in your work.
Silver Fox, at last someone on Pharyngula who knows he’s correct and is not afraid to say it. It’s not just an opinion, it’s your opinion, and as such not only inspired but also true.
I’m having problems with this aspect of reality too, and PZ’s God like dominionism over it.
Please see my post no. 438 which I feel expresses our frustration most admirably.
Keep up the good work, SF, we’ll teach those atheists the meaning of our truth!
I think we can congratulate ourselves, Kel. Between us we’ve made Silver Fox paint himself into two corners at the same time. I guess that makes it a multidimensional FAIL on his part.
Aw crap… I read the whole thing last night, then had to recover for a few hours, and now I’ve missed the party!
AnthonyK i have not seen any rational opposition of yours against evolution theory. I don’t mean the first darwinian one, that one has Evolved to much a complex theory (introducing genetics, sociology, neurology, etc into the mix). And if you feel ofended just by “free thinkers” saying that they do not believe in god, the other side might also feel ofended when the read your coments saying that you believe that jesus was this and that and BigG is watching us.
Silver Fox is also one of that line of thought. – First (at least for me) i do not discriminate who wants to believe in “higher powers”, this is a forum for discussion, and so both views may be discussion freely. – SF picks one scientist stating he is a believer so…so nothing. Even if Francis Collins want to believe in god, his entire work in the field of genetics will prove that evolution is Evidence. Francis might even just believe in his personnal view of god and jesus and nevertheless agree that evolution is a chaotic process of selection and probability (just a very small expression to define very quick evoltuion) and all facts and evidence of his work support this.
Please SF and AnthonyK respond to the challenge of wowbagger…it would be nice and constructive to yourselfs
Ultima – I am joking. It can be difficult to tell the would-be satirical from the stupid but I try to remain firmly on the side of reality. See my previous post and multiple others for my take on all of this. I guess this counts as a success ;)
I am in awe of anybody who managed to read through the whining drivel of that email. I started drifting off almost immediately. It seems that the writer’s point is that his own feelings are hurt when some uninformed dumbass gets smacked down on some blog somewhere. As for the hundreds of posts in response, I think we need a new aphorism: “Where there’s smoke, there’s smoke.”
I need a smoke.
Silver Fox, you need to answer Wowbagger in post #565.
Silver Fox is again showing us why he shouldn’t be posting on any subject. New flash SF, if you don’t like this blog, go to another blog you find more interesting. Otherwise, you need to follow your own advice and shut up on any subject you are not an expert in. That appears to be all other subjects. Now, are you going to be a man and go away, or a troll who just wants to disrupt things. You were almost banned once. You will be banned if you continue you present course for the worst crime of all–being boring.
You’re wrong, Nerd of Redhead OM, if that is your real name. The worst crime of all is blasphemy/heresy/desecration of the host. Being boring ranks only slightly above denying the holocast in the list of punishable sins.
Yes, the People need to have an answer SF…
Silver Fox
Please do let us know which church you attend and where it is. Certainly, one of us lives close enough to pay a visit during services. Wouldn’t it be a fine thing for your congregation to hear a nice lecture on the basics of Natural Selection midway through services? Just the basics, mind you, church service can only handle so much science.
And then, of course, a few questions for the clergy-person about their qualifications to speak to the very nature of reality. Y’know, things like there is some interventionary entity who, on a special case basis, suspends the physical laws by which the universe apparently operates. Just how does one become qualified to make such claims, I wonder?
Claims about the nature of reality are not really immune from scientific inquiry, so as long as your church is being paid a visit, why don’t we do a nice double-blind experiment on the efficacy of prayer? Just because that experiment has been done and shown only negative outcomes (it scared people to be prayed for), doesn’t mean your congregation might not be more favored by the intervener. It’s worth a shot, after all. Your pseudo-scientific claims about ID would deserve more attention if we had a bit of evidence, eh?
I think this would be a great change of pace from the usual woo-woo god-speak droning your congregation has to put up with on a typical Sunday.
Afterwards, failed experiment or not, all could go out and drink a hearty toast to science and to PZ Myers’ health.
I’ve never seen so much non-argument from a supposed argument letter in my lifetime!
Jesus Fairy Christ the IV!
Goo and Proud!
Well, looks like Silver Fox is taking the assignment seriously. Or else – nah, surely he couldn’t be such a moral coward – he’s gone from this thread and will pop up again on another pretending the challenge was never issued. No good, Silver Fox, that challenge will be repeated every time you show up, until you’ve either disproved the existence of every deity anyone can come up with other than your, or admitted that atheists are not required to disprove the existence of the latter. (In fact, though, disproving the existence of the Christian god (as opposed to the Jewish or Muslim one) is easy: Jesus is claimed to have been “wholly God and wholly man”, and since “God” and “man” have incompatible attributes, that’s logically impossible, and *poof*, there goes any possibility that doctrinally orthodox Christianity is true.)
This is just an absurd rant.
I’d be willing to put money on that he did a few shots of jack to work up the nerve before unloading this gem on you.
The old goat has me convinced, I cannot disprove any deity so I am now going to try to live by the laws of all deities. This is going to take a lot of juggling.
“It’s not the absolute certainty that God doesn’t exist, it’s that there is no reason to believe that God DOES exist.”
In that case any rational atheist would accept Pascal’s Wager.
Your comment presupposes Pascal’s Wager is rational.
I’ll start with Bacchus/Dionysus, Latis and T’shai-shen.
That way I can be wealthy enough to afford all the whiskey and get drunk enough to not care about the rest of the them.
That or I’ll just follow Loki and give a hearty fuck you to the rest of the gods.
Silver Fox, post #565. Answer it or you will be proven the fool you keep making us think you are.
You are dead and you have accepted Pascal’s Wager. Sadly, it seems the deity you are facing is not Pascal’s God. But your soul is a nice between meal snack for the uncaring old god.
In that case any rational atheist would accept Pascal’s Wager. – Silver Fox
Oi! Where’s your proof that no gods other than your own exist?
And don’t be more of a fucking moron than you can help: Pascal’s wager assumes that there is either no god, or the Christian one. Until you have provided the proof requested, it has absolutely no purchase. There could be a god who hates those who believe and punishes them with eternal torment, while rewarding atheists. Or a god who only lets those who are hanged, or who die in battle, into Valhalla. Or any one of an infinite number of other possiiblities. So you cannot even assign a low but finite probability to the existence of any specific god, with any specific set of requirements. In any case, as i’ve pointed out@592, we know the god of doctrinally orthodox Christianity does not exist, as his alleged attributes are logically impossible. since you can’t prove Odin doesn’t exist, Silver Fox, I suggest you accept a more plausible version of Pascal’s wager, and go and hang yourself.
“he must now prove that every god other than Yahweh doesn’t exist or he admits he is wrong.”
As the Jewish Shema says Adonais Echad – God is One. So, all you have is a bunch of names – you don’t have a bunch of Gods. Even in Israelite history God was not known by one name.
In the name of the silly old goat, there are no heresies. All deities are the same deity. How New Age.
“In that case any rational atheist would accept Pascal’s Wager. ”
*headdesk* How in the world, after so much time on this blog, could you so completely fail to grasp what you’re saying? I always thought that calling religion brainwashing was overreaching, but no longer. You regurgitate what religion forced you to swallow, nothing more.
I’m embarrassed for you at this point.
For a second there, i thought you wrote jiggling.
Silver Fox:
There are so many theologians who would call bullshit on you.
No, Janine, IS, all Gods are Yahweh. Remember, even though every theist in the history of apologetics claims revelation from his or her deities, only the Christian has it right.
Really makes you wonder (since it was either Yahweh or none, and not every non-Christian could have been a liar) what sorts of things Yahweh whispered in Cleopatra’s ear when he was impersonating Isis.
All gods may be one, but that one is a dishonest schizo.
Silver Fox, time for you to show some physical evidence for your imaginary god. Something that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine origin. Failing that (we have been there before, and we both know the answer is you have no physical evidence) the burden of proof falls up you to demonstrate the your silly imaginary god is the only possible god. I suggest you retire from this blog until you get the proof and can demonstrate it appropriately.
Nice try at a dodge.
So you think that your god is Loki and Huehuecoyotl including all the characteristic describing them?
“Pascal’s wager assumes that there is either no god, or the Christian one.”
There is only one God regardless of what name you use. Two gods would make no rational sense. It would be a philosophical contradiction.
What flavor of Christianity do you subscribe to?
You must know that there are religions that have more than one god. There’s a word for them: “polytheistic”. Are they somehow more ridiculous than monotheistic religions? If so, why?
SF, the concept of god itself is a philosophical contradiction as far as some of us are concerned. It is absolutely not needed for anything. It’s nothing but a null idea. If you need a god, you are welcome to the idea, but go away and leave us alone.
“Two gods would make no rational sense. It would be a philosophical contradiction.”
Much like having a single god who is both omniscient and omnipotent is in the first place.
Are you telling us that an omniscient and omnipotent god couldn’t create another omniscient and omnipotent god? Having done so, would we not have two gods?
Your mental masturbation aside. I’m still waiting for your proof.
This explanation should be choice.
Yeah. I’m confused. Why can’t there be more than one god? If one exists, why not more? I mean, god can create lesser gods, and Satan, Demons and Angels are all gods of a sort, super natural and what not.
Once you say one god exists, there’s no reason the floodgates don’t open and we have many gods. I mean even god says there’s other gods in the bible and he tell people not to follow them.
The Aztecs and the Spaniards prayed to the same deity. Yahweh loved him some good human sacrifices.
Did Yahweh get his penis sliced off by Nut?
Did Athena pop out full formed form Yahweh and then change gender in order to spread the word?
@Silver Fox
Go take a tour here: http://www.godchecker.com/. I think you’ll find that your claim that there is one god is total horseshit.
Not to mention the whole Trinity is a godhead hand waving.
So, Silver Fox’s god is also Mangar-kunjer-kunja, the Australian Aboriginal lizard-god who created the first humans after he found them clumped together on the side of a hill and separated them with a knife? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mangar-kunjer-kunja
Doesn’t that kind of conflict with the Genesis stories?
“There is only one God regardless of what name you use. Two gods would make no rational sense. It would be a philosophical contradiction.”
Ah, I think I’m starting to get. SF is slowly transitioning into Patronizing Racist land.
All those silly brown people just got it all wrong. Since all gods are different names for the same god, who is (conveniently) YOUR god, then clearly, those misguided savages were just confused.
Thank goodness they have you to clear it up for them.
There is only one God regardless of what name you use.,/I> – Silver “Moron” Fox
Good grief you’re so stupid. Even if you had shown this, which you haven’t – assertion is not argument, let alone proof – Pascal’s wager depends on it being clear what God demands. Even within the Abrahamic religions, there are different ideas of what God wants. Is it OK to eat pork? Are you required to drink wine in some circumstances, or forbidden from ever doing so? Can a man marry more than one wife at a time? Is divorce permitted? Is “thou shalt not kill” to be taken as meaning “thou shalt not kill”? Was Muhammed the final prophet of God or not? Was Jesus divine – so there’s no way to salvation except through him, a prophet, or no-one special?
Oh by the way, how are your proofs that the gods with names beginning with “A” coming along? Ready to publish them and start on the “B”s yet?
Ashera, Baal, Diana, Tammuz, and The Queen of Heaven (Isis) are all recognized as deities in the Bible. Try reading your own damned book Silver Fox. May Eris, the goddess of discord, strife, and confusion move into your underpants.
Nutcase:
“I have known and admired some wonderful iconoclasts who had some genuine insights worth considering, but my God, they knew when to shut up!”
I bet the irony is lost on him.
Not if the underpants gnomes get there first.
No, theologists can get out of everything. You see, if God is above logic and logic is a mere creation of God, your disproof falls flat — what is illogical is merely beyond the ability of us Puny Humans™ to grasp. Any sufficiently ineffable god is not falsifiable.
And so is Chemosh, who is God of Moab the same way that Yahwe is God of Israel (in the older parts of the Bible, not the newer ones where he has merged with his father El Elyon…).
Next time I’m catching up on the blog here and I see a post that screams “tl;dr,” I’m going to listen to my instincts and skip over it. How can anyone take that many words to say “I don’t care!” My brain turned into oatmeal from reading that.
Mmm. Oatmeal.
As for the comment section…
If there is only one god with many different names, then why is yahweh so concerned about people worshiping other gods? If you are saying every religion has just worshiped the same god by different names, why would god care what they called him?
Every rational atheist would accept Pascal’s wager? Only if Pascal’s wager was logically defensible.
He claims to be an intellectual and a humanist….. .
Lol lol loloololollollollollollooolllloooooooolll…. no, I can’t no more, now it’s time to go to bed and weep for humanity
“What he can’t do is hold himself out as an authority on literature, history or religion. ”
Feh. Courtier’s Reply. How much authority does one need on Tolkien to be able to believe that it’s a work of fiction?
There’s only one God, sillies, and he’s in my head. Hence I can absolutely reject all others without fear of logical inconsistencies. So, Silver Fox, you’re wrong. There, now that wasn’t so difficult was it?
Incidentally how did Pascal’s Wager turn out? Did he win?
In any case he was clearly limited in his vision, a bitarian – a man of just two thoughts: Pense A and Pense B.
I’m still on my first cup of coffee, so brain isn’t up to speed… what is tl;dr?
Well now… mister fancy pants aka David Hartmann, needs a good cup of STFU.
I think he is most upset that anyone would have an opinion different from his. By the intensity and length of that letter I would say something is hitting close to the truth. Maybe David will just need to sink his head in the sand and just go ahead and pretend a little harder.
We need more people like PZ just to level the playing field with all the fundies out there.
Party on dudes!
too long; didn’t read
That’s “too long; didn’t read,” Patricia. It’s common usage in textspeak, and, unfortunately, it seems to be spreading.
Oh, thanks!
I’d seen tl;dr and was wondering what it meant, but hadn’t got around to asking. Learned something new today.
Funny how the words of the silly old goat on this thread and the words of facilis and heddle on “The Stupid, It Burns” thread comes down to this: there is a god, he is necessary and I know this because he told me and you cannot disprove it.
Patricia and NoR,
urbandictionary.com is a worthy bookmark in times like these.
Thanks bonez brigade!
Janine, You’re right about the three stooges (facilis, heddle & Silver Fox). I think heddle is making the biggest fool of himself. He is treated with a lot of respect on other bloggers sites, then he comes here and flounders around over his religion like a complete ass. It’s getting pathetic.
Garfunkle is Shemp.
Learned two things today. That makes the day even better.
Watching Heddle flounder in the sea of lies that was of his own making enhances it too. AnthonyK has added a few apt barbs that made for fun reading this morning.
Steve_C, we must at all times strive for the truth. Garfunkel is Jackie is Jim In Vermont is Superman is JohnDoe is Shemp. I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.
Koo koo kachoo.
If I had to guess, I’d say the email is from Keith Olbermann.
I know some things Mr. Hartmann needs to know:
Paragraph breaks are your friends.
Brevity is the soul of wit.
Give respect to get respect.
I’d add Mr. Hartmann to my Christian Quotes section, but he’s not said anything I’d consider the least bit inspirational.
Mr. Hartmann, you’re no Jeffrey Dahmer.
Hehehe. Janine! Shemp was the bogus 4th stooge. Funny.
oh fucking great
The fact that I know this scares me. Shemp was an original Stooge. He was part of the troupe when the Stooges were a Vaudeville act. He left before the first Stooge short. That was when the Stooges recruited the younger brother of Moe and Shemp, Curly.
Yes, about Pascal’s Wager….
Possibly I’m reading it wrong, but it seems to me that the essence of P’s W is that you don’t have to really believe; you just have to fake it convincingly. Which leads me to the conclusion that, 1) God (here defined as the standard-issue quasi-Monotheistic Western Civ God) can’t tell the difference between real belief and acting, or 2) God is basically only interested in headcount. He says, “If you don’t believe only in Me, no Heaven for you!”, but he’ll totally settle for lip-service. And that it makes no difference to your after-life experience.
Also, that the “lie” implicit in the deception is of no consequence, Commandments to the contrary.
Do I misconstrue?
I knew that… but he wasn’t as good as the “new” stooge.
Chimpy, did you read Paliban Mom?
I’d add Mr. Hartmann to my Christian Quotes section, but he’s not said anything I’d consider the least bit inspirational.
Mr. Hartmann, you’re no Jeffrey Dahmer.
That was funny.
Silver Fox,
Sorry, I just woke up this morning and finished the last 100 comments in this thread and noticed that you’re beavering away on your disproofs for all those pesky other gods. Don’t mean to pile on the work, but I’m thinking about worshipping another god I just made up: her name is ‘Aaaabcdef’. Fundamentally, her adherents teach that worshipping her by having a tattoo of a tapdancing taxidermist emplaced on one’s left armpit and standing on city streetcorners shouting nonsense syllables at any stranger wearing a black jumper ensures an afterlife with an endless supply of Oreo cookies.
Mmm… sacralicious!
Please add my new god to your list of gods you don’t believe in, and tell me why that loving embrace of Oreos shouldn’t be mine, since I’ll be hard at work for the next several decades shouting at strangers.
Or maybe… you haven’t yet been convinced that Aaaaabcdef exists?
Yeah. I did and it was funny.
I am just dreading the 70 comments trying to determine the level of poe of Paliban mom.
Paliban Mom – I can furnish you with a few choice quotes.
This seems to me to be practically a textbook example of bulshytt.
Go take your meds Silver Fox.
nyuk nyuk
I’d wager a bottle of single malt that if Silver Fox ever answers Wowbagger’s question–which of course he should do before posting anything else here–he’ll use Argument No. 124:
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
Any takers?
Wait a minute. Silver Foxy is actually right. They all are the same god because “god” is just another word for “voice in your head” using Hartmann’s scary quotes.
Says who?
Says who?
Meanwhile, I’m giggling with glee that soon enough this site is going to be the number 1 search result for David Hartmann. So for the sake of my continued giggling let’s please spell his name correctly (ends with 2 ‘n’s). He may be famous one day as that amazing crank at Pharyngula.
Oh, yeah. That David Hartmann, ha! Etc.
He is coming in at #2 when searching for “David Hartmann” whales so we are making progress.
What is very odd is that the #1 result involves a David Hartmann and whale songs (Apparently. I can’t get to the site from here.)
PZ Myers, David just called and he wanted me to let you know he’s cancelling on Saturday’s golf game.
tl;dr
Nice try Silver Fox, but you don’t get out of it. Even if we accept that any god that doesn’t have a contemporary religious body claiming to worship it isn’t around any more, that still leaves you with those that are. How about Hindu? There are, what, about a billion Hindus.
I think you should start with Ganesh. You don’t believe in Ganesh, do you? If not, why not? What is your proof for his non-existence?
Remember, you’ll stop getting hassled about this as soon as you do one very simple thing – admit that you were wrong about the positive claim of atheism and retract your argument that the atheist is required to prove the nonexistence of Yahweh.
” There’s a word for them: “polytheistic”. Are they somehow more ridiculous than monotheistic religions? If so, why?”
Why? I explained that at 608. God is perfection. The union of God with himself is one of unity. There can be no division in unity. It is one. If there are two Gods, whatever one God has diminishes the unity of the first.If perfection is diminished, there is no God because there is no unity. There is a God and He is in perfect unity. He is ONE. Yes, the Greeks, the Romans, the Egyptians had many Gods. They did have a main or top God which indicates that they were in the formation of a concept of God. People with more than one God are involved in a philosophical contradiction.
“Are they somehow more ridiculous than monotheistic religions?”
No they are not MORE ridiculous than monotheistic religions because monotheistic religions are not ridiculous. Polytheism is rationally untenable. If that makes them ridiculous, so be it.
Prove that God is perfection. Any evidence of it’s perfectness? Other than the assertion of course.
SF, when are you going to present your argument? #660 is a pile of horse manure. Presumptions all over the place with no logical backing. Not as bad as Facilis the Fallicious Fool, but still bad.
“No they are not MORE ridiculous than monotheistic religions because monotheistic religions are not ridiculous.”
that’s the view from the entirely dishonest, embarrassingly silly seats.
Stop being a total coward and answer Wowbagger’s question: “You don’t believe in Ganesh, do you? If not, why not? What is your proof for his non-existence?”
uhm….when SF says that there are “rational atheits”, are there more types of rational genres?
You can’t put just all the gods in one bag… its philosophical illogical! You can’t just say: “I am a bugger. 1,2,3,4, are buggers. So, I am 1,2,3,4,5,…” … there are rules you know…
and i am still w8ing to the response for the challenge SF.
Especially when the central canon of Hindu texts are specifically described as revealed knowledge (śrúti). If Silver Fox, Facilis, and the rest have no problem denying that the Hindu gods actually speak to their followers just as Yahweh is purported to, then why do they think we have an obligation to believe them when they claim the same?
Again, says who?
SAYS WHO?
Who says that if there is a god it is male?
Says who?
I guess if you get to pick your god’s attributes then having it be able to do itself should be high up on the list, I guess. Or did your god have a rib or two removed and do some major stretching exercises? And inquiring minds really want to know if your god can rim itself too.
Says who?
Says who?
I’m really curious because all you have is a large shit bucket full of claims. It stinks and really could use a rinse. But all I see is shit. Oh, is that your god’s shit? That explains it all. Thanks, now I understand.
All hail the holy bucket of shit. Praise be the bucket of shit.
Silver Fox wrote:
That’s a ridiculous claim, even by your standards. Wouldn’t that depend on the philosophy they possess to convince themselves their god exist? You’re measuring other people’s gods against your god’s standards, Silver Fox – which means you’re assuming your concept of god is the correct one. Which you have no right to do until you disprove all the other gods.
So you say. But why? All you’ve done is make assertions, Silver Fox. What you’ve got to do now is back them up with arguments. Why, exactly, is polytheism rationally untenable? Remember you have to be able to show this by objective standards, not just by assuming that your god concept is correct and any god concepts that don’t match yours aren’t.
Remember, Silver Fox, there’s an easy way out – admit atheists don’t have to disprove Yahweh any more than you have to disprove Ganesh. The option’s right there – you just have to take it.
What a surprise, the disgrace to genus vulpes is hiding again!
Do you believe in all of the following? If not, prove their non-existence or shut the fuck up.
Amaterasu, Bokonon, Coyote, Dionysius, Enki, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Ganesh, Haephestus, Isis, John Frum, Kira, Laharl, Marduk, Nerull, Odin, Palkia, Quetzalcoatl, Ra, Sideshow Bob, Thor, Ungoliant the Unlight, Vishnu, Waspinator, Xemnas, Yu Yevon, or Zeus.
(bonus points to anyone who can identify the sources of all these deities, some of which are there as a joke just to show how little respect I have for Silver fox’s vacuous arguments)
Silver Fox, #660: God is perfection. The union of God with himself is one of unity. There can be no division in unity. It is one.
God is love. Love is blind. So God is blind.
This is a fun game, SF! Who else wants to play?
So you admit they were making it up too?
Phantomreader42:
John Frum is one of my all-time favorites. At least those folks are trying! ;)
“God is perfection. The union of God with himself is one of unity. There can be no division in unity. It is one.”
I’ll take Vacuous Platitudes for $1000, Alex.
Translation: My god is true because I believe it to be so because a book tells me so that is written by god. Who tells me it was written by god? The book.
Shorter translation: I like to chase my tail.
Really
#608
That is an assertion sans any substantive support.
Not only are you an confused, you are an idiot.
mind if I quotemine?
No they are not MORE ridiculous than monotheistic religions
just so.
in another 1000 years, your religion will be seen by the irrational of that day to be just as, if not more ridiculous, than the Greek or Norse pantheons ever were.
…and they will “justify” their statement in exactly the same circular fashion as you do today.
I don’t even need to live long enough to see it happen, I can laugh at you right now.
SF,
“The union of God with himself is one of unity.”
You’ve asked him about this? What about Yun-Yammka, the God of War, and Yun-Harla, the Goddess of Deception. They’re twins. They’re the same as your god, all gods are one, right?
“If there are two Gods, whatever one God has diminishes the unity of the first.”
OK, so you get to decide what diminishes god? Or did god tell you this too?
“If perfection is diminished, there is no God because there is no unity.”
So once again you’re telling us your god couldn’t actually create another god who was his equal. Well, guess your god’s not omnipotent then. This means he’s diminished and therefore doesn’t exist. That’s according to your own thought process. Glad to know we finally agree.
“There is a God and He is in perfect unity.”
No, you just proved to me that he doesn’t exist.
Bah stupid blockquote fail
That is an assertion sans any substantive support.
Not only are you an confused, you are an idiot.
Are you suggesting here that God fucked Jesus? Was the Holy Ghost watching?
I think that’s disgusting. You Christians have filth minds.
Except the Catholics. For them it’s probably a sacrement. Hence…
Please stop upsetting me with your Christo-porn.
What about parsimony, that most of you sandbox tigers say you love so much? If there’s any need for a God at all (I just say if, not whether) then the simplest belief would be, just “one” wouldn’t it? And if by definition it means, whatever created the universe (again, if … just to critique the framing) then referencing various notional entities without clear definitions is meaningless. You don’t understand semantics.
Hey, what about multiple universes? Do you think they do or don’t exist, and if so a similar problem comes up doesn’t it … why this possible world and not another one we can describe or that someone imagined or believed in.
I don’t really care as much as you think I do, but I do like to kick sand back at bullies.
Silver Fox tried Pascal’s Wager and that fell flat and now I await some amazing Facilis-grade logic using presuppositionalism crap.
Rinsing that bucket, Silver Fox?
Don’t forget to scrub around the handles. Your god’s shit has parasites. Incurable, brain eating parasites.
It’s true what they say: Every time you kill a kitten, god masturbates.
Or was it the other way around? :P
Neil B ☺ What about parsimony, that most of you sandbox tigers say you love so much?
I agree that many of the so-called “sandbox tigers” probably don’t understand parsimony any better than you do. There seems to be a common misunderstanding about what it’s supposed to be about.
Yes that would be the simplest assuming that. But which one?
Why the need of the trinity then?
Who are these various notional entities without clear definitions?
Oh, yeah.
Neil B wrote:
Nice try, Neil B. – but a fail nonetheless. If we accept parsimony, that only means there is a single god – it doesn’t say anything about which single god, does it? So he still his to disprove any of the other monotheistic religions in order to maintain his own belief.
Oh, and this:
I
don’treally careas much as you think I dothat no-one’s paying attention to me, butand I do like tokick sand backfling poo atbulliesmy betters, in the hopes they’ll acknowledge me.Fixed it for you. No charge.
If there’s any need for a God at all (I just say if, not whether) then the simplest belief would be, just “one” wouldn’t it?
it entirely depends on how much variable behavior you wish to ascribe to a single entity, IMO.
What do you mean, “which one” – you apparently don’t understand the idea of defining by logical role instead of popular or specific descriptions. If “something” created it, then we could ask what it was like – it may resemble one or some of those notions, it may not, or it may be ambiguous or unanswerable or wrongly framed (like, “what color is an electron.”) And there isn’t any reason why an argument pertaining to the general question – is the universe self-sufficient etc. – would give any insight into that. That would be our tough luck if we cared and that was the best we could even get close to.
I’m just saying, that line of critique doesn’t do anything. But you deserve credit for posing the challenge as an intelligent question (and not that I consider the approach or answer to any of this clear or obvious, I’m just ragging on the rag) instead of a booger flick.
I guess you do have a point. Simple, that is. In some English speaking countries they have other terms/phrases for it.
Me, I’m all for delegating. God of hot water. God of tea. God of emptying the dishwasher. God of taking out the trash. God of walking my dog (Yes, I guess I did just type that!). God of, hey yeah, god of doing my work so I can make snarky comments online. God of why don’t you give me 10% of what you make. God of doing my laundry. God of getting that slowpoke out of my way when I’m late. God of shining my shoes. The more gods the better. Homeopathic gods, if you will. Dilute them down until there really isn’t anything left but what remains in the water’s memory.
Oh, and Silver Fox needs a god of shit bucket cleaning.
According to the Encyclopedia of Gods, by Michael Jordon there are over 2,500 gods. The insistence of only one just makes you Stooges look all the sillier.
Honestly, having a pantheon of gods who are often at odds with each other makes a lot more sense than one god who is supposedly perfect and yet distressingly inconsistent. And it is supported by there having been numerous gods posited by humans over the centuries. It’s also what plenty of the bible suggests, too – though most Christians seem to ignore that.
Having worked with a number of multidisciplinary teams over the year I would have to say that ‘Intelligent’ Design via committee explains things a lot better…
WRMartin – Ask and ye shall receive…
Baldrick the shit bucket cleaner worshipped turnips, the god of turnips is: Egres.
Your god’s shit has parasites. Incurable, brain eating parasites.
hmm, the bloody arsehole must have been on vacation in NZ and forgotten to take them with him when he left:
http://www.jasons.com/New-Zealand/new-zealand-health-information
I think this “god” character must have spent time at Debrett’s spa, and ruined it for the rest of us.
Yes I understand defining by logical role, but that is meaningless in the whole of the discussion that is going on here in this post. SF is making direct assertions that the only god is the one in his book. Thereby having the characteristics ascribed to it. He is also claiming that all gods are merely different representations if his one god.
Past that SF is making assertions about his god being perfect without any support of that assertion beyond lame circular logic. The same circular logic he is applying to the dismissal of Quetzlcoatl and Bacchus and the million other gods created in the history of man.
So your question about parsimony has little meaning here if we aren’t applying it to the discussion at hand (at least the one with SF which brought this up).
Again, not pertinent to this discussion. SF is making claims about his god and against all other gods. We know where he gets his god from and what characteristics are ascribed to it. We know what characteristics are applied to gods of other religions and cultures.
Nice try, Neil B. – but a fail nonetheless. If we accept parsimony, that only means there is a single god – it doesn’t say anything about which single god, does it? So he still his to disprove any of the other monotheistic religions in order to maintain his own belief.
It isn’t a fail for me, only for anyone trying to support a specific “monotheistic religion”. Yes I gladly grant that the simplicity of “one ultimate reality” or “one uncaused being” (do you think this stuff is that?) does not support say Christianity over Islam, as a Unitarian Universalist I don’t want to do that anyway. I’m not here to support Silver Fox’s (“he”?) specific religious idea, just explain why that argument about “gods” isn’t so relevant to the general question. But maybe there’s a “they” of some sort, if anything “behind it” at all. It’s speculation, why not think speculation is OK as an adventure?
Nevertheless I don’t need the idea of ultimate being/first cause as a means to an end (like supporting “God X”), I am just interested in the question by itself. Hence it makes relative sense to look at issues like necessary and contingent existence, why the laws, etc.
Neil B. wrote:
Which would be fine if Silver Fox were advocating deism, or some anonymous, unknown theistic deity about whom we know nothing, but he isn’t.
His concept of god is based on said god having specific, defined characteristic that differentiate it from not only other monotheistic gods, but other Christian sects’ versions of it. He has a bible – supposedly a revelation from his god – and doctrine and any other number of conditions dependent upon his god’s specific attributes.
We’re playing by the set of rules Silver Fox defined. He just didn’t realise that we’re cleverer than he is.
The silly old goat brayed;
God is perfection. The union of God with himself is one of unity.
I could help but rememberThe Symposium by Plato. Near the beginning, Socrates was describing a golden age where a person were a connected male and female and each person had a hole to place their unit. Funny, I have not thought of this in decades.
He just didn’t realise that we’re cleverer than he is.
…and that’s not saying much.
really.
;)
BTW: Yes I understand defining by logical role, but that is meaningless in the whole of the discussion that is going on here in this post. SF is making direct assertions that the only god is the one in his book. That’s an exaggeration. Part of SF’s apologetics was about Christianity (I presume), but I saw some criticisms here too about the general idea of one versus multiple Gods. That’s what I was getting at, and it had gotten mixed up with the question of the type “If there is a God, which one ‘is it'”? [which description is it most like, in effect.]
yawn, Neil.
just…
*yawn*
Ichthyic (raising libation glass).
Every class I’ve ever taken on paganism has included triple gods/goddesses. It’s just one more thing the christians got from earlier religions. Keep insisting on it Silver Fox.
Ichthyic (raising libation glass).
cheers, mate.
I’m still putting together a blog for New Zealand adventures. Been so busy with the actual “adventures”, I haven’t had time until now.
It’ll be called: “Poke it With a Stick”, and have already registered it (it’s just blank at the moment).
I have a couple of days worth of pics to process first, then I’ll put up the first couple of entries.
:P
Good to see you back Ichthyic! If you run into Nick Gotts over there tell him he’s missed.
Patricia @691 & Ichthyic @692, respectively:
&
Is there anything that a snark like me can make an asinine comment about that doesn’t already have a god associated with it?
Hint for Silver Fox: Probably not.
And for that I am happy.
Happy Monkey!
Ichthyic, showing my age some by channeling Cheers. We need to poke SF with a sharp stick. It might get his attention. I’ll look forward to your blog. Hope you are settling in.
If you run into Nick Gotts over there tell him he’s missed.
It’s a small place, I probably will.
WRMartin – My pleasure! It just proves that even an education in silly subjects can come in handy now and then.
This has been a long, hard post, so I think you guys (not you Silver Fox, or you Mr Hartmann) need a chuckle. So try this:
http://donottrustme.blogspot.com/2009/02/atheist-bus-slogan-generator.html
(I got “I had your God’s mum – and she was shit” but then that’s just me)
@600, The Frantic Fox blathered some stuff.
But doesn’t the first commandment imply that the christian god is aware that there are other, more different, gods out there?
It says so in this book …
BDChimp @ 650, I can’t help it if your pals aren’t bright enough to recognize the True Word of God when they read it. :)
Just like an atheist, suggesting that a kitten masturbates every time you kill God. >:( Disgusting!
@ Patricia, please feel free to contribute any Christian quotes you think would add value to the Quotes page. I look forward to your suggestions!
this is what you all should be watching!!! you damn non-believers!!! :D
@710
But, Troll, WHICH GOD?!?!?!
David Hartmann, that was the single most amusing thing I’ve read all week. And to think that if you’d simply clicked on the little cross in the corner of your window you wouldn’t have become incensed enough to write it.
I thought you need no basic intelect to understand the words of (the) god(s) Paliban Mom…w8 you actually need it! beacuse so many people (thousands of years ago) wrote it in ancient aramaic, then greek, then arabe, then latin, then english and spanish,so on… there are tons of books about the Word, dozens of religions around the Word, dozens of sects, and so on… and you mean there is only ONE? seem like a ton of them to me, tons of interpretation’s and all that. YOu people (so called believers) focus in one book in english, don’t check any history about it; just follow one smarter than you that can take of your money and make you feel like your life is worth something for the universe…please…
And i know one quote for your Christian blog: “If the universe is finite, has time and started once, why did god take infinite time to start it?” figure that out
and please check this:
She invites ME to leave quotes?
Lady, I can make the pope cry.
@Dr Horrible
Check the site dude – PalibanDaily is apparently a well-constructed Poe.
PM has been posting here for a few weeks. Comedy can be fickle, but today, she was spot on. (My Poedar is terrible, so recognizing her moniker was all I had to go on–plus the Dahmer reference in #642 was a touch of genius.)
@716
In that case – Funny Troll, WHICH ONE?!?!?!
:)
Thanks for the heads-up Twin-Skies ;)
If you run into Nick Gotts over there tell him he’s missed.
Has he gone anywhere? He’s posting as Knock Goats these days.
Zarquon – What?! When did that happen? Are you sure?
Dammit, I always get left out of the loop. *pout*
Waterloo, Ichthyic!
I’m guessing that the ontological argument used by Maxie and facilis must be on that 300 Proofs page somewhere. I.e., I can postulate an infinite transcendent God, therefore God exists.
Hi Patricia,
Yes new year, new nick for our Nick.
Patricia, I think you were off selling your wares for the Squidmas holidays when Nick became Knock. He’s the same ol’ reprobate.
“Are you telling us that an omniscient and omnipotent god couldn’t create another omniscient and omnipotent god?”
Yes, I am. Why? Because God is One. God is Unity. There is no division in God. We can think of God theoretically as omnipotent and omniscient, but in reality they are anthropomorphic characteristics of a unified divine nature. It has to be or there is no God and there is a God. To divide himself, God would be acting contrary to his nature. God is good so he cannot sin or command someone to sin which would be contrary to his nature.
Looks like Silver Fox is having trouble with the definition of can’t. It’s a little-known secret that it’s a contraction for cannot.
“admit that you were wrong about the positive claim of atheism and retract your argument that the atheist is required to prove the nonexistence of Yahweh.”
To admit that would be contrary to reason. What I said was that the atheist lives the negative proposition. He does NOT believe in God. So if he is unable to disprove the positive proposition then there is no reasonable basis to his non belief other than his opinion that he sees no reason to believe in God. His opinion that he sees no reason to believe in God does not disprove the positive proposition.
Oops. Didn’t read SF’s post very carefully. He used “cannot,” and the post he was responding to used “couldn’t.”
Still, he’s resorting to the god-botter’s last line of defense: “divine” things are beyond human comprehension, the Lord works in mysterious ways, blah, blah, blah.
All the while giving not one single good reason why anyone should believe Yahweh is more likely to exist than leprechauns or invisible pink unicorns, etc.
Boring.
Silver Fox, your imaginary god does not exist. You have nothing but blather that just describes something in your mind. It does not preclude Side-Show Bob from the being the god. You need to go away and firm up your ideas. It should take you about a hundred years if you do it right. Until you show physical proof for you god, you are nothing but a liar and bullshitter.
“Prove that God is perfection. Any evidence of it’s perfectness? Other than the assertion of course.”
The very nature of God requires perfection. An imperfect God would be no God. There is a God; ergo, he has to be perfect. That is a self-evident fact. There is no way to prove a self-evident fact because in order to do so you would have to use the fact itself for its own definition.
The difficulty here is attempting to deal with physical scientists for whom “proof” means something different. Again, what does the existence and nature of God have to do with physical science?
God doesn’t exist until you prove he exists. Period, end of story. What part of that do you have trouble with. Your premise is wrong. Otherwise god only exists in your mind. Why do we need to consider your delusions? Either show the evidence or shut the fuck up.
Silver Fox, #727 –
How does that logic support your positive non-belief in gods other than Yahweh? Look what happens when I change you words slightly:
What I said was that the
atheistChristian lives the negative proposition. He does NOT believe inGodGods other than Yahweh. So if he is unable to disprove the positive proposition then there is no reasonable basis to his non belief other than his opinion that he sees no reason to believe inGodGods other than Yahweh. His opinion that he sees no reason to believe inGodGods other than Yahweh does not disprove the positive proposition.See how easy that was? If it’s still too hard, let me dumb it down for you: any argument you can present for not believing in other people’s gods I can take and use for not believing in yours. I suggest you dwell on the old aphorism ‘what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.’
You know you only have two choices, Silver Fox. You can provide proof for the non-existence of every god other than Yahweh, or you can admit you were wrong and retract the claim that atheists are required to prove Yahweh does not exist.
Well, there is a third – you can just leave and not come back. But I don’t want that – watching you squirm is far more entertaining than the satisfaction I would attain from having thrashed you so soundly that you quit the proving ground.
“There is a God and He is in perfect unity.”
No, see the quote at 660; “The union of God with himself is unity” God IS; he cannot be IN anything.
Silver Fox wrote:
I must have missed something – which of the gods-other-than-Yahweh is proof of the nonexistence of? You have to be more specific so I can cross it off my list.
Or can I take your lack of proofs for a retraction?
733 comments now….
*hands out anti-SIWOTI pills to Wowbagger and Nerd*
re: clinteas #734
I could stop but then Silver Fox might think he’s gotten away with the most egregious logical error I’ve had the pleasure of contributing to.
And at least it’s a civilised hour where I am. I’m starting to think that Nerd’s spent his 30 years in chemistry developing a substance that allows him to go without sleep. That or he does it dolphin-style, constantly resting half his brain at a time. Heck, it’d still leave him plenty to spare to deal with the likes of Silver Fox and facilis.
Anyway, I’m just killing time ’til I head out for a co-worker’s birthday drinks.
Wowbagger,
I slept comfortably through the hottest day on record(46.4) and am getting ready for a night shift from hell LOL…
clinteas,
Bugger me. I don’t think we even got as high as 46° – and we’ve a cool change rolling in as I write; it’s now a relatively mild 32.4°, which is a nice change. Going to be cool for the next week apparently.
This is a good thing. I can stop living in the lounge room (with air-con) the whole time I’m home.
“No, see the quote at 660; “The union of God with himself is unity” God IS; he cannot be IN anything.”
Could this be the answer to the age-old riddle “If God is everywhere, is He in the toilet?” Apparently not.
I think it’s time for a song. This one’s going out to Silver Fox (and not Rey Fox):
Fox on the run
You screamed and everybody comes a-running
Take a run and hide yourself away
Fox on the run
F-foxy, foxy on the run and hideaway
Sweet in more ways than one!
Why would anyone want to accept Pascal’s Wager? Given the infinitesimal chance of choosing the right god, let alone the right parameters for belief. By accepting Pascal’s Wager, you are accepting that belief for the sake of belief is rewarded, you are accepting that belief that the Christian deity is the right deity, and that there’s an afterlife. In the eternal words of Homer Simpson: “But Marge, what if we chose the wrong religion? Each week we just make God madder and madder.”
Pascal’s Wager is far too narrow, not to mention it misrepresents the how we believe. Do you, Silver Fox, only believe because of the promise of a reward in the afterlife, or would you choose to swap religions in light of a better reward? If not, what makes you think that an atheist will suddenly believe for the same reason? Pascal’s Wager in that respect is like taking blizzard insurance in Fiji. The remote possibility of something being true does not give reason to believe it will happen or live your life as if it is it could happen. In Australia I don’t feel I’m going to be mauled by a tyrannosaurus when I walk down the street, and even if a tyrannosaurus happened to survive 65 million years and be there to eat me, the absurdity of the proposition will not make me any more readily believe it will happen.
Pascal’s Wager is the appeal of the desperate, those who cling to belief for the sake of reward, a means to convince when there’s no evidence at all. Silver Fox, you really should actually learn what it means to be an atheist before you spew such inane shit.
I can’t decide which would be cooler to be — a “negative karma engine” or a “demonic conservative ridicule-machine“.
Of course, for PZ it would need to be changed to “creationist” “IDiot” or “fundamentalist” vice “conservative”, but still.
Just as you don’t believe in Thor, we don’t believe in Yahweh. Your god is just one of thousands of gods that have come before us, and quite an absurd one at that. The Hindu eternal god Brahman which was around for about twice the time that Yahweh has been is far more in tune with the nature of reality than the theist god that you worship is. Does this make Brahman any more credulous than your theist deity? I would contend so.
So why don’t you believe in Brahman? Why don’t you take the pantheistic deity that exploded itself and became the universe and lives on an infinite cycle of expansion and contraction? Remember that this belief is more ancient, yet the Hindu version of reality is far more like the modern way we describe the universe than the Christian one. Yet I would contend that Brahman is not real. I would contend that it was a myth generated by some folks in India well over 6000 years ago, and while it may be a good fit over reality, it’s still a myth made my people who did not know and can not know the unknown. Likewise Yahweh is of the same ilk, another religion that 3000 years ago was created by a few tribes in the middle east. It’s just another poor explanation of reality, how can you have been talking to atheists for so long and not even grasped the basic reasoning behind it?
More assertions without support. You have not established that God’s perfectness is a self evident fact. You just keep saying it.
That doesn’t make it true.
If your god interacts with the physical world it has everything to do with it.
I’ll repeat what someone said above.
“I’ve never see anyone say so little with so many words.”
Clearly the individual does care or s/he would not have wasted so much energy composing such a childish (“You’re wrong! Why? Just ’cause! You’re wrong and I don’t care! La la la, I can’t hear you!”) missive. I had hoped that PZ would simply reply with “Need I say more”; the brevity of his reply was roughly equivalent. To those of sound mind, no more is needed.
That’s just it, in a reality where everything is determined by natural law, for a theist god to be a reality then there has to be a break in physical law. Of course not all gods are subject to this restriction, deist and pantheist gods can perfectly coexist with a scientific explanation of reality. But a theist has that trouble of reconciliation, that brings their god into a testable reality either indirectly or directly through measurement. Once you take any phenomena or event and allege “goddidit”, then it’s an allegation that god is working through nature in some form or another.
Then there is the philosophical god who does not interact with the natural world. Such a god cannot be proven or disproven, but only accepted on faith. But then, why that god and not another one as Wowbagger keeps pointing out? So at the end that comes down to why should I believe simply because you do? And how do you know you are not delusional for believing in god? Personally, philosophical gods are worthless and should be ignored. If you find comfort in such a god, believe, but be ashamed of your delusion and wash your hands afterwards.
In that respect, I have no problems with a deistic or pantheistic belief. It’s not my bag, but really at that point it’s just speculation on the unknown anyway and it satisfies the strong anthropic principle. In a way, I would argue that a deist or pantheist god would be a better fit to satisfy the strong anthropic principle than a theist god as there is no evidence that a theist god exists. Of course evidence of a theist god would change things, but it’s a tall order to explain. In the end, all versions of god are nothing more than speculative nonsense, but at least some of them observe the boundaries of observation.
that was a very long email….and you are up to 750 comments!
I don’t have time to read it…but I gotta look…
Mr Hartmann has since written to me again — twice — and insisted that I owe him another post for his lengthy rebuttal. I’m ignoring him. I think if he really wants to make his case, he could simply post a comment here.
Mr. Hartmann, where are you? Please post.
That is just so precious. The comedy never ends.
Some people just really don’t understand the new media.
I’d like to approach this from a different angle…
Silver Fox, if we allow (for the sake of argument) your Unitary conception of God, how how are you able to reliably identify the Christian Bible as a true and unaltered communication from this entity?
Silver Fox,
Just out of curiousity, what is your opinion of the validity of, say, varieties of Hinduism where its adherents hold that there is only one Supreme Being, with many named aspects? In what way is this different from the Trinity/Unity thing you keep referencing? Are you defending monotheism, in general terms, as reality, or just specifically your brand of monotheism (and possibly its relatives and derivatives)? If so, what makes your brand true, and the others false (where just saying, “’cause the Bible tells me so” is not considered a sufficient answer)?
Come on Hartmann, ignore the fins and fangs. Dive in!
SF you got some ‘splainin to do
OT, Rev. BDC, I obtained a 6-pack of Arrogant Bastard Ale today. I’m too tired to enjoy it after getting the Redhead home from the airport though. I’ll let you know it goes when I get around to trying it out.
nice. I went to the local specialty beer store today and picked up maybe the hoppiest beer I’ve ever had. It was awesome.
RBDC! I used to live within a stone’s throw of Moylan’s and still pick up the occasional growler from those guys. They’re in North Marin County, and are renowned more for maltier concoctions, while it’s further South in Larkspur, where their sister brewery is, known for the hops. On Wednesday we found out that we were fewer miles than we thought from the Hippie Store (Whole Foods) sharing a wall with a Trader Joe’s in Napa. I picked up a Kilt Lifter (Scottish Ale) and an Imperial Stout, both from Moylan’s.
You may enjoy the product of Lagunitas Brewery from Petaluma, which is in the habit of releasing special brews commemorating the anniversary of the release of Frank Zappa albums. I just had a barleywine celebrating the anniversary of Ruben and the Jets. They are always sure to err on the side of hoppiness.
Ha. The other beer I grabbed was that exact beer. I’ve moved to a whiskey for the night, but tomorrow…
And i LOVE barley wine.
I’m a HUGE zappa fan, so I can not resist anything associated with him.
tl;dr
AnthonyK@708
I love that generator…I had ‘God has a tiny penis, think about it, Mary didn’t even feel him.