I am astonished to discover that the fundamentalist pastor Grant Swank has a new article in which he promotes the long discredited tale of Lady Hope and Darwin’s death-bed conversion. Unreal. It is completely false, and doesn’t even ring true — those of us who are familiar with Darwin’s writings wouldn’t recognize the naive Jesus-praiser of Hope’s account, and yet still this dishonest clown throws the fraudulent story of an evangelical con-artist as if it were true. He does put in a little disclaimer.
There are those who protest the above with extreme vehemence, concluding it is all fabrication and that Darwin made no Christian profession.
Right. We protest with vehemence because the story is idiotic and transparently false, unsupported by any historical evidence and contradicted by all that we do have. We have accounts of Darwin’s death by witnesses…there is no American preacher lady hovering in the wings, no joyful bible readings.
And if there was, would she be fired?
More importantly, apart from defending the man’s character posthumously, who actually cares? His religious views don’t have the slightest bearing on the importance of his scientific discoveries. Newton was religious and an alchemist; that alone doesn’t disprove anything he found (relativity on the other hand…well).
Above all, Swank moron, the science happens to work.
If Darwin had gone delusional at the end and not understood the science any more, he’d simply have descended to your mental level, Grant. I should be sorry to see him reduced so low, but that would have nothing to do with his earlier work, or with the voluminous data discovered via guidance of evolutionary theory, and supportive thereof.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Careful now. Grant Swank is a comedy god. If he didn’t exist, the SadlyNauts would be much the poorer for it.
Denialists of all stripes never let a fabrication get in the way of a good story.
Not only is it fabricated, but it makes no difference either way. Einstein said that God did not play dice because he didn’t like the consequences of quantum theory. It still doesn’t make any difference to the truth of it.
Dear Mr. Swank,
Where you actually present at Darwin’s death? No? Then stfu.
Hugs and kisses,
Lab Kat
Question: do you think that the internet helps or hinders the spread of false stories like this and, say, all other YEC claims? I hold out hope that access to information about real science will counteract some of this nonsense, but when people can’t weigh the relative reliability of the National Academy of Sciences vs. Answers in Genesis, there’s a problem.
Helps. People want a juicy story and they’re willing to believe anything or anyone to get it.
Plus, sometimes the truth is just boring.
Ah, the fundamentalist nuts seem to adore fabrications.
Sorry PZ, I’m afraid its all true. I’ve seen the evidence!
The Lady Hope Tape
Pious fraud
A quick look at the Renew America reveals more laughs. Faith Mouse is a sister site. Oh my… Also love how they have the habit of call Obama “B. Hussein”. Because, you know, he really is a secret muslim who was in league what that other Hussein.
Just a heads up on a poll by MSNBC that’s getting some attention, but maybe deserves some of our special brand of attention. It’s another poll on whether or not “In God We Trust” should be removed from US currency.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10103521/
Just like creationism. What a coincidence!
I think it comes out about even, except with poorer grammar. There are plenty of books out there on YEC and other quackery, so the ideas would still circulate without the internet. The only real difference is that there aren’t publishers and editors involved in posting things online. (Bear in mind, many publishers don’t care about accuracy of content, as long as they think it will sell.) So people have access to a similar range of ideas online as, say, in a bookstore (perhaps with even more actual science available online, depending on the bookstore you’re comparing it to). The main difference is that the stoopid online is written in internetese and all caps.
Let’s lie for Jesus some more, boys and girls!
I googled “Darwin deathbed conversion” and the third hit down (after Wikipedia and Talk Origins) was this explicitly Christian site that–although lamenting Darwin’s unbelief–clearly lays out that the deathbed conversion story is fabribated: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/darwin.html#recant
It was nice to see a Christian site–however full of other made-up crap–that at least doesn’t peddle bald-faced lies about real people. (I can’t vouch for anything else on the Christiananswers site, of course.)
Dorid @ #14: Old shit is old. It’s at some ten million responses, so there’s nothing to do about it.
Two words: email chains.
Is msnbc in such dire straits they’re reduced to whoring for pharynguloids?
After the main course of Rev. Swank’s swill, feast further on the dessert served up by Bryan Fischer (also on the “Renew America” Website). His contribution: “Scientific McCarthyism”. I won’t ruin it for anyone who needs a laugh
What if Darwin did have a deathbed conversion? Why do they think that would repudiate his theory? Yawn. Ignorant bores. Couldn’t think their way out of a wet paper bag with a hole in it.
The evidence says otherwise, both for the deathbed conversion and his theory being wrong. In fact his theory is 150 years improved from when he first proposed it. And Darwin would probably prefer it being call Modern Synthesis instead of Darwinism.
Rectocephalus, thanks for pointing that out. Brian Fischer shows the same understanding of science that Alan Clarke shows in the Titanoboa thread.
This is why conservative Christians oppose “right to die” laws. It would mean the loss of their favourite apologetics tactics; someone should have pulled the plug on Lady Hope long ago.
It makes one wonder why such people feel it is so important for Darwin to have “seen the light” as it were. It strikes me as a showing of insecurity in their own faith that they feel they need to trot out such stories. Any time they do this, with Darwin, Einstein, Jefferson, etc., they’re trying to appeal to our authorities. But if they were so right and had evidence to prove their case, surely this wouldn’t be necessary.
Apparently, even more people are getting stupid, “Intelligent design to be topic at Vatican meeting.” Yep, that is the title on the subject from the AP Press. Check it out, http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hJK9enh8baMhdRguzkPFWcjJj9NQD968S0K80
As that Christian Answers site notes, if Darwin did convert he would of all people at least told his wife, and she would have told the family. The lack of corroboration from Emma seems all but conclusive evidence that the Lady Hope story is a fabrication.
Chain emails are a flash in the pan. No one goes back ten years, picks up a “ZOMG! I have done DNA testing on the severed head of Vince Foster and it proves it was Chelsea in the Capital Building with the Chainsaw!” chain email as proof of anything.
The internet is a terrible source for first-person accounts, but an excellent repository for refined and fact-checked information. Once a site builds up its credibility, people can reliably turn to it as a resource indefinitely. And when you’ve got a dozen different claims floating in the ether, its a bit easier to harvest the wheat from the chaff if only because liars tend to diverge while truth basically stays the same. You can google an address or wiki a historical fact or research a cherry-picked quote with the internet in minutes and verify practically any claim you can think of.
Most of these zombie tales survive on the weight of the doggedly persistent readership. But the internet allows for quick verification and dispute, so its much harder for unreliable sources to speak without being contradicted.
You’re assuming those who fall for these types of stories are actually interested in fact checked information let alone reality.
Here we go again with the desperate measures to bolster the lunatics waning strength. We were definitely not there, but this does not in any way lessen my resolve that the great Darwin recanted on his death bed to an imaginary god. Pathetic “bible”. Of course, if he or any atheist had done so, it would be because of the religious indoctrination they were subject to as a child. And when you think of it, even if they had done so, would that by itself bring the god into existence just as much if declaiming to the Easter Bunny? Of course not. Darwin was just too much of strong character and resolve to ever compromise his self-respect and integrity by resorting to death-bed conversion.
The description of Darwin’s last hours as described by Desmond is hearbreaking, and when we read of it far removed from his time and location, the sense of loss is almost as equal as if we had been there in person. Darwin’s description of the death of his beloved daughter Annie is heart-rending and chokes me with emotion each time I read it. I am never in doubt or waning admiration for this great man, and will forever hold him in high esteem.
Since Darwin stole all his ideas from other people, it doesn’t make any difference if he recanted. If Lady Hope visited all those people that really invented evolution, and they all recanted for her, only then we should pay attention.
SInce Darwin was such a nasty person, whatever he said must have been evil, too. In particular, what he said to Lady Hope was the culmination of his evil.
Galileo actually did recant. Therefore the sun goes around the earth.
(Just in case someone doesn’t get it: Yes, I’m joking.)
At least, Kent Hovind does not accept the Lady Hope story, although he is still making the same ad hominem arguments about Darwin from jail.
They ARE that stupid. They’re incredibly stupid.
And they revel in their stupidity and want everyone else to be as stupid as they are.
Darwin recanted, I tell you! It’s true!
Free Inquiry magazine was kind enough to let me mention that fact and many others in a recent column I authored discrediting evolution:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=wright_29_2
“Renew America”
It’s already been renewed. We elected Barack Obama president.
Seems desperation begets lies… damn lies and creationists!
They are all indulging it appears…a real ‘lie for jeebus fest’
And caution is being thrown to the winds!
This bunny obviously has run out of nifty one liners and in Darwin’s year feels he has to say a little something to feel relevant and to irritate….point is…if the story was true…which it is not according to contemporary report..then that means….according to Christian liars and con merchants that… a born again Christian man…observed…reported and theorized the theory of evolution….
And that theory is probably the one theory in science that can… and no doubt will… blow the story of creation in biblical terms in to the bog of supernatural faeces to be flushed away into the sewer of rational city to commune with the rats along with righteous prigs like Swank…hoisted by one of their own….
A certain irony do you not think!
These lies are fabricated for the stupidest who follow the stupid. The sheep only have to hear it once and it becomes a fundamental truth like all of the rest of the ridiculous crap they believe.
Banana as Coke can?
Of course! It even has a tab!
Virgin birth?
If there’s no dirty sex involved it must be true!
Jesus was not begat by sinful fucking.
Darwin converted on his death bed?
Every atheist converts because of fear of the Lord on their deathbed!
It’s a known fact by everyone!
As an atheist and anti-theist, I still say “god damn it” and “bless you”. Some habits are hard to break.
On the other hand, today I’m wearing my “Jesus Hates Me” T-shirt because…well, because it was on top…
That website, renewamerica.us, is owned by Alan Keyes.
I actually had a jeebus-freak say this to me when I said there was no deathbed conversion. The irony was lost on him, like light in a black hole.
I’m sure PZ must have heard this by now:
From University of Minnesota “Smart Politics”
Coleman Says ‘God Wants Me to Serve’
When asked about the recount and how it is affecting him personally, Coleman said he starts every day with a prayer and that he knows “God wants me to serve.”
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2009/02/coleman_says_god_wants_me_to_s.php
Darwin, at least, knew the truth: we did NOT descend from apes…
but from TREE RATS!
(such as Plesiadapis)
You know, if I were promoting a political or religious ideology that was supposedly based on morality and personal responsibility, I wouldn’t lie to my audience and then wallow in the fallout. That seems just a bit… what’s the word… hypocritical?
Don’t go hating on Teh Swankstah too much because it’s not polite to ridicule the insane. Don’t believe my assessment? Read some of his other columns, if you dare.
There’s a difference between overt lies and gooberbabble. Teh Swank’s all over the latter.
So the point of this post, in other words, is “They are who we thought they were”?
I read on the internet that Jesus professed his atheism right before he was crucified, thus disproving all Abrahamic religions, their beliefs, and their holy texts.
Oh, and good luck refuting this, since it happened 2000 years ago.
(puff of logic —-> no more God)
In a forum thread at Talk Rational (which I claim to sometimes be capable of) a while back I scanned in and posted Lady Hope’s actual claim, as reprinted in James Moore’s (no relation) book The Darwin Legend: Lady Hope story
(The book is interesting, albeit a bit of trivia unless you’re encountering Lady Hope claimants in your travels.) That post also has a couple quotes from preacher J.W.C. Fegan, who was very familiar with Darwin and his family (they supported his temperance work), whose sentiments in this case I think we all can share: “I am weary of discussing the veracity of this preposterous story”.
This annoys me. The “Darwin recanted and came to Jeeeezus!” myth is so bad, even Answers in Genesis has a page on their site discrediting it.
Of course, so do several reputable sources. But it amuses me that even the IDiots know that Darwin refused to recant, and yet somehow it keeps cropping up.
It’s right in the bible.
Mark 15:34
Matthew 27:46
Jesus says God abandoned him. Since Jesus thought he was God, that means he wasn’t.
*27
“Apparently, even more people are getting stupid, “Intelligent design to be topic at Vatican meeting.”
I have been reporting this kink in Benny’s head for a while now!…
Folk get all laid back and spout stuff like ‘The Vatican accepts evolution now…don’t get hysterical on their ass’…but Benny does not support evolution and never has…
JP2 partially accepted the theory with caveats about a year or so before his death…
About three weeks after Jean Paul did the resurrection shuffle one of Benny’s cronies…Bishop Schoenburg…in the pay of the Discovery Institute at that time…or at least at their behest…gave a speech where he back pedalled from JP’s position on Evolutionary theory as fast as his little hairy legs could manage…in fact he commented that JP2 was a tad hasty in supporting the theory because his advisor’s had let him down…(inerrancy of the pope forbade Schoenburg from accusing JP of ballsing up big time!)…this …if folks remember was in the immediate demise of JP when hysteria and emotion had elevated JP to sainthood ahead of due process…summat that Benny baby soon shot in the arse…
Benny is looking for a new ark that has less holes then the present RC mode of sinking…
His stated aim is to invigorate the RC church with zeal and a return to Jesuit heaven…circa 1600ad…
But unfortunately the world has moved on…a new angle of the dangle was required cos the old dog…ma was clearly barking…(gerrit?)…and was showing its age and tattyness…Benny has been flirting with ID ever since….maybe …he reckons…this is his new ark to sail into immortality with…
The Vatican Observatory chief bunny….’Coyne’ I think his name was….told Benny baby that ID was a crock of smelly turds in no uncertain terms…next day he was on extended leave… for good…. citing family commitments…which is odd cos the Vatican cited ill health…
Prudence and back alley manipulations stuck ID on the back burner until a more favourable climate…in the wake of the Dover fiasco ID was a poison chalice…and Benny is a pragmatic Nazi if nothing else…
Seems that that favourable climate is ajudged to be here…
Expect more on this story….
cos
A) The Roman Catholic Church has no intention of accepting Evolutionary theory under Bennies auspices.
B) Benny Baby has a thang for ID…
Simple like so!
“those of us who are familiar with Darwin’s writings wouldn’t recognize the naive Jesus-praiser of Hope’s account, and yet still this dishonest clown throws the fraudulent story of an evangelical con-artist as if it were true.”
Well, there’s your explanation: he obviously isn’t familiar with Darwin’s writings. Doesn’t come as a big surprise, either, I’d say.
The creationists have no credible evidence that common descent is false, no credible evidence that the highly credible evidence developed over 150 years of study beyond Darwin’s initial ideas is wrong, so they feel incredible evidence will be more convincing and successful.
Their entire world view is based on reality as determined by authority; the more esteemed, the more trusted the authority the more accurate his/her account of reality will be. The higher the authority is in the hierarchy the more likely reality is to warp to fit that authority’s ideas.
If an authority such as Darwin were to have, at his final moment, and with no time to recant his recantation, changed his mind about the ideas he is the supreme authority on, then all that follows from those ideas must also be rejected, despite independent verification of their accuracy.
They obviously value the ‘word’ more than the ‘work’. Does this tendency to ignore physical evidence in favour of authority develop with religion, or is religion a result of that kind of thinking?
In either case, I tire of the creationist’s reliance on appeal to authority, but apparently that is all they have.
James F #8 wrote:
Not sure, but if I had to guess I’d agree with those who point to the internet’s diversity. Preachers and apologetic literature has always been around for the faithful, spreading stories within the group. The internet may cater to a group, but it isn’t the group itself. Anyone with any curiosity at all has immediate access to “the other side.”
Open access to information will eventually kill totalitarian societies — and ideas that need them.
Heidi Cool #26 wrote:
I think it also shows their inability to understand science. In special revelation, everything rests on trusting the source. You can’t check up on what they say, you can only check up on their character, to see if they’re the kind of person who is likely to lie. That’s why it’s so incredibly important that Jesus be a moral icon, and Joseph Smith not be a con man.
In science, nobody cares if the scientist is a lying son-of-a-bitch. The worst thing they can do is falsify data — and even then they’d eventually be caught. As PZ says, Darwin could be a “baby-raping cannibal,” and that wouldn’t effect the theory of evolution. Our confidence in it rests on the fact that it’s been vetted through a system.
Some religious people seem to have a hard time with this. They think everything comes down to putting your trust in a someone who can be relied on.
Anything to claim someone for their tribe, that’s all it is.
Frankly, I don’t know why people put so much stock in deathbed conversions. At worst, they’re decisions made in a time of severely reduced lucidity or even dementia, at best they’re just cynical bet-hedging made in a time of fear (“Jesus, Allah, Buddha, I love you all!”)
Supposing that Darwin, or Einstein, did describe something as “god”, I doubt if they’d have imbued it with the inanities and stupidities of Christian crap (or crap from any other religion for that matter).
That website doesn’t allow comments in the articles. What a pity…
Has anyone read the article” Scientific MCarthysm” in the same website?
It would be laughable if it weren’t because people actually READ and SWALLOW that shit.
did you expect anything else form the flat earth society? I mean really?
It is bizarre that Christians believe any goofy little story that comes down the pike. Do they not see that extreme gullibility weakens their case for their belief in the goofy big story?
I remember the first time that I heard that Darwin had denounced evolution on his deathbed. I knew that it didn’t make a damn bit of difference to the science, and I was polite and willing to consider that the fellow that told me about it was sincere, and that I wanted to check for evidence of the story. The guy that told me the story even said that he had researched and studied the issue. All crock of course, but he and other folks believed it.
Rev. Swank’s email address listed on renew america and his website are not valid in case anyone thought of emailing him.
Rey Fox #55 wrote:
I know. It seems to be based on the idea that what you really are, and what you really believe, is based in primitive instinct and revealed in unguarded impulses.
There are times when we use that as a reasonable heuristic, a quick and dirty way of seeing into someone’s secret nature. In an emergency, does an acknowledged “hero” trample down children in his mad dash to the exit? We think we’ve figured out that he’s a hypocrite, and no hero at all. If that same man said he was an atheist and called out to God when dying, the religious frame it the same way. Ah, now they know what he really believed.
Not necessarily. People are generally too complex to be figured out using simple rules on what they’re like under stress. There are people who are cowards under stress, and day to day heroes in ordinary circumstance. And if the best way to tell what someone believes in is to look to what they say when terrified for their life, most of them appear to believe most fervently in “holy shit.”
Alfred Russell Wallace converted to spiritualism and the occult. Where does that leave us?
Even if he did convert, it would not be relevant at all. Today’s understanding of evolution has far surpassed that of Darwin. It shows a certain ignorance among fundamentalist Christians, the way they focus on somone who died along time ago, as if he was some sort of Jesus to scientists. As if discredeting Darwin or telling people he ‘changed’ his mind at the last minute and turned to jesus (and away from evolution) would somehown be evidence that evolution is not a sound theory. I’ve got a task for Christians, why don’t you prove that Jesus had magic powers?
I am astonished..
I’m not. I’m almost inclined to let them say what they want about Darwin. Just don’t stop teaching science, and don’t mistake fictional tales of deathbed confessions for some repudiation of his work.
If the choice is between potentially losing some well established elements of factual history and losing critical thinking skills, I reluctantly choose the former.
Alfred Russell Wallace converted to spiritualism and the occult. Where does that leave us?
Huh? What does that have to do with anything?
It’s a little known fact that while he was on the cross, Roman soldiers heard Jesus admit that indeed, there was no god, at least not one with a capital “G”. He died a secular Jewish agnostic!
This is worth a look. Funny and done well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Np4ONkaRuhI&feature=channel
I am sick fed up of all these spurious and fake appeals to authority.
They are all entirely bogus.
All.
None of them have appealed to ME!
Sastra at #61,
This would make an awesome t-shirt.
Also works well as “most appear to believe most fervently in AAAAAGGGGHHH!!!!!”
No kings,
Robert
Jeez.
Just more evidence that fundamentalist preachers descended from the apes.
And I do mean descended. Down there with amphioxus. Or lower.
Actually, I have it on good firm evidence that Darwin became a Rabbi on his deathbed and that his last words were something to this effect:
“Creation Shmreation! I can’t believe these Meshuganas! Oy vey!”
A lying Christian. A lying fundamentalist. In my experience, they’re about as common as white rice and wet water.
Maybe Swank has some arcane knowledge into Darwin’s profession of faith “sotto voce”
You’re kidding right?
SF, Swank has nothing and you know it. Maybe you have a purpose here. But that is as likely as Swank having evidence.
If it weren’t for SF’s history, I’d think he was being sardonic.
One could only hope.
Silver Fox,
Thought you could sneak back in without me noticing, did you?
So, how are you going with those proofs for the non-existence of all gods other than Yahweh? Have you managed to get through the list I gave you? Because I you have I’ve got the ‘B’ gods ready to go – but you’ve got to show your work first.
Or are you just going to admit your mistake and retract your claim that atheists must prove that a god does not exist before they are able to disbelieve in it?
For those who don’t know, Silver Fox made the hilariously idiotic claim that atheists can’t say that god doesn’t exist unless they prove that he doesn’t. So I challenged him to provide proof of nonexistence for all the gods he doesn’t believe in – or admit he was wrong and retract his claim.
So far he has done neither. So, I think it’s only fair that he be reminded of this fact whenever he posts here. I know I will be; I’d love it if you all would, too.
Is it time to see if we can lobby to have a public toilet placed above lady hopes grave?
Wowbagger, I will accept this job.
As other commenters point out, it doesn’t matter, and we shouldn’t even worry about it. It’s not as if it’s some kind of slur (among reasonable people anyway).
When scientists argue the matter they make it seem like it matters in the evolution “debate” itself. Thus it should be left to people who are more clearly historians.
The entire reason evolution is true and the true scientist wins this argument is that the theory stands on the basis of the evidence completely regardless of the character of its originator. People might not understand that, but the point of science is its universality.
Heavens I’m finding this week depressing. I’m going to commemorate Darwin somehow but the sheer idiocy surrounding the topic is atrocious.
Ah, how I remember Darwin – we always called him Chuck and his father was Razz (his name was Erasmus). They always appeared to be such an odd couple. I gave serious thought to that.
However, as I sit here sipping on Pinot Grigio, I’m beginning to appreciate Thomas Jefferson, one of the fathers of our country who is reputed to have said “If it doesn’t pick my pocket or break my bone, what the hell do I care”.
Wowbagger, good challenge. Just don’t expect an answer from an evidence challenged godbot. Still, we can mock him for not showing I don’t have an invisible pink unicorn in my garage. Or was that an invisible dragon? Better yet, both!
Silly old goat, please answer Wowbagger’s question. It will not break your bones to do so.
Silver Fox,
You might as well stop bothering to come here. Any comment from you that doesn’t contain proof of the non-existence of non-Yahweh gods or an admission of failure with a retraction of your claim is only going to lead to what I believe the Americans call a dog-pile and what Australians call a stacks-on.
Make your choice.
Ah, drunk as a skunk outside of Patricia’s henhouse. That explains it.
The full quote from Jefferson
I hardly believe he will follow it.
Have you read the Jefferson Bible SF?
I think Patricia had to kick out this drunk, he got repetitive and stupid.
Phew! I think the goat met the skunk in Patricia’s tree.
Since SF the impotent brought up one of my favorite (if not favorite) founding father.
This is the same deathbed conversion my stepmother claimed my father made-“he accepted Jesus with his dying breath.”
Right. Just like Emperor Constantine did. The story goes, Constantine whispered his conversion into the priest’s ear with his last, dying breath. Constantine, the founder of modern Christianity (see Council of Nicea I&II). He was never a Christian. He was a follower of Mithras.
I’m beginning to appreciate Thomas Jefferson, one of the fathers of our country who is reputed to have said “If it doesn’t pick my pocket or break my bone, what the hell do I care”.
funny you should mention Jefferson, who also said:
“The natural cause of the human mind is certainly from credulity to skepticism.”
and, applied especially to YOU:
“”Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.”
you fucking, fucking, moron.
I think SF needs more Jefferson
…Thomas Jefferson, one of the fathers of our country
Why do I never hear of the “mothers of our country”?
Indeed, I rather think SF could not have more poorly chosen a particular person to quote(mine) for himself.
He might as well have quotemined PZ.
at least making poor choices appears consistent for the poor bastard.
Remember, Silver Fox is the person who was stupid enough to try and tell us that it’s okay for him to disbelieve in gods other than his own but atheists aren’t allowed to use this same logic to disbelieve in his.
That he’s ignorant of Jefferson’s many disparaging comments towards religion isn’t exactly a deviation from the normal level of stupidity.
He’s clearly not firing on all cylinders.
He’s clearly not firing on all cylinders.
I rather think the engine is seized entirely, and he is instead merely pushing the vehicle down the street.
…and he’s blocking traffic.
Right. Just like Emperor Constantine did. The story goes, Constantine whispered his conversion into the priest’s ear with his last, dying breath. Constantine, the founder of modern Christianity (see Council of Nicea I&II). He was never a Christian. He was a follower of Mithras.
Now, now. Let’s not go about spreading falsehoods. Leave that to the creationists. Constantine claimed to have converted in 312. He was baptized shortly before his death in 337, but that was common among pagan converts to Christianity, the idea being to wait; since baptism washed away sins, hold out till you’ve got a passel of ’em to get rid of, I guess.
The story of his baptism at Rome by Pope Sylvester in 326, considered an argument for the power of the papacy, is a fabrication, and may be what you’re thinking of. (He was actually baptized by Eusebius at Nicomedia.) The jury is out on just what his pagan religious predilictions were. You’ll not find a lot of support for him being a Mithraist (though it has been suggested), and it would be odd if he were a cryto-Mithraist while falsely claiming to be a Christian convert; his establishment of Christianity as the state religion of Rome was pretty much the death blow to Mithraism as a poerful cult in the empire.
Silver Fox is the person who was stupid enough to try and tell us that it’s okay for him to disbelieve in gods other than his own but atheists aren’t allowed to use this same logic to disbelieve in his.
ah, but wouldn’t it be grand if he were the ONLY insane religionaut to be so oblivious to their own hypocrisy?
denial and projection, projection and denial… so common amongst godbotherers that someday I’m gonna write a book about it.
cryto- = crypto-Mithraist
Ok one more. This one really ties it all together with this blog.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Correa de Serra, April 11, 1820
Without respect to Silver Fox and strictly for the exercise, I’d like to take a stab at Wowbagger’s challenge.
I know that all the gods other than the one true god do not exist because:
They aren’t noticed by anyone anymore and
They don’t make the news and
The Vatican has much better threads and
All of the graven images are really old and
People who talk about them are considered odd and
They mostly just aren’t needed any more.
Also, they just seem like action figures to the modern, religious mind under the guidance of an infallible clergy with a direct line to the one true god. (Which line was promised to the little guy but seems to be hard to come by but that’s the way Dog wants it.)
Not that it will happen soon, but how would the argument be modified or exceptions suddenly be revealed should the above arguments accurately describe popular opinion of the “mainstream religions of today?” Scare quotes to demonstrate the limited lifespans of religions in general.
Silver fox? Yoooo hoooo.
Where’d you go?
Did you run off like normal with your tail between your legs after the thorough dubbing?
that would be drubbing.
i doubt anyone is dubbing SF into anything.
If that was Silver Fox stinking up my hen house last night I dare him to come back tonight. We got a trap from the animal shelter. No more early AM flower pot hurling for me.
The brains of Silver Fox and the like are broken.Their logic circuits were shorted out by religious woo,all this bathing in happy hormones thinking of eternity has totally killed their ability to rational thought.
Its sad.Billions of people on this earth that could have done something useful with their lifes,and didnt.
The full quote from Jefferson
“But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
I’m a fair person: So, I accept no blame from those whose work I have diminished but I accept no credit for those whose work I have improved upon.
Still don’t get it SF. Whether you post here or not. We are the same. Your value is zero. Take your fine wines somewhere else. You might be relevant there.
There are those who protest my claim that your mother is a whore, but they’re just hypersensitive crybabies who don’t like it that the shit I make up about your mom being a whore is where their morality comes from.
Silver Fox, why are you still here? The only thing anyone wants to hear from you is either proof or admission of your mistake and a retraction. You’d better hop to it – or leave.
Crudely Wrott wrote (say that ten times quickly):
I’m fairly sure I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here.
Basically, I doubt it’s ever occurred to most Christians (or other theists for that matter) that their belief in their god/s equates to a ‘positive disbelief’ (as Silver Fox put it when he screwed up so badly) in any and all of the other gods ever posited by humanity.
Which I’m generally okay with – I mean, I don’t believe in gods even though know I can’t prove they don’t exist; why should I expect that anyone else should do what I can’t? However, when a Christian stupidly makes the claim that atheists can’t disbelieve in Yahweh because we can’t prove Yahweh doesn’t exist, I can’t help but point out that there are gods he/she doesn’t believe in either.
If Christians are allowed to disbelieve in Ganesh without having to prove he, in his multi-armed, elephanty goodness, doesn’t exist, how can they say that I’m not allowed to give Yahweh the flick, sans proof?
I think “fine whines” is a little too complimentry.
For those of you that are Jefferson lovers, Free Thought Radio Network has a Jefferson Hour done daily by Clay Jenkins. It’s on at 10:00 AM Pacific time here.
This station has wonderful programs, and the sense of humour is super. Music – eh. I listen to the station everyday.
http://www.freethoughtnetwork.com/submitaudio.html
If you go to the link to Swank’s article, there is another link to an even longer article.
From the longer article: “[Darwin] also stated that one’s faith is a private matter for the individual alone.”
It would be nice if they had respected his privacy.
I was trying to be polite to a degree. But you are correct.
Fair go, SF is just being an example.
Post title:
They are as stupid as you think they are…even stupider
Silver Fox @104:
Way to misunderstand the concept of fairness.
Humm… I know a lot of you are pasta pushers (ya whippersnappers!) and we can all prove pasta exists. But I still hold a fondness for good ol’ Eris, the goddess of confusion, discord and strife. Having said that, my fondness for her is the same as I hold for Foghorn Leghorn and Marvin the Martin.
Silver Fox can you say you hold your god in the same regard as a cartoon character that entertains you?
Wowbagger, after rereading my comment above I don’t blame you for not catching the point. I was not clear. This will be clearer.
The above arguments are ones that I have heard to explain the absence of gods other than the currently popular one. I have heard them from people of all stripes and beliefs and certainly from Christians who find ways to segue into proof for their choice (in its various incarnations).
Should it happen that someday the measurably popular response to the existence of the popular god of the day be commonly addressed by some or several of the above arguments, I suspect lots of backtracking and the citing of special dispensations from the clergy and the congregations. After all, denying the past and or ones past works and words has worked before, some are even using the tactic today.
When Atlas finally put down the Earth after holding up so long and faithfully, it was because he no longer had popular support; few believed in him. He stepped out from under his burden (how his neck ached from pressing against Antarctica) only after long reflection. And when he did, so the story goes, he was quite amazed at what happened next.
“Absolutely nothing,” he is quoted as remembering. “Absolutely nothing.”
Have you tried “Toy Boat” three times fast lately? Still killer after all these years.
One imagines that if Jesus really were to spread his message of …well, whatever it is…he would be better employed doing it elsewhere than on this site.
I mean the effeciveness of a poster bringing about a mass conversion would be considerable, but this is vitiated by the improbabliliy of the event.
Surely it would be easier for him to give a religious experience, say a significant triune waterfall, to each of us – history suggests that nothing too shocking would be required – just something to make us abandon our nihilistic leanings overnight.
Instead, we have very second-rate apologists.
I’m offended.
Surely we deserve better from the Emperor of the Cosmos and his unfortunate offspring?
history suggests that nothing too shocking would be required – just something to make us abandon our nihilistic leanings overnight.
yes, more magic wine would be good. I am a bit parched. Could use a nice, dry, red about now.
does it have to be transmogrified from a previously existing substance, or could he just pop it into existence for me?
er, I suppose of course that wouldn’t be a question to ask anyone except the supposed deity?
WOW: Let me see if I can walk you though this.
SF please disprove all the other gods. Well, there are no other gods. There can be no other gods. Why? Because God is perfection; anything possessed by another god would diminish the first god and that god would be less than perfect. So there can be only one God. Two gods would be a logical contradiction since it would imply that something can be perfect and imperfect at the same time. Now, you can call God by many names and attribute many different powers and characteristics to Him. He can be Zeus, Apollo, the Sun, Re, Amon, etc. You know because you have a whole alphabetical list of names. Just remember the Shema: Adonaie echud – God is One.
Now let me try to address the atheist’s dilemma. The atheist lives the negative proposition; “I do NOT believe in God”. So, he is in a position where he has to prove there is no God. Only if he can do that is there a basis for affirming the negative proposition. This is problematic for him because he cannot prove a negative proposition. Then, without disproving that there is a God, there is no basis for his atheistic belief.
Now stop bothering me with these inane issues like polytheism and atheistic conundrums
Intellectually impotent and unwarrantably egotistical. Quite the combination of anti-social traits you’re working with there SF.
Just last week I imagined eighteen perfect gods before breakfast. Each held perfect sway in its place and there was no one to question their perfection. So they were true gods.
By lunchtime, when there was no further evidence for their existence save my own delightful conceit, and no outright demonstration of godly will, I began to doubt, my mind attending to the minutiae of the moments. Work must be attended to.
By dinnertime I had totally forgotten my formidable progeny in favor of newer pursuits. I’ve no worry that they will take me to task for my sins but I do keep an eye out for the next one I conjure. I might get it right!
Fail:
I’m an atheist. I don’t.
You’re guessing, but guessing wrong.
There is no dilemma, the question does not come up.
There’s that assertion without backing again.
you have not established that your god is perfect or that a characteristic of god is that he is perfect. You have merely repeated yourself assuming that what you say is true sans any proof that your assertion bears in factual weight.
Show me why god is perfect
Fail.
Here we go again.
Prove to me there is no Thor. By your twisted logic you have to prove there is no Loki before you can continue.
For that matter prove to me there is no Dragon in my garage.
Make that “third-rate” apologetics.
Where is the intellect of the godly?
Are we not worthy? What have we done wrong to hear drivel in support of such a life changing idea – the one supposed to have inspired great art and culture throughout the centuries?
I mean, really god, is that the best you can do?
SF is descending to Facilis’ level.
Maybe too much cognitive input is overwhelming SF’s cortex.
Loki or Thor for that matter
Thor is a god; Loki is a Jotun.
I don’t know if that supports the Chimp or the Fox.
Oh, and the dragon in my garage is afraid of silverfish, in case that helps.
How very conservative, imagining that perfection requires sole dominion over everything. Gluttons, all.
How is it NOT a part of perfection that you might coexist equally with others, sharing all harmoniously?
True, still mythical beings.
i think that is a typical characteristic.
there’s a dragon in your garage?
kewl.
does it look like this?
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3497/3270203099_0b9a6a6256.jpg
Poor SF, his perfect god is meaningless since he doesn’t exist except between his ears. Repeating the perfection of his delusional god is just mental masturbation on SF’s part. So SF, either face the real world with no gods, or go away and quit bothering us with your delusions (or mental illness).
We are all an organic consciousness, experiencing itself.
Where, exactly, does Jesus fit in with that?
If Jesus died to save our sins, how come there are still monkeys?
Lesse. One perfect god plus one god perfect or not equals no gods, perfect or not.
OK, given that a perfect god, x, = 1, and another god, y =<1, then
x + y <1.
Well, sure! If a god can have a negative perfection quotient! And who doesn’t know a few of those?
Is this heavenly addition or have I misunderstood the associative principle?
Having re-read Darwins death bed scene I don’t think it’s any different from one that any of us might make.
Most of us have used the phrases oh lord, god help me, god damn or any number of the hackneyed old saws. It’s part of the vernacular. To say this is conversion is bullshit.
Silver Fox, you’re tapdancing – and badly, I might add.
You haven’t actually used anything resembling an argument for why polytheism can’t work. Why, exactly, can’t there be more than one infinitely powerful being? Surely an infinite being can create another infinite being – if it couldn’t then it’s hardly infinite, is it?
But even if we accept your laughable, unsupported assertion that monotheism is the only option, you’re still required to prove that monotheistic gods other than Yahweh don’t exist. That your monotheistic religion assumes this to be true, withour providing any evidence or argument to disprove other monotheistic religions’ gods, means nothing.
Using the writings of a religion that supports the same monotheistic god as you do is not an argument. It’s like me writing ‘Wowbagger is correct’ on a piece of paper and then citing that to support my argument.
If you can assume other monotheistic gods don’t exist without proving they don’t, then why shouldn’t I treat your monotheistic god the same way? Is not what is good for the goose good for the gander?
Once again I’ll alter your words slightly to illustrate just how easy this is for me:
Now let me try to address the
atheist’sChristian’s dilemma. TheatheistChristian lives the negative proposition; “I do NOT believe inGodA single God other than Yahweh“. So, he is in a position where he has to prove there is noGodsingle god other than Yahweh. Only if he can do that is there a basis for affirming the negative proposition. This is problematic for him because he cannot prove a negative proposition. Then, without disproving that there is aGodA single God other than Yahweh, there is no basis for hisatheistChristian belief.Two choices, Silver Fox: proof or retraction. You choose.
I’m sorry. A trip to the laundry seems to have interrupted my meager mathematical logic. I’m quite sure I meant to say
Given:
A perfect god, x, = 1. Another god, y, perfect or not, =<1.
Then:
x + y < 1. /resume "Well, sure!"
Frustration. In English, then.
Given a perfect god equal to one.
Given another god, perfect or not, equal to one or to some quantity less than one.
The sum of the two is less than one.
/resume “Well, sure!”
*another mystery of teh tubes to bedevil me*
If you don’t want to be bothered Silver Fox, go home.
You have no proof of your god. There is no one where for you to convert, you’re wasting your time.
where, shit! here.
Crudely Wrott, the God of the intartubes sees any use of < as the start of a tag (at least on this blogoverse) You'll have to look up ascii character translations if you want to use it or to write html on the comments. now Silver Fox, disprove the god of the intartubes.
Crudely Wrott, the contention is ∀x∀y((Px∧Py)→x=y).
There is no argument offered for it.
I probably didn’t stress just how hilarious Silver Fox’s quote of ‘God is one’ is, in context.
Silver Fox: There is only one god.
Pharyngula: Do you have anything to support this peculiar assertion?
Silver Fox: Yes. There’s a quote in the book written by people who share my belief in the same one god I believe in that says so. Ergo, it must be true.
Pharyngula: ?!?
Comedy gold!
See even i blew it. Preview wrecks any ascii character translations. So
Crudely Wrott, the God of the intartubes sees any use of < as the start of a tag (at least on this blogoverse)
You’ll have to look up ascii character translations if you want to use it or to write html on the comments.
now Silver Fox, disprove the god of the intartubes.
Patricia, I think that “…there is no one where for you…” is a perfectly valid and useful phrase. Provided there is an understood question conveyed by the word “where.” As in “where would you find someone for you…”
For instance, to say to Fairminded that “there is no one where for you to convert,” you are not only making a declaration of fact but at the same time implying that maybe he does have some one somewhere (“where?) that he could convert (maybe) and would he please supply all pertinent details.
In all, a nice turn of phrase. Perhaps it’ll get some mileage. Thanks for the grin.
Fixed for you Silver Fox:
I will disprove just one god is everything. Well, there is no just one god. There cannot be only one god. Why? Because the many gods are imperfect; anything possessed by another god naturally improves the first god and that god would be more perfect. So there can be only more than one god. One god would be a logical contradiction since it would imply that something can be perfect and make an imperfect creation at the same time. Now, you can call the many gods by the names of this one god and attribute many different powers and characteristics to that one god. They can collectively be God, Yahweh, Jesus, Jehovah, the Holy Spirit, the Creator of Everything, etc. You know because you have a whole alphabetical list of names for this one deity. Just remember that God is Many.
You can thank me below.
Um, I have a stupid question. WHAT THE FUCK IS PERFECTION? Why is it necessary. Is it possible for the concept to be tangible. Sounds like the silly old goat is using a word that is just as devoid of meaning (perfection) as the word he is trying to prove (god). Then he assumes that this god is the one he worships because all monotheist gods are the same.
Sorry but that floats as well as a fucking lead zeppelin.
Thanks, Rev. BDC. Actually, I had a notion that it was the case. Just didn’t know how to resolve it except to resort to native tongue. I’m glad to see that mere speech was sufficient to convey the meaning I had imagined as quantities.
John Morales, you gave me this gem:
Thanks, pardner. Not only do I now need to brush up on my HTML protocols but also ASCII characters, symbols of logic and math I wasn’t taught and haven’t yet learned on my own.
You know, if I had a certain mindset I might be likely to say that you are discriminating against me by giving me a string of characters and symbols that I don’t intuitively identify with. I could, as some have, holler out loud that you do not respect my ignorance.
Well, I do have a certain mindset and it dictates that your information, however illuminating of my ignorance, was offered free of charge to provide a way for me to reduce my ignorance. Thank you. I’ll be working on that.
Gee. That wasn’t so hard.
It’s like me writing ‘Wowbagger is correct’ on a piece of paper and then citing that to support my argument.
you mean, that doesn’t work?
might as well toss out my entire graduate degree then.
:p
Thank You Crudely Wrott. Must be deficiency of alcohol slowing my usual eloquence.
I’ve had only one toddy today. A bracer after the skunk attack. Bourbon, steaming hot apple cider, topped with sweet cream, and a bare pinch of nutmeg. A sure reviver for any lady in conflict with a skunk.
You are kindly welcomed, Patricia, though your eloquence and panache have never been an issue for me.
As for me, something apre skunk simply must have some tomato juice in it. I think I used to know someone who made Skunky Marys but I’m damned if I can recall what was in ’em. Proly cause I drank em.
This swank fellow is just another quacksaviour, manufacturing and sprouting crap for the credulous. As for Silver Fox, he suffers from advanced religious brain rot. I’m afraid that it is incurable. The Afrikaans language of South Africa has a wonderful term to describe the likes of Silver Fox. He is a first class peopall.
When I lived in dah YooPee, skunks were a problem. About the only year they weren’t a problem, we had a bobcat living at the edge of the woods behind the house. Not sure that would be a good solution with chickens around though.
Patricia
Sounds like you need a Chicken Hawk.
Crudely Wrott,
Sorry, in English: there is only one perfect entiry; literally: if any two entities are perfect, they are the same entity.
An unsupported contention, which was what you were saying.
Expressed in predicate logic, using html escape codes for symbolism.
It’s full dark here now, so we have set the live trap. I could get anything, skunk, coon, possum or house cat. I dread getting the skunk and finding it fully loaded in the morning. Ewwww!
Strange Brew #51:
Er, not so simple. Seems even Bennies are evolving these days.
Excerpt from The Times (UK), today:
(my italics) Another nail in ID’s coffin …
the full article at:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5705331.ece
It’s amazing how well this rumour has gotten around. I’ve known intelligent well-read atheists who have even pushed this lie.
Ha! Ha! Thanks Chimpy, that’s an image from my favorite cartoon series. Foghorn Leghorn vs. Dawg always cracks me up.
Not that I approve of such generalizations but
That’s what husbands are for
*note, I do not have chickens or skunks. Occasional possums but my Husky takes care of those.
Hey, John! You said:
Yup. That is precisely what I meant. And it is quite a pleasure for you to so accurately echo my thoughts. Sometimes it is hard to feel confident commenting here, what with the accolades, acumen, sheepskins and obvious respect that rightly accrue to many of the commenters here. My education is humble and mostly hand forged. As a result I’ve got the gumption to jump into waters over my head along with just enough knowledge to drown proof myself. To find concord is to me a triumph of meaning over jargon and of observation over legend.
It is a small thing, but gratifying and enabling to a significant degree. Fun, too.
Patricia,
Something up your alley to report from Australia – turns out some of my stepfather’s family are egg-farmers in one of the worst bushfire areas. They lost all their pastures but their buildings and the 15,000 birds and other sundry animals survived.
Silver Fox, without any supporting evidence, asserted:
So we are made in God’s image, right? We posses something that God possesses. If possession of a characteristic by another god would diminish the first god, then how much more is the first god diminished by mere mortals who possess a common characteristic? Your argument implies that God can’t exist because He made us in His image. Answer that and stay fashionable.
WTF?! How can the pope possibly claim that St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas had ANY fore knowledge of Darwin’s observations? That is outrageous.
If the pope is going to give an explanation of how the saints predicted evolution I’ll buy a ticket. It should be almost as much fun as Ted Haggard’s spiel on his ‘complex’ sexuality.
PZ is right, they are as stupid as we think, and they just get stoopider.
(Thanks pedlar)
Chimpy,
My husband was in hot pursuit of the skunk with my grandpaw’s prehistoric shotgun…a bit too late *rolls eyes* as my flower pot hurling and mule skinner language had hastened said stinker into the next township.
He does have a cunning plan.
There is a ladder, a long dowel, and a tarp and rope thingy set up over the live trap.
We’ll be married 34 years on Saturday… such a duration has taught me to just smile and wait for the outcome of such inventions.
Holy shit Wowbagger I can’t imagine 15,000 chickens!
My 13 are always up to such naughty hi-jinx. We have less than 200 out at the main farm, and about 50 at the fruit farm.
Thank goodness your families cluckers survived! We are seeing small snippets of news about the fires, the eggs will be much needed.
@Patricia, OM #164
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0035.html
Quoting an excerpt:
Wow, that is an interesting bit of “logic”. By that same bit of logic, one must also believe in every goofy ass supernatural idea out there that can’t be proven wrong to some select group of believers. You don’t need to prove negative propositions…the burden of proof is on the believers. Totally ridiculous argument, an F- in any philosophy or logic course.
Some, like Patricia, will appreciate this. One of the first paying jobs I ever had was to shovel out out neighbor’s chicken barn. He raised 12,00 pullets for six weeks, shipped them, and then raised two more broods before the shoveling began. My two younger brothers assisted. We were 12, 9 and 6. Earned one dollar per hour apiece. 1963. The old barns are still there, my brothers and I are on the wind.
It took us about two weeks to move all the tons of chicken shit. Took the trucks most of a week to haul it off. How ’bout them boys?
Damn, Twin-Skies – that is going to take some slogging through. :)
You uttered this same bullshit a few days ago and Wowbagger called you out then. To repeat, atheism is the not belief, in that there’s no reason to believe in God’s existence. It’s not the absolute certainty of God’s non-existence. I see no reason to believe in God, therefore I don’t believe in God. Just as I see no reason to believe in Zeus, or Thor, or Ra, or Brahman, or The Giant Rainbow Serpent, or The Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Until theists learn what atheism really is, they are only going to keep making the same fallacious straw-man arguments that only show them to be fools.
It is often said, mainly by the “no-contests”, that although there is no positive evidence for the existence of God, nor is there evidence against his existence. So it is best to keep an open mind and be agnostic. At first sight that seems an unassailable position, at least in the weak sense of Pascal’s wager. But on second thoughts it seems a cop-out, because the same could be said of Father Christmas and tooth fairies. There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can’t prove that there aren’t any, so shouldn’t we be agnostic with respect to fairies? – Richard Dawkins
You’d think that Silver Fox would have clued on by the continual asking of many members here for evidence. Because you can’t prove a negative, it’s up to the one making positive claims to provide evidence to support that claim. If I said right now I was levitating, you aren’t going to stay agnostic to such claim. Quite simply you cannot prove I’m not levitating, so does that mean that you are going to follow your own logic and believe I’m levitating, or are you going to prove the unprovable and call me out for bullshitting?
“positive claims require positive evidence, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is not an atheist mantra, it’s simply the logical conclusion of the type of argument you presented. You cannot disprove that there’s a dragon in my garage, or that there is a teapot orbiting the earth, so you either have to remain agnostic to all claims no matter how absurd or put the onus on the one making the positive claim. Though this means that you will have to provide evidence for your god, but it’s only fair. After all, you are the one making an extraordinary claim about reality.
“now Silver Fox, disprove the god of the intartubes.”
Why would I be interested in disproving God? I’m living the affirmative proposition. If I was living the negative proposition, then I might be interested in disproving God in order to give validity to my belief or non-belief.
This redundancy is getting a little tedious.
Once again. Atheism is not all about believing and asserting that invisible supernatural spooks do not exist. Atheism is simply the lack of belief or assertion that they do exist.
Really. It’s that simple. I’ve nothing to gain by lying. Or dying. Nor, I suspect, does anyone else unless they can convince a large body of people that they do have a gift from dog and that is necessary to throw money at them, or unless they are the throwees, say ha ledge you la.
Patricia
I have a few ducks and both raccoons and skunks can be pests. We learned fairly early on that if we caught a skunk that a blanket tossed over the cage (from a safe distance) and then wetted down with the garden hose made a HUGE difference in the varmints ability to nail us. Still stunk, but at least we didn’t endanger ourselves or the animal control officer when they gathered them up.
Sadly then won’t relocate raccoons anymore. They just tell us to shoot/poison them as the rabies rates are climbing so dramatically here and apparently there is now a law against relocating problem bull raccoons to other areas.
Silver Fox is back, saying, “I’m living the affirmative proposition.”
I’m sure that’s nice and comfortable. You are welcomed to it. May it serve you.
So, how do you come down on encoding your superstitions into the law of the land? The law that restricts everyone, even you and I?
Man, I’m not being flippant. Feel free to ignore me if you’d rather. It’s just that I have yet to hear a coherent reason and I thought to myself that maybe you’re the guy.
Crudely Wrott – I can appreciate your agricultural job experience!
Most people probably won’t believe the wages we worked for as kids. My brothers and I herded cows for our local cattle baron for 50 cents an hour for our selves, and $1.10 and hour for our horses, ropes and saddles. We provided our own food, and grain for our horses. Breakfast we got at the big house while getting our instructions for the day. This job was about three days in the year. My grandfather howled damnation because I dressed in my brothers clothes and rode astride to help earn cash money.
We only got hired because the regular foreman supervised us, and the real cowboys had all left for Montana or Wyoming.
My brothers got hired to clean out chicken coops and barns. I, on the other hand never got a dime for milking the neighbors cows when they had to leave for a wedding or funeral. *gentle shaking of head*
But the cows were grateful.
I remember a little Jersey, name of Honey. She put herself in the stall and let her milk down so willingly. And those eyes . . .
You are like me, Patricia; lucky ones. Just think of the confounding things we can pass along to the pilgrims and greenhorns! Like how to feed yourself without burning gas to go to the grocery store. Even though I really like grocery stores.
“how much more is the first god diminished by mere mortals who possess a common characteristic? Your argument implies that God can’t exist because He made us in His image.”
Omni agens agit sibi simile
We are a reflection of God we’re not a piece of God. A mirror does not lose part of its substance because an image is reflected in it.
I once came across an article in a safety newsletter for Canadian pilots that made the claim that the most common last words found on cockpit recorders were “Aw Shzt!”, or any of several close variations. I would expect this to vary somewhat depending on cultural patterns. Québecois pilots might be more likely to instead be sacrilegious, eg “Tabernac!”. I couldn’t guess what a typical Auzzie would say, but I’m sure it would be interesting.
Hurried requests for absolution were apparently not a priority for most.
__
It is sobering to see these theistic exemplars of sapience let their emotional needs override their reason. They seem unable to perceive how their wishful thinking is contradicted by the evidence around them. This alone is evidence that my optimism about the rationality of my species is not well supported. Homo Cryptosapiens, maybe?
Wrong, yet again. Why? Because the god you worship is not the only god ever posited. And because your god is, according to your definition, the only god, by claiming ‘positive belief’ in your god you simultaneously express the ‘negative proposition’ – the non-existence of every other god ever posited.
All this desperate squirming is getting you nowhere, Silver Fox. You know what you have to do: prove all other gods don’t exist, or admit your mistake and retract your claim.
Er, he said “god of the intartubes”. That is, in point of fact, Me.
I rain down spam like manna, hog bandwidth like loaves and fishes in reverse, and make sure that there’s more porn than anyone knows what to do with. Oh, and I propagate typos just for shits and grins.
How, SF, are we a reflection of the god that made us and a piece, a reflection of him/her/it?
I once entertained the idea that I would never see the grave, even before I embraced the faith. These days the embrace is broken, a mere memory, and the braggadocio of youth is replaced by the sobriety of observation and experience.
How, then, SF are we part of it which is the first cause and is accused of loving us? Strange loving.
” the non-existence of every other god ever posited.”
Do you simple not get the idea? Every other God?
What you’re talking about is other NAMES. There is only one God. No matter if you’re talking about the Toltec god who THEY THOUGHT demanded human sacrifice or Yehweh who THEY THOUGHT demanded rams and goats. There is only one God and that’s a logical imperative. You need to get away from names and focus on the essential concept.
flame821 – We also have a problem here. Skunks, coons, possums and dogs are not protected by livestock laws – but by a county quirk, cats are.
During the summer our other pest is the Canadian Jay. They are devoted egg suckers.
Yes, upon looking the pantheistic Brahman and the polytheistic forms it takes are completely indistinguishable from the Judeo-Christian construct of God. The wheel of life and reincarnation are splitting images of the heaven / hell construct. Likewise the dragon goddesses of China also embody that same theist construct that you subscribe to, even the aboriginal rainbow serpent was in likeness. Even the polytheistic gods of Greece and Egypt are really just the single monotheistic deity that you play out, and the flying spaghetti monster is a modern incarnation…
Names. Names?
Silver Fox, what are your other names?
And by any other name you would be different, how?
“How, then, SF are we part of it which is the first cause and is accused of loving us? Strange loving.”
God is all good. Insofar as we are good, we reflect the goodness of God. God recognizes goodness and loves us for it. God does not love us and thereby make us good. Insofar as we are good, we reflect the goodness of God and he loves us.
I’m sure that’s just lovely. Now, to task.
How does one tell the difference between happenstance, serendipity or the way things usually work out unsurprisingly, and the unmistakable hand of your preferred spook? What is the unmistakable sign?
It’s just another lie that gets told enough that the gullible take it as truth. I do wish humans didn’t have that nasty predisposition to go with the majority rather than do their homework.
What you’re talking about is other NAMES. There is only one God. No matter if you’re talking about the Toltec god who THEY THOUGHT demanded human sacrifice or Yehweh who THEY THOUGHT demanded rams and goats. There is only one God and that’s a logical imperative. You need to get away from names and focus on the essential concept.
Whom you call Indra, we call Satan.
You have not demonstrated that it is a logical imperative.
What the hell does “perfection” mean, isolated from any referent?
Silver Fox – I don’t normally give the title of ‘Total Fucking Idiot’ to anyone with less than 10 years of documentation, but you are coming close.
You total fucking idiot.
There is no god.
Yaweh, Thor, Isis, Jesus or any of the over 2,500 gods and goddesses are pure bullshit.
er… well except Eris the goddess of discord and confusion, and Egres the god of turnips.
Moron! With the exception of the goddess and god I have mentioned above – there is no god!
Cannot demonstrate an imperative that justifies any uber lord.
I suspect that the meaning of perfection has been quite well hidden by the contradictory claims of those who claim to have it. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
I was never a country girl. But when I was a teen, I had a job as a baby sitter and cleaning out the horse stable for the same household. I have no idea how long the stables went with shoveling, the horseshit was a couple of feet deep. It was stinky and sweaty work. Still, it was more pleasant than looking after the three year old.
Maybe, Silver Fox, you should show evidence that your god exists before you make wild assertions like “God is perfection”. Can you explain what role God played and still does play in the universe, and how we can test to verify such an extraordinary claim? Or are you simple affirming the negative and using empty rhetoric in order to justify the absence of evidence?
Silver Fox @118
Your argument collapses at the first hurdle.
This is not a necessary attribute of a god.
It is an unfounded assertion.
You may choose to assert it as an attribute of your chosen god, but you can’t use it as a necessary condition for a general argument about any god(s).
A god could be imperfect (eg. malevolent, or vain, or mad), and theoretically still have created the universe as it is.
Come on Silver Fox – why did your god wait over a thousand years to kill his son for a crime Adam and Eve committed in the garden?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Oh, Patricia, I don’t think you saw when I linked to this video. I think you might like the lyrics.
And have a good anniversary. Thirty four years. Damn.
Maybe the silly old goat worships The Highlander God. There can only be one.
That is all I know of Highlander.
Wowbagger, I’m in. This goal-post moving fucktard was tiresome 300 posts ago.
SF, please provide evidence that Vishnu does not exist. Show your work.
And if you think that all these gods are the same, then why aren’t you following the path of Sanatana Dharma to please the sky buddy in your head? Do you have the faintest clue how different those paths can be? How they’re as contrary to your Hebrew Fairy Tale doctrine as…well, the contradictions within your own goatherder fantasy?
Please explain how karma can adequately mesh with your Middle-Eastern delusion.
Again. Show your work.
Silver Fox:
Why don’t you just admit that you’re talking out of your arse and that your assertions are groundless. Furthermore, you’re shifting the goalposts when you equate something possessed by another with loosing substance? You’re follow up is irrelevant. You didn’t say that God would be diminished by loosing part of His substance, you said “anything possessed by another god would diminish the first god”. Following your rules, I asserted that the case would be even worse if the “other” was a mere mortal. If you’re allowed to make baseless assertions, then so am I. See how that works?
Crudely Wrott – I can appreciate your agricultural job experience!
Most people probably won’t believe the wages we worked for as kids.
You… You got wages?
Hell, I remember being sent to “help” neighboring farmers for nothing except maybe Miss MaryAnn’s lousy black-eyed peas and cornbread.
Silver Fox, watch this and try to understand why your claims about atheism are bogus.
You dumbass Silver Fox – the Mother of God is Sophia. Sophia is wisdom.
Really, dipshit, you need to study this stuff before you try to pass yourself off as someone that knows something.
Come on fool. I’m a 12th grader. Try harder.
Janine – I am the ignorant slut, because I watched the whole video of Mood to Burn Bridges – and I didn’t get it.
So many people live in my town
And mind to my business but none of their own
They’re all so happy now that I’ve done wrong
I’m surprised they don’t come up and thank me
So if you want moral advice
I suggest you just tuck it all away
‘Cause my mood to burn bridges
Parallels my mood to dig ditches
Don’t cross me on neither a day, baby
Don’t make mistakes or be human
They savor your every false move
And the fear that they hide looking for a Break
If ever confronted with truth
So if you want moral advice
I suggest you just tuck it all away
‘Cause my mood to burn bridges
Parallels my mood to dig ditches
Don’t cross me on neither a day, baby
From the well of their hearts spring the poison
That mixed with suspicion and reckless derision
And something they read on a church toilet stall
They think that their lives are much better
Than mine on the soapbox and ladders stand tall
So if you want moral advice
I suggest you just tuck it all away
‘Cause my mood to burn bridges
Parallels my mood to dig ditches
Don’t cross me on neither a day
I see those arrows beside me
I hear you right behind me
Cornbread? You got cornbread!
I protest. I got a Spam sandwich in the best years.
Cornbread – you elitist bastards!
Why can’t “God” just be “the laws of the universe”? I believe in God. But not the Judeo-Christian kind, or the Hindu or Voodoo kind. To me, “God” is more like a collection of conscious energy that permeates the universe. Why does it take two hydrogen atoms to bond with one oxygen atom to make water? Why does it end up as water and not something else? Just because? What is string theory? Explain the time-space continuum and how our conscious minds can’t ride it at will. What is love? Do we have a soul? Can the soul be measured and quantified? What _is_ consciousness????
To me, consciousness is God. And I do believe there is a unified, interconnected consciousness of which we are each a part. It expresses itself in random acts of kindness, and it expresses itself on a scientific level as well: those two hydrogen atoms have to be “conscious” that the oxygen atom is there in order for it to bond, right?? That attractive force that pulls them together is a form of consciousness, yes? Just like two positive ions have to be conscious of the other one being positive so that they will repel each other.
Tangent: Image what would happen if science could force two positive ions to unite!! I wonder if it would rip a whole in our universe and expose other alternative ones. :P
Here’s a facetious idea: God is dark matter. HAH!
Janine – Yep, 34 years. I’m not sure it’s a record for monogamy, but it’s a record for me! Pfffft!
Careful, you will ruin your reputation as a slut.
Wicked Ho – I believe in God.
You are a fucking idiot.
For fox sake Silver, watch those mental gymnastics; you’ll put your back out.
Janine – You’re not supposed to recognize that. Atheists can’t have 34 year old marriages, only Christians keep their vows.
A common mistake owing to our brain’s fondness of “warm and fuzzy”.
There is no need to postulate gawd for the universe to work,however,it does just fine without us making shit up.
Hydrogen and Oxygen do just fine without a talking snake.
Didn’t you read the retraction of his faith that Jesus gave on the cross? He definately said “There is no god, we are all descended from a common ancestor by natural selection!”
There were several highly respected witnesses to this event, some of them time travellers from the 45th century, but lets not quibble about it. All stories about Jesus are pure 100% bullshit anyway. That is why creationists are pathological liars. They’re fed on industrial strength bullshit from childhood, plus inbreeding in their families increases the chance that they won’t ever get the genes for brain development that rational people have.
In the words of Edward Current “Checkmate religionists!”
If anyone is getting bored, they can wander over and “help” at:
http://talk.thinkingmatters.org.nz/
Example article: “Creation Ministries International Needs Help.
By Stuart. A request for help from Creation Ministries International and an invitation to equip pastors and churches on refuting evolution.”
They need help…?
Excerpt from the article:
“Everyday at Creation Ministries International our PhD scientist & staff around the world are working to tear down the evolutionary stronghold and replace it with good science based on the accuracy and authority of the Bible.”
Wicked Ho: I know just what you mean. I’ve felt that exact way myself. And then the acid really started kicking in…
If you want to romanticize the Universe to yourself in pantheistic terms, fine, but you really do yourself a disservice if you allow yourself to believe that natural processes require some kind of constant magical manipulation or supervision to happen. There’s nothing about the Universe we observe around us that requires (or shows evidence of) interaction with a consciousness or intelligence like the one you describe.
Actually, I’ve wondered why the monotheistic faiths were so vehemently against pantheism. As implausible as it is, it still does a better job of describing an omni-potent/present/scient entity than anything they’ve offered. Why is the anthropomorphism so important to them? I can understand it a few thousand years ago, but surely the old guy with a beard thing has to sound silly to just about everyone by now. Ditch the geezer and the kid, retcon the spook. They’ve got plenty of incense, just spread some crystals around and maybe buy the choir some bongos and Birkenstocks…
It’s getting late, but did I not read, way up thread, Silly Fox assert that Erasmus Darwin was the father of Charles?
If I had the power, I would force him to read Janet Browne’s biography; that would keep him busy for a few weeks, or months.
Silver Fox asserted, baselessly, yet again:
I’m the simple one? Your argument (if it can be called that) is based on a tenet of your religion and, as such, has no relevance to an objective analysis. What you’re doing is saying that there is only one god and wanting us to accept that as true because your religion says there is. That is no more valid than if I wrote down ‘There is more than one god’ on a piece of paper and expected you to accept it.
You have yet to demonstrate this beyond (yet another) baseless assertion. Are not gods meant to be infinitely powerful? A god that could not create another infinitely powerful god can’t be infinitely powerful.
What ‘essential concept’? What is this but another in a long list of baseless assertions? When you can prove that your god is based on an essential concept then we can discuss the implications. Until then, don’t bother.
So, we’re once again at what you need to do, albeit with a third option: prove that there’s only one god (any one god); or, failing that (which you will), disprove all the other gods; or – the only one you’ve even got a Christian’s chance in the Circus of achieving – admit your mistake and retract your claim.
Wow, does this “Silver Fox” guy have any interest in actually having a discussion? Or is he just interested in ignoring everyone’s questions and spouting nonsensical theistic pablum?
Not sure if someone already said it, but this kind of affair reminds me of this:
http://www.thinkin-lincoln.com/index.php?strip_id=5
Evidenced by his past posts on here, it’s the latter.
As that Christian Answers site notes, if Darwin did convert he would of all people at least told his wife, and she would have told the family. The lack of corroboration from Emma seems all but conclusive evidence that the Lady Hope story is a fabrication.,/I> – Eamon Knight
Ah, but Emma was a secret atheist! In fact, she bullied Charles into publishing the Origin, although he knew very well from his research that natural selection could only account for changes within a natural kind! After all, none of his barnacles ever turned into geese.
/creobot idiocy
I see Silver Fox is still proving he is a drunken idiot with no logic or reason. SF, because you believe in your delusion, why should we? SHOW (not speak of) us the physical EVIDENCE for your silly, non-existent god. Until then, you show nothing but contempt for yourself with your continuous inane ravings. You do need to move along, as you are committing PZ’s greatest crime. You are boring.
Silver Fox are you a merely mid functioning idiot? How many times do we have to tell you that just saying something does not make it so. You have yet to, in the all of comments you’ve left here, establish that a single god is a logical imperative.
Just repeating yourself ad nauseum does not increase the factuality of your claim. It only makes you come off like a mentally challenged person who can’t get out of a rut. Did you ever see Rain Man? You sound likea cross between Dustin Hoffman’s character repeating “Wapner” over and over and a five year old asking for a cookie. And when you don’t get what you want you throw a temper tantrum and hurl yourself to the floor flopping around screaming and crying Wapner! and Cookie! thinking that if you just do it enough, you’ll get what you want. And that is for us to just accept at your word that God is a logical imperative. Well it doesn’t work with us. We aren’t Charlie Babbitt nor are we your parents. We’re the annoyed people in the grocery store wondering why your parents aren’t dealing with their screaming crying progeny writhing on the floor embarrassing himself and everyone associated with him.
Provide us the evidence that a single God is the only logical answer. Once you are finished with that, show us why your version of god is the only one that could be.
“Grant Swank”?
More like “Grant’s Wank”…
Silver Fox> You seem to have missed the point with your ridiculous exercise. While it is true that one cannot prove a negative, there is no atheist dilemma because the burden of proof does not lie with the disbeliever. You’re asserting the existence of and all powerful being that runs every aspect of our Universe, who also happens to be perfect. Since this is your preposterous assertion, you are left with the need to prove it. No word games, just cough up… let’s see what you have. Independent historical corroboration for almost ANY event in your little book of lies would be a great place to start, since that’s the basis for your belief.
Wicked Ho,
Look up Spinoza’s God. Spinoza had an interesting conception–that we must learn to love a God that is indifferent to or even unaware of us. In its own way, it is as profound a conception as Kierkegaard’s. It is in no way necessary to an understanding of the universe, but if it gives your life meaning and makes you a better person–hey, go for it.
At the same time understand that for many, the choice of being atheist is really a charitable one: As God is either indifferent or nonexistent, they’re allowing him to plead guilty to what they consider to be the lesser charge–nonexistence. There is meaning in atheism as well.
Silver Fox, How disappointing. All you’ve done is essentially plagiarize the Cartesian proof of God’s existence. Of course, your “proof” suffers from exactly the same flaws–namely, a concept of “perfection” that presumes nonexistence is a flaw. By this logic, a perfect crystal must exist. It doesn’t. Moreover, you are presuming that oneness is a virtue, and so must be possessed of a perfect being. In some philosophical systems duality and even multiplicity are virtues, so by your very logic, the godhead would have to be manifold. You can prove anything provided you completely ignore logic and presume it to be true in the first place.
For those who have asked, it is the imperative of every Borg drone to seek perfection, that perfection expressed in the Borg Collective. You will be assimilated, resistance is futile.
*217
I have to echo Heraclides…
These bunnies need a serious spanking…these sites are proliferating in frequency and outrageous claims…a sickening indictment of freedom to speech…and some Christians are abusing the point!
Any help appreciated to correct their ignorant dogma appreciated.
http://talk.thinkingmatters.org.nz/
This was stated upthread, but bares repeating, sorry to the original poster for losing you.
A Perfect god must have the ability to create ANYTHING. Because, without the ability to create anything, it would not be perfect, but imperfect.
THEREFORE, a perfect god MUST have the ability to create a More Perfect god. Without this ability, it would be imperfect.
The Perfect god would be required to create a More Perfect god otherwise it would display an unwillingness to create something greater than itself for the good of creation, a flaw in character, rendering it imperfect.
This newly created More Perfect god would likewise be required to create an Even More Perfect god and rinse and repeat, ad infinitum, until the universe is FULL of a infinite amount of gods, each more perfect than the last.
So, by logical proof, a perfect god leads directly to polytheism.
Isn’t logic fun!
#233: Ability to do something doesn’t translate to a necessity to do it. Unless things get all wacky when dealing with aleph-null gods, which I’m perfectly willing to grant.
I disagree, when discussing perfect gods. On any other matter, you are correct.
“The Perfect god would be required to create a More Perfect god otherwise it would display an unwillingness to create something greater than itself for the good of creation, a flaw in character, rendering it imperfect.”
Think of it this way, the Perfect god is loving, just and kind. A More Perfect god is MORE loving, MORE just and MORE kind. The loving god would be required to create this MORE loving, MORE just, MORE Kind being or risk losing his perfection by failing to bring into being this more ect. being for the benefit of all the universe.
The answer is, of course, there are no gods, perfect or imperfect. But logic shows that a lone, perfect god is impossible.
Silver Fox:
Perhaps the discussion could be helped along if we understood your ideas with more specificity. You’ve claimed that names from ancient and modern mythologies—Yahweh, Ra, Thor, Odin, Isis, whatever—all have the same referent: your perfect, unified god-concept. For the sake of precision, let’s call all those individual, mythological gods (which are characters in various narratives) members of set P. Let’s call your unified, perfect god-concept M. Now, what precisely do you assert are the consequences of the ostensible fact that P1, P2, … Pn and M all point to the same referent? Do you mean, for example, that all the deeds and personality traits ascribed to the various members of P are, in reality, possessed by M? This would imply, for starters, that M:
* carried off Europa in the form of a bull (ascribed to Zeus),
* wrested the Tablet of Destinies from Tiamet to take his position as king (ascribed to Marduk),
* had a special patron-client relationship with the Bronze Age Hebrews (ascribed to Yahweh),
and others that I won’t patronize you with, because you can see where I’m going with this. If, as I suspect, you assert that M had none of these particular qualities and did none of these particular things, then in what way are M and all the members of P the same? Obviously they’re all conceived of as big powerful superhuman entities, and if that’s all you’re claiming, then that’s true and trivial.
But you seem to be claiming more than that, and I’m just trying to figure out what the consequences of it are, and how we could tell if it’s actually true.
There’s also the major problem that even if your assertions about M being the only conceivable logically consistent god-concept are correct (which you have only asserted, not demonstrated), that has nothing to do with whether we have actual evidence that M actually exists. I’d also like to know what you believe justifies making the leap from consistency to existence.
Now now Butter. That would cause Silver Fox to actually examine his position instead of regurgitating the same thing over and over. I’m not sure he is capable of that.
The one thing Silver Fox has proved decisively is that he can shovel shit, and has nothing better to do.
Ergo, Patricia should hire him.
Crudely Wrott: My wife and i have noted some trends. The Sidhe, the fairies of old Ireland, were once human sized warriors, fierce fighters, afraid only of iron (perhaps the indigenous, pre-iron age peoples?). Over time they became smaller and cute in the folk stories. Thor is a comic book character, Hercules has co-starred with the Three Stooges. We look forward to the day when Jesus is a Saturday morning cartoon character, or perhaps a manga vampire hunter with rad hair and a big-eyed girlfriend. Yahweh can be the curmudgeon Big Boss in the secret hero headquarters.
At that point, there will be few people taking them seriously, but I fear they will just be replaced by some other silliness. One can hope, though.
Why should Patricia have to put up with his yammering?
Ahem, Patricia,
The husbeast and I are at 41 years and counting. There is a realistic probability that we will see 42 in a few months, assuming his heart does not stop again. Life is good.
Jesus Christ, Vampire Hunter
Oh, you all are being too hard on SF. I think he’s as clever as his namesake, the silver fox.
You know, the vulpine urocyon cinereoargenteus, with a brain the size of a teacup, commonly trapped, and often fleeing stronger foes.
On to slightly more substantive points, if any perfect deity actually existed, and had any desire at all for humanity to behave a certain way, it would perfectly communicate its existence and desires. This manages to still allow the “free will” that Christians claim the deity endows us with — in fact, it would allow a greater application of free will because it would be uncomplicated by the “deceit” of our fellows.
However, no deity has done this. Therefore, the perfect deity does not exist.
Therefore, by Silver Fox’s logic, no deity exists. Silver Fox is actually an atheist, he just isn’t aware of it.
I think I’ll join in the game.
Silver Fox, prove the non-existence of Aphrodite/Venus.
Show your work. You must think it’s easy, since you don’t believe in her or any of the other members of the Roman/Greek pantheon.
Oh, and if you think she is the same as your god, explain how this works. Because, undoubtedly to the people who worshiped her, she was a SHE. So whether your paternalistic desert God is a cosmic man with cosmic testicles, or is something as nebulous as a force with no gender, you must demonstrate that it is the same as a distinctly female god. One who had no problem with hot, steamy sex with other male gods. Is this the same god as yours?
If not, disprove her existence.
Hello, Kermit.
Yeah, the incredible shrinking delusion.
It is a bit sad though. It reminds me of returning to a childhood home after an absence of several years. Everything looked so little!
Of course, it was all exactly the same size. It was my awareness that had grown!
“Silver Fox: There is only one god.
Pharyngula: Do you have anything to support this peculiar assertion?
Silver Fox: Yes. There’s a quote in the book written by people who share my belief in the same one god I believe in that says so. Ergo, it must be true.”
It is tedious to keep going over this but I guess, when you’re dealing with this level of mentality, it’s necessary.
No, the Shema simply states a self-evident fact. It is not a proof. The proof is the FACT that one God is a LOGICAL imperative. The facts of our experience, our experience of the universe, calls for a logical necessity for God. Any reasonable concept of God, however limited, would mandate one God. Two gods would be a LOGICAL absurdity. There are many scientists who see this clearly; if you don’t, that is your lack of insight, intuition, reasoning or whatever else you want to call it. But what you can’t call it is LOGICAL.
Absolute utter bullshit.
Silver Fox, LIAR and BULLSHITTER. One god is not a logical imperative, any more than the existence of god is. Why do you keep making a fool of yourself? Just run along and find a more hospitable blog.
See? SEE?!??!!!
Yes. There’s a quote in the book written by people who share my belief in the same one god I believe in that says so. Ergo, it must be true.”
translation:
Yes: “I have perfectly circular reasoning, and circles are perfect in shape!”
SF has got to be the strongest case for denial in a godbot I’ve seen in a long time.
here, larn yerself sumptin’, sonny:
http://ksuweb.kennesaw.edu/~shagin/logfal-pbc-circular.htm
Sf:
You forgot to include the reasoning. As it stands, it’s an unsubstatiated assertion.
Hint – it goes like this: [Contention] because [argument].
You’ve put forth your contention, but you’ve not provided the argument.
That’s the level of mentality you’re dealing with – one that requires justification for claims. Weird concept, I know, but there it is. Can you rise to that level?
Oh, this is too easy. Read carefully, Silver Fox: If a god is infinitely powerful then it can create another infinitely powerful god. If it cannot then it is not infinitely powerful.
So, no reason whatsoever that there cannot be more than one god. Boom! There goes your FACT. Whoosh! There goes your LOGICAL imperative. Zap! There goes your appeal to authority. All in one fell swoop.
Or are you asserting that your god is not infinitely powerful?
See? SEE?!??!!!
http://www.moviequotes.com/repository.cgi?pg=3&tt=107581
“You dumbass Silver Fox – the Mother of God is Sophia. Sophia is wisdom.”
Dumbass? Sophia is neither a god or the mother of god. She is the creation of a bunch of Gnostic wingnuts. Do you really want to be associated with that kind of dingbats?
Answer so I can confirm just what kind of mentality I’m dealing with.
Sophia??? You dingbat! Sophia was invented by nutjob Gnostics, you fool! Those of my mentality naturally buy into the whole presuppositiousnessitonitude thing! Not Gnostic for fuck’s sake!!! Sheesh!!
“Silver Fox are you a merely mid functioning idiot?”
No, but it sounds like you are. You apparently know absolutely nothing about Logic, inductive/deductive reasoning or anything else as to how one goes about establishing clear thinking. That being the case, there is no way I can show you how God is a logical necessity and that one God is a logical imperative and two gods are a logical absurdity.
Dude. The Gnostics were inspired ultimately by Plato, who is the dingbat ultimately responsible for your ontological mumbo-jumbo.
SF, we know what type of mentality we are dealing with. You are a delusional fool. You can’t even give a true argument. That mean mental deficiency somewhere. If you are smart, you will put up or shut up. But then, as a godbot…
Oh, Silver Fox – you just keep on making my day. Don’t ever change.
‘My belief in an invisible sky-fairy for which there is no evidence and no rational argument is sensible and practical while someone else’s belief in another, slightly different, invisible sky-fairy for which there is also no evidence and no rational argument is stupid and foolish.’
Care to show us your proof for why Gnosticism is less valid than whichever sect of Christianity you
freely chose after doing substantive researchhappened to be born into?Oh, crap. Facilis infected you with presuppositionalism, didn’t he?
Is there an ontological paradoctor in the house? Help! Medic! We need some parsimony over here, stat!
That being the case, there is no way I can show you how God is a logical necessity and that one God is a logical imperative and two gods are a logical absurdity.
I gave you a link that defines your “logic” as nothing more than perfectly circular reasoning.
Is it possible for you to show me how it is not?
If not, then you really are a mid-functioning idiot.
here’s a new question:
do you get turned on by being ridiculed?
“Hint – it goes like this: [Contention] because [argument].”
Contention: There is a God and only one God BECAUSE our own experiences and the experience of our world and the ABSENCE of any scientific information to the contrary calls for the logical conclusion that there is a supernatural causality. There is one God because it is beyond LOGICAL reason that there could be more than one.
SF:
Actually, there is a way. It involves definitions, premises (axioms), contentions, inference chain, conclusion. If you end up with a tautology, and your interlocutors have agreed to your definitions and premises, and your inferential chain is valid, you’ve proven your contentions.
Go for it, show God is a “logical imperative”.
Yawn, this is getting boring. SF is a waste of air and food. Either put your full argument out there or shut up.
Wait, didn’t aab3w have an ontological katana? Let’s see, what was it again…
There is one God because it is beyond LOGICAL reason that there could be more than one.
“You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.”
Silver Fox’s argument analogised:
There is only one kind of dragon; it’s green and there’s only one. Anyone who believes in any other colour of dragon is a ‘dingbat’ or a ‘wingnut’. And even though other people believe in red dragons, blue dragons black dragons, singularly or in groups, they’re wrong; there’s only one. And people who believe in completely undragonish creatures like leprechauns and unicorns and minotaurs, well, those are really just the green dragon in disguise. Even though they don’t look or act anything alike and the green dragon is supposed to be kind and loving and not lie his scaly green ass off pretending to be something he’s not.
Oh, and you’re not allowed to not believe in the one green dragon because my book on the one green dragon says there is one green dragon. And just because I can say I don’t believe in other-coloured dragons without having to prove they don’t exist, you’re NOT ALLOWED to use that same logic to disbelieve in the one green dragon, because believing in one green dragon is a logical imperative.
prediction:
while a good way to make SF look even sillier (is that even possible, really?), your dragon analogy will be entirely lost on him.
I think mid-functioning idiot really did hit the mark.
“If a god is infinitely powerful then it can create another infinitely powerful god. If it cannot then it is not infinitely powerful.”
God cannot act contrary to his nature. The nature of God is ALL-powerful. If God were able to create another ALL- powerful God, then where would that leave the ALL. You do not see that the ALL precludes two. ALL is an essential characteristic of God’s nature. It is not an accidental feature like in “white” dog. There can be many white dogs.
This is not rocket science and can be seen clearly by any reasonable person of average intelligence. And indeed many scientists do see it clearly.
well, duh!
One dragon, green. Everybody knows that.
Our mamas told us.
Plus, it’s in a book!!!
hmm, maybe this extended clip furthering the comparison between the word “inconceivable” and SF’s use of the word “logic” will be instructive?
“Totally and in all other ways, inconceivable!”
What a load garbage from a garbage head. Plonking this idiot is in order if a real argument is not present in the very near future. These idiotic statements don’t cut it. Your god doesn’t exist, and as a result he can’t be perfect. You are deluded.
And indeed many scientists do see it clearly.
show me one scientist who uses such a circular argument as yours, and I’ll show you someone who works for the Discovery Institute.
moron.
Indeed NOT!
Once again you’re making assertions based on nothing but wishful thinking. Are you implying your god is bound by rules? How many rules are there for gods? Where does one find these rules for gods? Are they listed in your bible?
But your invented rules are irrelevant, since they would mean your god is not infinitely powerful. If your god is infinitely powerful he can do anything – that’s what infinite means. If there is something he cannot do then he is not infinite!
One dragon, green. Everybody knows that.
bah, black dragons kick ass on green dragons.
…and don’t even get me started on the metallic dragons!
Facilis @269
Sweet Raptor Jesus, do you even read what you’re writing any more?
I mean, they’re not even two isolated statements, they’re right there next to each other!
The nature of God is ALL-POWERFUL.
God CANNOT act contrary to his nature.
If there is something God CANNOT do, then he’s not exactly ALL-POWERFUL, is he?
hell yeah
Kagato,
Today’s so-stupid-it’s-difficult-to-believe-they’re-still-pushing-it argument comes from Silver Fox, not facilis; however, I can understand your getting them confused…
More bald assertions. You really are boring.
I’ll be sure to tell Cerebus that. And yes, that is the name of my dragon.
Except he’s not a dragon. He’s an aardvark.
Indeed, my mistake. My last several replies have all been to Facilis’ nonsensical ramblings, and I guess I just typed that out of habit. Not that there’s a lot to distinguish them at this point.
Silver Fox has yet to ask us to “account for the laws of logic”, but I suspect he’s not far off at this rate.
Thank you for that Wowbagger. The fact that people so frequently stick with the religion of their family is hilarious to me. Oh it just so happens that EVERY ONE was born into the One True Religion.
Rev BDC,
That’s one the biggies for me, too – how few people actually challenge the idea that, with all the religions which exist in the world and the possibility that only one of them is the ‘correct’ one, they might have been born into one of the ‘incorrect’ ones.
It just doesn’t seem to occur to them that they could be wrong and the tiny naked people in the forest who worship a snake statue could be right.
So it goes. Not only is everyone born into the One True Religion, the conditions they use to judge what is the One True Religion happen to be the same conditions of the One True Religion. I remember asking a Christian once the same thing, why not other religions? The answer I got was that no other religion has the resurrection, and resurrection is the sign of divinity. Upon showing other religions that had the resurrection as part of the core dogma, they were met with dismissal as couldn’t possibly being true.
I guess it goes to show that those who happen to be of a particular religion by nothing more than time and location of birth will defend their religion as vigorously and absolutely as one who is born in a different time and place. Being brought up to believe it’s true does not make it any more credulous to the outside observer than someone from any other religion. Silver Fox’s idea sounds very Bah’ai to be honest.
Which is overwhelming evidence for it being an entirely culturally-dependant phenomenon rather than an indication of any ‘revealed truth’. If it wasn’t, the overwhelming truth of the religion that is the ‘one true’ religion would draw far greater numbers of converts than those we see occurring to and from today’s religions.
Heck, the only reason there are as many Christians as there are today is because their ancestors chose to kneel to the cross rather than die by the sword. It’s certainly no indication of its ‘correctness’.
And why does a supposedly kind and loving and just god make it so easy for some people by conveniently allowing them to be born into the ‘one true’ religion, and so difficult for so many others by allowing them to be born to heathen, pagan, scientologist and atheist parents where they’re going to have to overcome massive hurdles in order to learn about and embrace the ‘right’ faith?
There goes any lingering interest I had in learning anything about that particular faith…
My Mum’s sister is Bahá’í, it really is a crazy religion. It’s pretty much calling every other religion in the world part of the divine truth, that all religions are unified as revealed by the one true God. And that one true God? “The Bahá’í writings describe a single, personal, inaccessible, omniscient, omnipresent, imperishable, and almighty God who is the creator of all things in the universe.”
For some odd reason, the silly old goat’s yammering brought this to mind. And that leads to this.
I am not a well person.
Ass Cobra.
Damn I really need to start a band.
Wait! Does the guy on the right have a hitler mustache? Or is it bad lighting.
I mean come on. Ass Cobra AND a hitler stash.
Damn
Damn. Could they get any more nebulous? It’s like the special ed class of religions. Still, if I knew that supporting them would lead to the eventual conversion of all the other idiots who think their belief in a magic sky-fairy, zombie Jesus and a book of bronze-age folk tales gives them the right to tell other people how to live then I’d do it.
HEY! You! Yeah, you, the funny-looking ape!
YOU DON’T GET TO TELL ME WHAT I CAN AND CANNOT DO!
The arrogance of these monkeys! Give them a prefontal cortex and they’re suddenly all “La-di-dah, I know how to reason, watch me eff the ineffable”. The cheek!
I like the way my Dad puts it, “it’s a religion for those who want to feel superior over all other religions” which he contends suits my Aunt perfectly. I’m inclined to agree.
really? how weird. my observation and logic tells me that if a perfect godhead existed, it must be a dual god.
observation –> everything exist in pairs: left&right, male&female, proton&electron, Up&Down Quarks, Top&Bottom Quarks, Matter&Antimatter etc ad nauseam.
logic –> since there’s a clear, observed difference between mere lack of good and active evil, both good and evil are positive attributes (rather than evil being a negative attribute, i.e. lack of goodness). a perfect godhead would have to incorporate all positive qualities, but the law of contradiction tells me that one thing cannot be two contradictory things at once. so, a godhead would have to be a duality, to encompass opposites.
conclusion –> a single godhead without an opposite is incomplete and therefore not perfect. a perfect godhead must therefore be dual
law of non-contradiction, that is. d’uh
Actually, that’s quite good, Jadehawk. It’s actually an cogent argument.
Beats the shit outta SF’s naked series of assertions.
Jadehawk,
I suspect that if PZ had a zero-tolerance policy on typos there’d be about a tenth as many posters here as there are…
At one point I was tempted to suggest that the existence of evil gods in some cultures’ pantheons meant that if Yahweh was indeed the ‘one-and-only’ god that encompassed the aspects of every other god posited then that must mean he’s capable of evil, which – despite evidence to the contrary [cough] Old Testament! [cough] – Christians deny is possible.
But I thought that might confuse poor Silver Fox too much, so I just stuck with the one approach. The sad chap is struggling so much as it I didn’t think it was necessary to add to his already crippling burden.
But that’s what you get when you make the sort of profoundly stupid statements he makes. I wonder if he’s surprised no other Christians have attempted to back him up? Guess they’re smart enough to know a losing battle when they see one – but not our Foxy.
I entirely agree! I like the way you think.
Oh, and don’t mind God having a tizzy; He just gets cranky now and then.
well, there’s always been the argument that the modern Christian god is actually one half of the Zoroastrian duality, with Satan being the atrophied other half (sorry dude, I know it sucks. but hey, at least some people appreciate the gift of knowledge. kudos for that), while the Jewish god is simply the boss in a forgotten/diminished pantheon (he can be both good and bad, but he certainly isn’t any sort of perfect)
Y’know, I think Wowbagger @#275 and Kagato @#277 pointed out the obvious problem with this, but I thought I’d also point out that the real problem is the definition of “ALL”, here.
You’re adding an additional meaning to ALL. You’re insisting that ALL somehow forces the exclusion of others sharing that particular trait; you want the phrase to mean “most-powerful-of-all”. But “ALL-powerful” does not have that “most” in its definition necessarily, and you have not demonstrated how or why that it should.
Now, there are still questions that we could ask about this. For example, does all-powerful mean “capable of performing all conceivable actions”, or are there necessary restrictions of that power to the realm of the logically possible?
I happen to agree with Wowbagger that creating a second God (or third, or some arbitrary number, or even an infinite quantity of Gods) with powers equal to the first is not logically impossible. But I think problems arise if we try to consider going in the opposite direction: Can God destroy himself? Can God destroy himself while leaving behind everything that he putatively created? Can God destroy some or all of his own power, that is, make himself be no longer omnipotent, permanently? Can God make it such that he never existed?
How about less immediate paradoxes and contradictions? Can God both act and not act simultaneously? Can God act, then utterly negate the action? If so, does the act have any meaning at all outside of God’s presumed memory of it? Or would “utter negation” also include God erasing his own memory of the action?
I think we can show that there are some things that would lead inevitably lead to paradoxes of various orders leading to God’s own utter negation if God were capable of ever doing them in potentia, so we must conclude that God cannot ever do them. So even assuming God exists, there are limits on what he can do.
So “all-powerful” must necessarily mean “able to do all things that are conceivable and logically possible“, and thus exclude the logically impossible.
Now, that having been said… Hm. I think I’m not really interested enough at this point in time to go any further with this, even assuming there is somewhere further to go.
I’ve always thought of Bahá’í as Islam’s Unitarianism.
Owlmirror
*damn*
I foresee I’m about to disappear in a puff of logic.
right about n…
Er, Islam is already Unitarian. Perhaps you meant Universalist and/or Unitarian Universalist?
Oh, hey now, wait a min
Of course — I was making an analogy, and not about the theological specifics, but about the character of the religions.
The UUs are probably a more accurate comparison (if one can quantify “accuracy” in a loose analogy). The point I was making is that the Bahá’í seem to be the warm fuzzy “everybody’s OK, multiple paths” offshoot of Islam much like the Unitarians (at least in their modern instantiation) are the warm fuzzy “everybody’s OK, multiple paths” offshoot of Christianity.
The answer I got was that no other religion has the resurrection, and resurrection is the sign of divinity. Upon showing other religions that had the resurrection as part of the core dogma, they were met with dismissal as couldn’t possibly being true.
starts off with projection, then moves to denial.
check.
I’ve always gotten a kick out of the fact that the only way deism maintains itself is through the use of strong psychological defense mechanisms.