1. Comment #81286 by Tanglewood on October 24, 2007 at 2:35 pm

I've seen this used mainly by wishy-washy, liberal Christians of the "Jesus was really Buddha" variety, and the best response to it is simply to say "Well, if *your* God and *your* beliefs were prevalent then we wouldn't be having this argument in the first place. Unfortunately, the majority of believers have faith in the existence of an anthropomorphic deity who cares what we say and do, how we say and do it, will punish us for all eternity if we either screw up or stop kissing his ass, and has a *really* low tolerance for heresy. Belief in a God of this sort is not compatible with the long term survival of our species. Get back to me when everyone is a religious moderate. In the mean time, stop wheeling out your drippy-hippy little fringe God as a counterpoint to my arguments against the fire and brimstone God I actually have a problem with. It's distracting, and provides cover to those whose religious fantasies are motivating them to do us both harm."

Other Comments by Tanglewood

2. Comment #81287 by sidfaiwu on October 24, 2007 at 2:36 pm

Then define for me what you mean by 'God'. I can then go on to critique their definition. If they attempt to use this excuse again, I will remind them that we are using their definition of 'God'.

Other Comments by sidfaiwu

3. Comment #81296 by thelivingbrian on October 24, 2007 at 2:45 pm

response: I'm criticizing the belief in any god that requires faith. Faith is not a virtue...

This response allows you to criticize faith and explain it's foolishness. God is just a part of it.

Other Comments by thelivingbrian

4. Comment #81314 by Jolly Bloger on October 24, 2007 at 3:17 pm

I agree with sidfaiwu. There's plenty of room in anyone's religion for criticism. Also, this kind of person tends to be a pushover in that they go out of their way not to offend. It's easy to back them into a corner with a little strategic questioning. Keep asking them if they REALLY believe in an old man in the clouds, or a talking burning bush, or an actual physical hell. Keep going and eventually they'll shrink back to "well religion just feels better" and then its trivial to get them to admit that feelings don't make it true. QED.

Other Comments by Jolly Bloger

5. Comment #81359 by Quine on October 24, 2007 at 4:12 pm

Continuing with the post from sidfaiwu you can turn this to your advantage. I can usually get some blending with the person to recognize that the "other" religion is just made up. Sometimes I need to drop back in history to get this agreement, but once that starts, it allows the seeping doubt to start coming in on the edges. Also, I keep the word "God" out of my half of the discussion. (see the thread I started on this here at the RD Forum)

Other Comments by Quine

6. Comment #81363 by Inoculatedcities on October 24, 2007 at 4:15 pm

How is it that anyone can claim to exclusively know ANYTHING about the supposed creator of the universe? It is presumptuous and arrogant to proceed from the assumption that your god, no matter how benevolent or liberal you describe him to be, even exists and it is this arrogance that nonbelievers detest.

To deny the outrageous specific claims made by major religions regarding his will is to retreat into a sort of abstract deism that resembles religion not at all.

Other Comments by Inoculatedcities

7. Comment #81426 by maton100 on October 24, 2007 at 5:48 pm

Autophenomenological solipsism won't get you laid.

Other Comments by maton100

8. Comment #81427 by LordSummerisle on October 24, 2007 at 5:49 pm

If your god is supernatural, all-powerful and impossible to prove, then yes, I AM criticising your god and your god in particular.

Other Comments by LordSummerisle

9. Comment #81437 by phasmagigas on October 24, 2007 at 6:00 pm

'but there is only ONE god yes? then it must be yours'

Other Comments by phasmagigas

10. Comment #81440 by aoratos philos on October 24, 2007 at 6:09 pm

"If you could show me your god then perhaps we could both avoid the confusion over it's identity?"

(I prefer the direct approach. :) Plus I haven't got the patience for those non-specific, esoteric, obscure descriptions of god)

Other Comments by aoratos philos

11. Comment #81547 by Theocrapcy on October 24, 2007 at 10:30 pm

Then it seems your god is able to morph into any form so to avoid criticism. A rather human characteristic I would submit.

Other Comments by Theocrapcy

12. Comment #81556 by oisha on October 24, 2007 at 10:46 pm

An extension of this argument is the following:

"Terrorist acts and other acts perpetrated in the name of God are perversions of the true message of Christ/Allah, the Bible/Koran"

My answer:
Pick up the Bible/Koran and actually read it - there's actually a lot of unpleasant business in there that could give justification to even the most horrible of crimes. And even if we were willing to concede that the New Testament is a vast moral improvement on the Old Testament, who is to say that Christ's message isn't just a perversion of the Old Testament? However much our conscience may balk against it, there's nothing to say that God, even did he exist, isn't the jealous, vindictive character which the Old Testament says he is. Look at the world around you and the idea of an evil or indifferent God becomes even more likely. The fundamentalists, as Dawkins suggests, are actually on the winning side of a theological argument. If on the other hand you're going to cherry pick holy books for the nice bits or the bits you like, then what is to say that your personal reading of the Bible has any bearing on reality or on God's true character? And if you're prepared to concede that much of the Bible is complete and utter nonsense, then why should you persist in believing any of it, unless it is for purely emotional reasons? When a witness on the stand demonstrates a propensity to lie, the jury quickly recognises that he is no longer a credible witness. The Bible is no different. It has hardly demonstrated itself to be more qualified to speak on the physical (let alone METAPHYSICAL) origins of the universe than the Iliad for example. So why should we believe anything it says? The Bible is the ultimate boy who cried wolf, but at least the boy who cried wolf was truthful once in his life. If the boy who cried wolf had cried "eternal life! eternal life!" then maybe people would have been less inclined to disbelieve him, no matter whether he lied each and every time.

Other Comments by oisha

13. Comment #81574 by oisha on October 24, 2007 at 11:14 pm

Seeing as everyone says we theists don't define our gods, let me define mine. His name is Santa.

I remember the love I felt on Christmas Eve as I lay awake in cozy anticipation of all the gifts I would receive if I were a good little boy. Surely, I couldn't have felt such love unless Santa were real. And lookie there, in the morning there they were, a whole sack of presents waiting for me under the Christmas tree.

Well, sure, now that you mention it, I didn't exactly get what I asked for in my letter to Santa – I got a crummy bag of marbles instead. But Santa must have had his reasons.

What's that you say? Oh yes, I had quite forgot about the time I got one of Santa's marbles stuck in my throat and damn near died! But Santa knows when I've been naughty or nice so it must have been part of his Christmassy plan. Maybe it was my fault after all. Maybe it was punishment for the time I pulled my sister's hair. Who can divine the will of Santa? ...But of course, I still think Santa is all-good and forgiving.

Hmmm, well, now that you keep pushing the point, maybe Santa doesn't exist - it does sound a bit of a stretch doesn't it? Well, yes, maybe the idea of a jolly old fellow in red does sound a bit silly, but MY Santa isn't like that at all. MY Santa is love. And in case, you can't prove that he doesn't exist can you? And why do you even care so much if you don't believe in him? I don't know how I could possibly get through all those family dinners without him. He brings me so much comfort. I've just got to have a little bit of faith, that's all.

---

Sound familiar? The two beliefs really are equivalent, and they're equivalently wishful, except that in the case of Santa children are allowed to grow out of their wishful thinking without being told that they'll go to hell if they do. If Santa offered life after death rather than pairs of socks and marbles, maybe there'd be a lot more grown adults still proclaiming the man in red's existence.

Other Comments by oisha

14. Comment #81797 by JerryD385 on October 25, 2007 at 7:42 am

Have them redefine their version of god over and over until they have defined him out of existence (the "God is merely human compassion" crap).

Then, reiterate what they believe in without the word 'god'.

Then say, "You, my friend, are an atheist".

Other Comments by JerryD385

15. Comment #81812 by irate_atheist on October 25, 2007 at 8:24 am

Congratulations! You've created another God! And, coincidentally, it's another one that I don't believe in either.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

16. Comment #81844 by avi972 on October 25, 2007 at 9:16 am

Not really a response to this...

Ironically, when I debate with (religious) jews and I ask how do they know that of all the religions in the world, they're right, I sometimes get the answer that jews christians and muslims all believe in the same god.

Other Comments by avi972

17. Comment #81851 by oisha on October 25, 2007 at 9:42 am

I find the best response to the "they're all one God" reply is to point to the example of Catharism.

As many of you probably know, Catharism was a medieval Spanish heresy and its adherents believed that God was an evil God and had created the universe to imprison us in flesh.

Not surprisingly their practices included self-flagellation, as well as celibacy (since they didn't want to imprison further innocent souls in flesh), and vegetarianism (since they didn't want to eat anything that imprisoned other innocent souls in flesh). Somewhat amusingly, they thought it ok to eat fish, as they believed fish spontaneously procreated from water (they had an inadequate understanding of fish spawn).

In any case, the point to note is that the evil creator God of Catharism can't possibly be the all-loving creator God of conventional Christianity. The two are fundamentally opposed. Or at least, insofar as the Vatican thought the two Gods WERE the same, they regarded the Cathar account a blasphemy of the most heinous type: hence, their crusades (read slaughter) of the Cathars.

Therein lies the crux of the matter. What theists really mean when they say "they're all one God" is "My God's the true God, and other religions worship corruptions of His true image." I find such patronising self-certainty just as bad as the type that says, "You're God's false, and that's the end of the story".

However grim the proposition it seems to me that the Cathar God was a vast intellectual improvement on the Christian God. At least the Cathars didn't try to shirk the Problem of Evil with dodgy appeals to freewill, the devil, or the Wrath of God in response to human sin.

Other Comments by oisha

18. Comment #81853 by oisha on October 25, 2007 at 9:52 am

Of course, when I say I find such patronising self-certainty just as bad as the type that says "Your God's false", I don't mean to suggest that agnosticism is the logical position - I'm quite happy to say that I'm convinced the Christian God is false.

What I meant to imply was that there's something hypocritical about religious people who make similar claims.

At least the atheist can back up his position with well-reasoned argument. Ask a religious person why all other Gods are false and they'll stutter into silence for one of two reasons:

Either they've accepted that all other Gods are false on the basis of faith and authority, or the more savvy among them realise that their arguments of logic are just as unforgiving towards their own God.

Other Comments by oisha

19. Comment #81856 by cebolla on October 25, 2007 at 9:59 am

I like Harris's (paraphrasing) "There are so many religions and sub divisions of those religions,and only one can be right that,statistically you have to accept that youre going to hell"

Other Comments by cebolla

20. Comment #81858 by oisha on October 25, 2007 at 10:00 am

Alternatively, when people say that all gods are the same god, it may quite easily be the case that they're not all that certain that the religion they were born into is the correct one, but that they're simply comforted by the thought that "someone or something is somewhere out there and I don't care what form it takes as long as I'm not alone and this isn't all there is, but presumably he's good and a good God wouldn't care what specificities I assigned to him so long as I believe in something and am a good person". But this kind of thinking just sounds as wishful as ever.

Other Comments by oisha

21. Comment #81877 by Rtambree on October 25, 2007 at 10:33 am

OK then, define your God (with justification as to why THAT God and not some other God) and I'll criticise Him. And may He strike me down, right here, right now, if I speak falsely.

Other Comments by Rtambree

22. Comment #81882 by alexmzk on October 25, 2007 at 10:44 am

if you do not believe in God as described in the Bible - warts and all - then perhaps you are not as Christian as you thought you were? perhaps your God is some vague arbitrary construction for which you lack even the paltry evidence of Scripture to justify His(?) existence?

Other Comments by alexmzk

23. Comment #81888 by clunkclickeverytrip on October 25, 2007 at 11:02 am

Comment #81426 "Autophenomenological solipsism won't get you laid."

It won't make you blind either.

Other Comments by clunkclickeverytrip

24. Comment #82033 by dark_matter on October 25, 2007 at 3:05 pm

On this question the atheists and theists are in agreement on one point: that God is some sort of a "being" about which either the attribute of "existence" or "non-existence" applies. But what if the two sides have it equally wrong: what if God is not a "being" at all -- unconfined by space, time, causality, and the law of the excluded middle?

The implications of this may be embodied in a different approach to religion - perhaps something more in the direction of Zen or Baha'i than the traditional Abrahamic religions.

The substantive responses I've seen here are some variation on the following: 1) this is just a maneuver to put the topic beyond rational debate; 2) this may be a minority opinion but what matters are the 99% of religionists who believe otherwise; or 3) such a God would be irrelevant anyway so who cares.

But none of these arguments hit home: Just because an idea is not common, or because it might be used as a dodge, or because it is inconvenient to talk about concretely, does not mean that it cannot in the end be an accurate description of reality--or at least as accurate as, say, the mapping of a spherical surface onto a sheet of paper, which involves unavoidable distortions and tears. And while such a notion of "God" could be consistent with a naturalistic picture of the universe, and thus strictly speaking be irrelevant to say physics or biology, it would not necessarily be irrelevant to how we see our own existence in the grand scheme of things, and thus how we choose to live our lives.

Other Comments by dark_matter

25. Comment #82064 by Mewtwo_X on October 25, 2007 at 3:54 pm

"That's the god you've presented to me. Perhaps you aren't explaining him well?"

Other Comments by Mewtwo_X

26. Comment #82071 by michael1 on October 25, 2007 at 4:13 pm

When speaking to christians inparticular it is vital to begin debate by doing what comment #2 suggests: asking them to define what they mean by 'god'. As many of you may have found, this simple request will usually occupy most of the discussion as christians tend to believe in a range of definitions of their creator, such is the nature of a sectarian belief system. For many this will be the first time anyone, other than themselves, have questioned their most basic belief and their response is usually quite enlightening to non believers as it, invariably, will soon become apparent that they know very little about their own traditions and beliefs. If they, as most do, believe that god is omniescent, omnipotent and omnipresent then it is quite easy to use their own bible to refute these claims as there are numerous intances within the text which contradict this belief: Genesis 3:9 & 11:5 or Job 1:7 just off the top of my head. Using their own sacred scripture can sometimes be a more effective debating strategy than just plain old fashioned logic, for obvious reasons. I must say here that if atheists do engage believers in religious debate it is a good idea to know a thing or two about their relgion and its origins. It doesn't take much effort to learn some key biblical contradictions/history and can have a tremendous effect particularly with the tepid casual believer. It is perhaps the worst kept secret that most christians have absolutely no clue as to the origins and specifics of their faith and therefore when confronted will react, sometimes infuriatingly, by burying their head in the sand until you go away or relying on the age old cop out of 'well that's just what i believe' to avoid having to publicly acknowledge their adherence to fallacy. Not surprising really, if i worshipped a half naked man nailed to a piece of wood I'd probably be a bit embarrassed once the wool was pulled from my eyes.
It is important to always keep them defining their beliefs and insist that they verify them using scripture. This is the easiest way to expose the utter nonsense that is contained in the text and move the discussion from 'my god isn't like that' to 'why do you believe in this rubbish?'. This can also be a very effective tactic with theologians as they, in order to appear intelligent and rational, have to move the debate as far away from a scriptural basis as possible and into the realms of grandiose religious theory. Once they proclaim to be using logical reasoning, which (amazingly) they frequently do, any reference to the litany of illogical and contradictory biblical passages will expose their window dressed arguments for what they are. Of course we must also always insist that they confirm that god is infallable and that the bible is the authoritative word of god. Agreeing to these two beliefs is a guarantee that your debate will at least be factually and logically successful. Unfortunately, as we all know, the faithful have an uncanny ability to ignore the most obvious truth to protect their fragile beliefs from such absurdities as logic, facts and common sense.
So when a christian insists 'that's not my god your criticising' ask THEM a bit about this god they believe in. THEY are the one's making the incredible claims and therefore THEY have the burden of proof, so make THEM prove it. Reason will triumph every time.

Other Comments by michael1

27. Comment #82196 by kurtdenke on October 25, 2007 at 8:50 pm

I think that most people's faith is actually so nebulous and ill-defined that it's a good idea, when arguing about gods, to try to get them to indicate at the outset just what they do believe, e.g., gods answer prayers, crackers turn into the physical bodies of gods when blessed, gods do physical miracles, etc.

My suspicion is that most theists actually believe these things. But ask them about it, put them on the spot, and they all metamorphose into modern liberal theologians whose concept of god is so nebulous that it cannot possibly be reasoned about or even coherently described. Marcus Borg has assimilated them, and now their defenses adapt to every assault that reason can mount.

So the "answer" in most cases is to be sure to get the definition of god early in the discussion.

When I DO meet people who actually hold painfully nebulous notions of the divine, I honestly don't know what to say to them. Attacking their silly divinities seems almost cruel; they're trying to hang on to a pathetic scrap of a belief in Santa Claus, even if they have to admit that he doesn't physically exist, doesn't bring presents, doesn't say ho-ho-ho (or anything else), and can't be seen, touched, sensed, or known about in any way (but is, of course, vitally real in some way which is very hard to get at). I try to convey the view that I personally couldn't ever believe in a god that couldn't at least be described well enough so that I'd know her if I met her.

Other Comments by kurtdenke

28. Comment #83191 by Mysturji on October 29, 2007 at 8:14 am

Your god is no different from any of the millions of others invented by people over the millenia

Other Comments by Mysturji

29. Comment #83362 by lpetrich on October 29, 2007 at 7:53 pm

I'd also ask such people why they seem so happy to let the fundies and extremists be the public face of their religion. Where's their outrage at how the fundies claim to speak for all Xianity or Islam or whatever?

They also sometimes claim that they represent some silent majority. But if a silent majority prefers to stay silent, then it is letting itself become irrelevant.

In fact, I sometimes wonder if such apologists are being hired by the fundies to run interference for them. It's certainly convenient for those fundies.

Other Comments by lpetrich

30. Comment #83986 by ericross on November 1, 2007 at 12:47 am

This claim is deployed as a smokescreen when the believer's religion or God has been exposed as silly, pernicious, or both. It is designed to give the believer license to dismiss the atheist's argument with one grand wave of the hand. It also intends to deflect attention from the fact that either (a) the believer's religion/God has, in fact, been fairly, if unflatteringly, represented; (b) the believer's religion/God is slightly different, but not a whole lot less silly and/or pernicious; or (c) the believer's religion/God is so vague as to have little or no concrete content.

If you identify as a Christian/Jew/Muslim, you are not free to define your own God. Your God has already been defined by the Bible or Koran, and this is the God to which the atheist refers. If you insist on redefining God, then at least be intellectually honest enough to stop calling yourself a Christian/Jew/Muslim; stop attending church/synagogue/mosque; and admit that no scripture, and probably very few people, support your position.

Other Comments by ericross

31. Comment #84239 by dawson on November 1, 2007 at 1:39 pm

Much more common to hear is, "But those guys aren't TRUE Christians." This is the Christian's shield, and it's easy for many criticisms to bounce right off of it. Ironically, the hundreds of different denominations make it impossible for Christianity to attain the cohesiveness and strength to exert the real control that Christians think they have. Thank goodness.

When confronted with this argument, it's difficult to refute. But it is important to point out that the basic tenent is the same among all believers; belief that Jesus Christ is God and died for our sins. A Christian will be very hesitant to entertain the idea that, even though his denomination is the one that has it right, all the rest just might go to Hell. We can point out that regardless of what the differences are (Eucharist, baptism, good deeds, personal fallacies, etc), all Christians receive salvation. Thus the many differences are rendered moot and the shield is rendered impotent. If the Christian argues that, indeed, most Christians are false Christians and will go to Hell, then you have to admit that's good news and there's no point in having to argue with that person any more.

Other Comments by dawson

32. Comment #84248 by Lauregon on November 1, 2007 at 2:20 pm

if you identify as a Christian/Jew/Muslim, you are not free to define your own God. Your God has already been defined by the Bible or Koran, and this is the God to which the atheist refers. If you insist on redefining God, then at least be intellectually honest enough to stop calling yourself a Christian/Jew/Muslim; stop attending church/synagogue/mosque; and admit that no scripture, and probably very few people, support your position. - Ericross

Excellent!

Other Comments by Lauregon

33. Comment #84391 by anonquick on November 2, 2007 at 1:08 am

The Gist: Your God is man-made. There are as many Gods as they are people. Let's talk about 5 specific things.

What are the five things that every Christian believes but is really quite sick?

E.G. Do you have to believe in him? Does that mean you think your son or wife is going to hell (if they don't believe?)

Go through famous good people like Einstein(?) does the debater think they are in hell?

Better - nobel prize winners for peace or medicine that are non-christian.

Other Comments by anonquick

34. Comment #84781 by Elentar on November 3, 2007 at 2:39 pm

The most common form of this argument is bait-and switch deism. In this argument, the theist argues for the existence of an entity above space and time who is incomprehensible to us, in an attempt to get us to answer that, yes, such a being is possible, and would lie outside of the realm of science.

But this is only the vaguest and most nebulous conception of a Deistic God, and this is almost never what they believe in. This is not the God of the Bible, or the Torah, or the Koran, or any other religion. There is just not enough there to form a religion around, which is why deists usually hang out with atheists. You can't even call this entity God, or even say that it exists in the usual sense.

What they are trying to do is get your agreement to the existence of something without defining what it is. Get them to say what their God is. Of course, for any written argument, you can't do this, and they can always play this card. If their argument is presented in an article, or a formal debate, it will usually take the form of this bait-and-switch: first eliciting agreement on the part of the listener or reader that some X exists, and then slowly backfilling the definition of X.

Other Comments by Elentar

35. Comment #85929 by Andrei on November 7, 2007 at 1:50 pm

If that's not YOUR God or Religion I'm criticizing, then what are you complaining about?

In fact, you should be grateful to me for wanting to get rid of the false prophets and not-true followers of YOUR religion. Care to join me in my noble quest?

Other Comments by Andrei

36. Comment #90703 by BorisCvek on November 26, 2007 at 7:12 am

God is not mine or yours. God is the Absolute that doesnt depend on our ideas or on our criticism. We dont know anything about what the God is (so called "negative theology" - an orthodox theology) - we have only the way, the faith, the trust, the hope, the mysteries. Good example of Christianity is, in my view, Thomas a Kempis or John of the Cross. Maybe the most important thing in Christianity is the humility - towards God, but also towards people (e.g. we cannot condemn anyone, because this is not job of man, but job of the God).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_%C3%A0_Kempis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_the_Cross

Other Comments by BorisCvek

37. Comment #90707 by steve99 on November 26, 2007 at 7:27 am

We dont know anything about what the God is

Then it is somewhat rash to even consider that a God exists.

Other Comments by steve99

38. Comment #90712 by Bonzai on November 26, 2007 at 7:33 am

You can believe in whatever God you like, just don't tell us you have sound reason to do so and try to push it on the rest of society. To paraphrase Pink Floyd, "Preacher, leave the kids alone", and spare the adults too.

Other Comments by Bonzai

39. Comment #90745 by BorisCvek on November 26, 2007 at 8:47 am

Then it is somewhat rash to even consider that a God exists.

Boris: Of course... that is a great question what does the word "exist" mean when it is said "God exists" or "God doesnt exist". I would like to call your attention to Buber´s philosophy.

Other Comments by BorisCvek

40. Comment #90753 by black wolf on November 26, 2007 at 9:12 am

that is a great question what does the word "exist" mean when it is said "God exists" or "God doesnt exist".

While you're at it, how do you define 'doesn't'? And what do the spaces in between your words actually mean?

Other Comments by black wolf

41. Comment #90756 by black wolf on November 26, 2007 at 9:17 am

According to Buber, God exists as a manifestation of a relationship with God driven by the urge to build a relationship with God. Ye Olde Mindefuk, Horatio.

Other Comments by black wolf

42. Comment #90766 by BorisCvek on November 26, 2007 at 9:55 am

I think you underestimate Buber´s concept of "YOU". Buberian thinking on God is based on this concept. / I am not sure if the aim of our discussion is to reject entire western philosophy because anyone can say about anything: "This is a silly idea!" This is the question if atheists want to hate anything different, it means almost entire European culture, or if they want to study and to listen their partners in the debate. / Regarding definitions... this is a good point! Scientific definitions are instrumental, mathematic definitions (if they are not platonic as believed Russell or Godel) are conventional (as I believe) - but definitions in our life? I think life is much more than definitions (and the God is involved in the life, not in the science or theory).

Other Comments by BorisCvek

43. Comment #90767 by steve99 on November 26, 2007 at 9:57 am

I think life is much more than definitions (and the God is involved in the life, not in the science or theory).

Over the centuries we have seen life defined ever more precisely by science and theory. Where is God in this?

Other Comments by steve99

44. Comment #90777 by BorisCvek on November 26, 2007 at 10:11 am

Over the centuries we have seen life defined ever more precisely by science and theory. Where is God in this?

Boris: I am afraid that you talk about life as THING.... but I mean life as something what is lived by human beings (cf. existentialism). Let me cite Eddington´s Messenger Lecture:

Sir A. Eddington: New Pathways in Science, Cambridge at the University Press 1947, page 324):

„There are two factors which, it seems to me, explain the comparative success of the mathematician. In the first place the mathematician is the professional wielder of symbols; he can deal with unknown quantities and even unknown operations. Clearly he is the man to help us to sift a little knowledge from a vast unknown. But the main reason why the mathematician has beaten his rivals is that we have allowed him to dictate the terms of the competition. The fate of every theory of the universe is decided by a numerical test. Does the sum come out right? I am not sure that the mathematician understands this world of ours better than the poet and the mystic. Perhaps it is only that he is better at sums."

Other Comments by BorisCvek

45. Comment #117284 by decster on January 28, 2008 at 1:43 pm

Yes it is, its just wrapped in a different package.

Other Comments by decster

46. Comment #118547 by ChinUp on January 30, 2008 at 6:46 pm

it is the nature of a theist to presume the word god is invoking a deity.

When i hear a person use the word god it is only to evoke. You may use it to evoke deities but that is not the norm.

How much the word god appears in print should not effect how you think about it on the whole ..

Other Comments by ChinUp

47. Comment #124749 by oisha on February 10, 2008 at 6:38 am

I recently came across this response, which I thought trounced them all. Surprisingly it came from a person of faith, Irshad Manji, a prominent critic of Islam and a muslim herself. Manji is one of those rare moderates who recognises the part that moderates must play if religion's dangerous excesses are to be thwarted - that part begins with taking responsibility for the bad, and not just the good. She is speaking in an Islamic context but her comments are perhaps instructive to people of faith everywhere:

"The trouble with Islam today is that literalism is going mainstream, worldwide.

You’ll want to assure me that what I’m describing isn’t “true� Islam. I hope you’re right. That’s why I’m writing this open letter - because I believe that we Muslims are capable of being more thoughtful and humane than most of our clerics give us credit for. But for the sake of an honest discussion, I have to challenge you to come clean about the Islam you reflexively defend. Is this Islam in its real form or Islam as ideal. Communism is egalitarian as an ideal. Capitalism is fair as an ideal. The United States Constitution guarantees liberty and justice for all, as an ideal. Muslims know that the reality is very different. As people of conscience, we have to address Islam’s realities too.

I think Prophet Muhammad would have embraced this distinction between the real and the ideal. When he was asked to define religion, he reportedly replied that religion is the way we conduct ourselves toward others. A fine definition - simple without being simplistic. And yet, by that definition, how we Muslims behave, not in theory but in actuality, is Islam. It also means the power is ours to restore Islam’s better angels: those who care about the human rights of women and minorities. To do that, though, we have to snap out of our denial. By insisting that there’s nothing the matter with Islam today, we’re sweeping the reality of our religion under the rug of Islam as an ideal, thereby absolving ourselves of responsibility for our fellow human beings, including our fellow Muslims."

Hence, if it's not your religion that we atheists are criticising, then you know what you can do about it. Petition your Pope, telling him he's a piss-poor representative when, “as God’s representative on Earth�, he tells AIDS-stricken Africa that condoms are sinful - a move which Sam Harris has described as "genocidally stupid". When the ID lobby tries to have creationism taught in the classroom, maybe you could be the first to knock at the school principal's door in protest. When a Jerry Falwell or a Ted Haggard or a friend in your congregation says that homosexuality is sin/unnatural/wrong, you could be the first to reprimand them for their homophobic discrimination. When Christian parents teach Bible stories as fact (such as Adam and Eve or the flood story), even though they are demonstrably false, then maybe you could put them right and advise them against indoctrinating their children into fairytales. Then, just maybe, we atheists might stop criticising a religion which you claim is not yours. When enough Irshad Manjis and Luther Kings rise up and change their religions from within (rather than saying “not my religion, not my problem�) then maybe we won’t have cause to complain anymore.

Other Comments by oisha

48. Comment #130279 by martino on February 20, 2008 at 8:02 am

I am criticizing only those who use false beliefs to cause harm in this world. Bad people do bad things but it takes religion for good people to do bad things. If you are willing to criticize and condemn such and all religions that do this then fine, if not then you are complicit in these harms.

Other Comments by martino

49. Comment #173163 by Sugaree on April 30, 2008 at 1:14 pm

I've come across "liberal" theists who define "their" God as "love" and "life energy" (whatever that is supposed to mean) respectively. These definitions reduce the omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent and eternal being to just one aspect and thus rob him/her/it of most of his/her/its conceivable divine qualties. Defining one's very own special, personal God equals creating him/her/it in that context. And lo and behold: the atheist and the theist have arrived at the same point in the debate: God is man-made.

Other Comments by Sugaree

50. Comment #182352 by moneybags on May 19, 2008 at 8:10 pm

I find that quite often Sugaree. A shape shifting god is difficult to pin down, until they try to describe it. Ask the theist to describe their god, its a question they don't really like at all.

I once heard someone say they believed in god, and went on to say it could be a ball of energy. Fine I said, I would say you believe in a ball of energy. Also, if god is that, on what basis do you know this? You have access to some vast reservoir of knowledge no scientist has yet tapped thats for sure, so please indulge us...

Other Comments by moneybags