1. Comment #6558 by Randy Ping on November 14, 2006 at 9:26 pm

The part about home schooling really drives home the point. We have to stop this insanity.

2. Comment #6578 by goddogit on November 15, 2006 at 1:51 am

Since when has standard journalism NOT been about running with the most hackneyed stereotype as long as the public is willing to put up with it?

Never.

3. Comment #6598 by RichYork on November 15, 2006 at 3:57 am

I think that the tone of some leading atheists is becoming more strident. This is not unexpected for a minority group but they would do well to debate in a factual a manner where they can and with more humility where they are out on a limb. Otherwise they will expose themselves to ridicule.

4. Comment #6600 by Anonymous on November 15, 2006 at 4:12 am

Charlene, I have looked at many sites like AG. They are a joke and easily shot down. it makes claims that scripoture is the only reliable dating method. They present no evidence. Their claims on radiocardon dating are refutable, and lead dating of the earh is valid. No one has found soft tissue cells in T.rex. What has been found is FOSSILISED bone marrow. The ichthyosaur proves nothing other than it died a couple of hundred million years ago in the act of birth, and became fossilised. You have done no research. Stop assuming christians are the only enlightened ones - any way, you seem in no position to jugde scientific data for yourself. you are only respouting easily refutable nonsence. However, the bible is pretty good evidence against itself. you however are not objective enough to see that.

5. Comment #6602 by Steve on November 15, 2006 at 4:25 am

Charlene,

This is all fine and dandy, but why should I believe that the Bible IS the word of God?

It is only some fallible humans that are telling me this. If the same thing that made the Universe also wrote this book we might expect the two things to be consistent in style and content. Why aren't they?

6. Comment #6611 by Anonymous on November 15, 2006 at 5:23 am

Steve, her is an obvious error in the bible (somewhere around gen 5 from memory) God says that people will live no more than 120 years. People HAVE lived longer than that,
Here is one with a significant effevt on theology (a non valid prophecy)
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/pierce.html

Oh yes, the old greek version of the old testament had methusela surviving the flood. The king james version still contains numerical errors

7. Comment #6617 by Steve on November 15, 2006 at 5:48 am

The first line, in the Hebrew, reads

"In the beginning Gods (Elohim, pl.) created the heavens and the Earth"

It is only translated ""God", sing., because otherwise the Bible would not support one God, i.e monotheism.

Hence the "convention" that this particular grammatical plural actually is a singular.

... and we are supposed to take this book seriously?

8. Comment #6620 by Roger Stanyard on November 15, 2006 at 6:28 am

Re Charlene's Preaching

Sometimes I wonder what planet religious fundamentalists live on.

Charelene posts religious fundamentalist extremism in a forum that is hostile to religion and, no doubt, utterly fails to see the irony and stupidity in doing so.

Let's put it simply. Books like The God Delusion and Sam Harris's Letter to a Christian Nation are selling like hot cakes because of the crackpottery being pushed by the clowns at the Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International.

There's a big backlash again religion because of the antics of creationists (notice how Charlene makes no mention of Ted Haggard or "Bent" Kent Hovind.)

Jeez, the AiG clowns in the UK have been pushing UFOs and the hocus pocus that dinosaurs roamed the British countryside in Tudor times.

Charlene is the very reason why more and more people are turning hostile to religion. Preaching extreme creationism in this forum is about as daft as sending invites to a Ku Klux Klan meeting to black people.

Charlene is the classic example of a creationist pathlogically incapable of not shooting themselves in the foot.

Thank you for showing us all how stupid creationists are.

Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education

9. Comment #6623 by Skeptic Jim on November 15, 2006 at 6:40 am

Yes AIG is a joke. Full of lies and deception designed to trick the uneducated.

The best site debunking AIG is this one...

No Answers In Genesis...
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/default.htm

10. Comment #6624 by Jack Rawlinson on November 15, 2006 at 6:41 am

I am convinced that most of you have come to the conclusions that you have because you are trying to be cool and cosmopolitan in this so called "post modern age.

You say that like you think being cool and cosmopolitan is a bad thing!

11. Comment #6629 by Yorker on November 15, 2006 at 7:14 am

Religion was invented to keep us in order, its controllers are well aware that the power of science and its ability to help humankind, is increasingly threatening the grip they have on the largely uneducated mass of believers. Home schooling is therefore an obvious way to undermine the advance of science and breed more easily manipulated sheep whose ability to think critically and independently, has been stifled as much as possible. Indeed, to achieve complete success, their goal must be complete eradication of independent thought.

I find it difficult to imagine anything having a more evil and deleterious societal effect than this doctrine would have. The long-term effects for the USA (or any country adopting it) would be catastrophic; medical, and all forms of scientific research would come to a standstill; sane people would be forced to seek asylum in countries where reason still prevailed. The rest of the world would look upon the USA as the world backwoods, populated by supreme hypocrites living in a dream.

The hypocritical nay-sayers of scientific evidence will still use and retain all that science has given them so far however, especially weaponry; with a religious fanatic in charge, they would endanger the existence of humankind. It's not all gloomy of course; the many good American scientists in their new host countries would be able to carry out unhindered research and we sane people would benefit as a result. Eventually we would have to solve the problem the USA would pose, after the failure of Jesus to show up, there would be a load of "rapture" believers pissed off at their continued earthly existence, trying to get their president to press the nuclear trigger in order to "assist" the Lord with Armageddon.

Could the unthinkable happen? Will the day come when the people of the secular world must unite and in the name of humanity, not God, eradicate by force the deluded ones?

I certainly hope not, but current trends bring the possibility closer.

Much has been recently made of the perceived need to replace religion with something else even if we got rid of it. I see no such need. I have lived my entire life without it and so have many others, children are born without it; clearly, nature has decreed it superfluous to human requirements. Certainly, a void would be left if we ditched it tomorrow, but it won't happen that way. We need to stop it spreading, just like we would stop the spread of any other contagious disease, only the vaccination of true education for children would be required, given that, religion would die by itself.

I cling to the optimistic hope that about 120 years from now it will all be over. In that cosmically-short span of time the billions of present-day god-crazed humans will no longer exist; their lives will have been for naught, a total waste, a hindrance not a help, to their species.

In the USA, wise citizens must unite and speak out against this home-schooling nonsense. Here in the UK, we must be much more vociferous in our condemnation of the rise in privately-backed faith schools. Dawkins has said that getting atheists to unite is like herding cats, but we are humans and know that strength lies in numbers. So just for this noble and crucial endeavour, let us unite like intelligent sheep against this oppression, once the battle is won, we can go back to being cats again.

12. Comment #6630 by Roy on November 15, 2006 at 7:17 am

I have a lovely answer for those evangelicals that believe that every word of the bible is true.
The story of Noah's ark? did you know there are 250,000 species of beetle?

13. Comment #6631 by Steve on November 15, 2006 at 7:20 am

Billy Sands,

Yes, noted. There really isn't time to pull the whole thing to pieces in a forum like this one but it really can be done, as I'm sure must of us are aware.

I've just finished reading this one
http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=052161824X
which is very sound.


It is interesting that the book itself is twisted and re-interpreted to give the required meaning. The Bible is just as badly treated as science in this respect.

14. Comment #6632 by Anonymous on November 15, 2006 at 7:20 am

Nice link skeptic jim

AIG sshould be renamed Assenine Idiotic Godbotherers

15. Comment #6636 by Randy Ping on November 15, 2006 at 7:49 am

Whoo! Three Cheers for Roger!
Couldn't have said it better.

16. Comment #6653 by Roy on November 15, 2006 at 8:56 am

I notice Charlene's comment on Noah's ark:-
Genesis 6:14 - 15
"Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch. And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits. "
Noah's ark is 450 feet long. The largest wooden ships ever built were just over 300 feet, and they required diagonal iron strapping for support. Even so, they leaked so badly that they had to be pumped constantly. Are we to believe that Noah, with no shipbuilding knowledge, was able to construct a wooden ship longer than any that has been built since? but not only was the ark too big to be seaworthy, it was far too small to be able to contain the earth's millions of plant and animal species.

17. Comment #6654 by Cineaste on November 15, 2006 at 9:02 am

Charlene,

Creationists have also concluded that the moon is made of cheese.

18. Comment #6657 by CF1 on November 15, 2006 at 9:16 am

Charlene Charlene Charlene. I request that you spend some time on the following two sites:

www.godisimaginary.com

www.whywontgodhealamputees.com

I used to parrot exactly like you - for a quarter of a century in fact. I woke up.

19. Comment #6658 by kelphis on November 15, 2006 at 9:18 am

29

what difference does it make if science doesnt have an answer? Does that mean that we should just make one up? Or should we have temporary answers that explain the unknown until science can present a possible solution?

20. Comment #6665 by Roy on November 15, 2006 at 9:42 am

CF1
I often go into those sites you mention
"I used to parrot exactly like you - for a quarter of a century in fact. I woke up"
I am at the moment reading Sam Harris's 'The End of Faith'.( Which I recommend wholeheartedly to anyone who has not read it yet) There is actually a comment on the front cover by Richard Dawkins:-
"Read Sam Harris and wake up"

21. Comment #6675 by Anonymous on November 15, 2006 at 10:17 am

re 36

I am quite aware that atheists don't have all the answers, which is kind of my point. Atheists are in the same category as theist - the only difference is one side precludes the possibility of a creator i.e. they don't "believe" in a creator while the other does. Both are belief systems and are so far un-provable. I personally just don't know and therefore refuse to rule out possibilities.

22. Comment #6682 by Curious on November 15, 2006 at 10:51 am

45

One the one hand you say atheists are open minded, on the other as an atheist you know there is no creator. This is an inconsistent position.

You know there is no God, a theist knows that there is. Both are dogmatic positions.

23. Comment #6690 by Curious on November 15, 2006 at 11:17 am

47

The link that brought me to this site was located on KurzweilAI.net. Kurzweil shows that at the rate and acceleration of technological advancement we will enter a point he calls the "Singularity". One possible singularity event is the development of artificial intelligence, which could lead to intelligences several order of magnitude above human. To humans these would seem "godlike" in their abilities. In some ways this could be considered an existence proof...

24. Comment #6696 by Alan on November 15, 2006 at 11:30 am

I, unfortunately, agree with Davin. I hold little hope that humanity will ever break from the emotional and psychological shackles of religious delusions.

The wonders of the universe and the unlimited variety and beauty of nature, and knowing that one is a fleeting, infinitesimal speck in its 14 billion year evolution, will only ever appeal and satisfy a small percentage of us. The rest simply lack the courage and emotional maturity to be both humbled and inspired by its awesome splendor. Instead, they cower behind transparent fairy-tales and self-justifying dogma.

Tragically, this level of religious ignorance, with its inherent and quite powerful survival mechanisms firmly entrenched, threatens us all. There is nothing more danger than a delusional mind wielding technologically powerful destructive tools, armored with the "divine" inspiration to kill.

25. Comment #6711 by Randy Ping on November 15, 2006 at 12:05 pm

Science may never have every single tiny detail of evolution mapped and catalogued, true. But we now have enough information to know how it most certainly did NOT happen, it did not happen in 6 days, 6k years ago by a god breathing onto a lump of dirt or by some cosmic multifaceted godhead materbating into a void.

26. Comment #6720 by CF1 on November 15, 2006 at 12:36 pm

Quote from Asdf: It seems to me that the majority of us humans are followers, something we in general are probably genetically predisposed to.


Funny you should mention that. For a good number of years I have felt (and observed) that the vast majority of humans tend to want a LEADER of some sort. Throw a group of people together, and they invariably will quickly go to work on deciding who is going to be the leader. You can see this on TV. Watch any early episode of "Survivor" and there they go, choosing a leader figure for the tribe.

When you become aware of this habit of ours, it is actually entertaining to observe it play out.

It is difficult not to picture a church full of sheep - er....people, who sit there in a neat collection of rows, all looking forward to some dufus who is somehow going to "lead" them.

He, of course, is a junior leader under the big imaginary leader in the sky.

I wonder if it is the lack of this tendency in some of us (to seek a leader), that predisposes us to face the world "square and true" as RD puts it, and as a result, we don't get polluted with the silly warped & twisted stuff of religion.

Hmmmmm.

27. Comment #6722 by Curious on November 15, 2006 at 12:44 pm

From a statistical point of view a probability is the relative possibility that an event will occur as expressed by the ratio of the number of actual occurrences to the total number of possible occurrences. Or the relative frequency with which an event occurs or is likely not to occur.

Based on that how does one assign a probability to the possibility of the existence of God?

28. Comment #6727 by Manfred on November 15, 2006 at 12:53 pm

Phlogiston
A friend of mine once told me that flu vaccines should be denied to those who don't believe in evolution. ;) He was kidding of course.

But you have pointed out a very important issue. Science education is not adequate. Not only in the US, but also in many many countries around the world (think Muslim countries). Children are not presented with all the facts, therefore they cannot be brought up to be free thinkers. Religious parents, teachers, clergies of all sorts, governments, etc. who themselves are the fruits of the same education system have the only say in children's learning. I think it all goes back to education.

"If your belief is based on faith, you will realize that argument is useless, and will therefore resort to [some] persecution or by stunting and distorting the minds of the young in what is called 'education.' This last is peculiarly dastardly since it takes advantage of the defencelessness of immature minds. Unfortunately it is practiced in a greater or less degree in the schools of every civilized country." [Bertrand Russell]

29. Comment #6728 by Jonathan Dore on November 15, 2006 at 12:54 pm

69

"Based on that how does one assign a probability to the possibility of the existence of God?"

Funnily enough, Richard Dawkins has just written a book on the subject. It's called "The God Delusion". Why not read it and find out?

30. Comment #6732 by Manfred on November 15, 2006 at 1:04 pm

Quite right Billy.
Existence and non-existence of God are NOT equi-probable.

31. Comment #6738 by Steve on November 15, 2006 at 1:17 pm

OK

Observed occurences of God events = 0.

Observed occurrence of some other events = not zero

Therefore

Probability = 0

Unless more data is forthcoming, of course.

Sorry to put it so bluntly.

32. Comment #6741 by Anonymous on November 15, 2006 at 1:26 pm

85.

"This is a typical christian tactic of nit picking"

I find this typical of Atheists - jumping to conclusions that have not yet been proven factual. Where do you find the evidence that I am Christian?

33. Comment #6742 by Anonymous on November 15, 2006 at 1:29 pm

84

"Observed occurrence of some other events = not zero"

What "other events" do you refer to?

34. Comment #6748 by Anonymous on November 15, 2006 at 1:37 pm

89

"Muslims etc. do not believe in your God, that is why."

Which God is My God? I have not claimed that a God exists, just that an intelligence that is several order of magnitudes above human is possible - and that such an intelligence would seem "godlike" to human level.

35. Comment #6752 by godma on November 15, 2006 at 1:44 pm

I hope you all are sending these (the best ones, anyway) also to Charlene's e-mail. It's entirely possible that she's not reading these comments.

36. Comment #6778 by goddogit on November 15, 2006 at 2:57 pm

The most tired tricks are trotted out again and again by the theists - most especially super-naturalist Christians (I will simply ignore as non^entities the pseudo-religious, "born-again" Xians) - despite the fact that, without their bringing a "Porky's 2" mob with them to shout down any responses, no one falls for their fool's mate strategies.
This thread sees the most ancient fossil yet brought to light: "atheists are as dogmatic (meaning more dogmatic, meaning wring) than the god-believers!"
I mean, honestly (whoops! I didn't mean to use a word sure to offend the "religious" posting here!), ah, really, this silly obfuscation is, if anything is, beneath you!
Dear dogmatic, generally very childish and vain theists, provide us with the evidence, meaning non-anecdotal, objective evidence, that necessitates that most elusive of mythical characters you claim as real. You cannot, and the heat that the debate here sometimes reaches is exactly because you know quite well you cannot, but you demand others bow before your inner experience or, much worse, your brand of indoctrination.
As I believe any atheist would agree (how odd that is!) you may believe and live according to the wildest mythology you can find, even Scientology, but even if you have a working majority of votes the nature of reality is the same, even if you bring back stoning and burning, and the only god you will ever find will be those Prof. Dawkins already allows, Einstein's or highly-evolved aliens.
Science has explained very, very little in its young life, but despite the deepest wishes of many, and at one time all, of its practitioners, the supernatural, as "outside of nature", has been conclusively disproved.

Oh, the NEXT most tiresome saw on the tattered cheat sheet of the "believer" is the insistence that atheists have to "play nice" and turn the other cheek while being lied to, bullied, and insulted. Xians especially take joy in this one, but I believe every one of the negative reviews of TGD has included it, usually quite openly.

37. Comment #6784 by goddogit on November 15, 2006 at 3:06 pm

Despite the poetry and tradition, the sun does not "rise," and as Bucky Fuller once explained, this can be simply demonstrated.
Now, I know you all (except the Ken Hammite Xians) "know" this, but you might have been clever enough to state it so.

38. Comment #7042 by Russ on November 16, 2006 at 7:45 pm

In post 46. Comment #6682, Curious says,

"You know there is no God, a theist knows that there is. Both are dogmatic positions."

Granted the theistic stance is usually dogmatic in that it was arrived at through accepting ideas that are unsupported, poorly supported or worse, where evidence exists contradicting the ideas. Most often belief in a god flows from the social group in which one is reared. Sometimes people claim to believe for purely emotional reasons - sense of belonging, comfort in time of crisis, that sort of thing.

The atheist position is not, in general, a dogmatic position. I'll use myself as an example.

I am a complete materialist atheist, but until my middle teens, that is, before I had the confidence to look at the world and draw my own conclusions, I at least professed to be a believer. In my circle, it was apparent that non-believers would be left out of activities - ironically, shunned by those professing to love their enemies - so I professed belief. Observing that among believers, the slightest doubt could not be tolerated, I realized that faith is like the spaces created when building a house of cards. If the house starts to fall, the empty space can't support it.

Acceptance of ideas is the result of the nature of one's mind when the idea is presented. A child's mind has essentially no resistance to the ideas posed by authority figures like parents and clergy. Religion comes naturally to children since they are, in fact, taught not to resist the teachings of their adult role models.

Religionists know that the future of religion in general lies in their ability to inculcate children with religious dependencies while they are very young, since very few non-religious people will choose to become religious as adults. If the childhood inculcation goes well, the adult, even if intelligent, will have great difficulty excising those long-held beliefs, even when faced with directly conflicting evidence. Thus, religions must and do prey on the minds of children from the cradle on. Children are never given a choice. For a child, freedom of religion does not exist.

A mature mind, on the other hand, when presented with a new idea can evaluate it for plausibility and possible truth and then decide to accept or reject it. A mature mind cannot be forced to accept any idea for which good evidence does not exist.

Each of us is born an atheist and that should be our default position in the absence of evidence. In my late teens, I decided to start over as an atheist and only adopt a religion if I was convinced of its verifiable truth and benefit for mankind. In thirty five years of earnest consideration, I have not been convinced.

My standard of evidence seems to throw them off: you see, I don't accept as evidence the same things that are accepted by those who are not well informed. I don't accept as evidence anecdotes, dreams, personal revelations, authority, traditions, or personal claims of miracles. These are all subjective. Ancient sacred texts of unknown authorship and questionable relevance to the needs of people today are not evidence.

What would be evidence? A well-conducted controlled study which showed that some supernatural conception, say prayer, could induce a significant deviation from chance. When such studies have been done, they show that prayer has no effect. A recent good example is the Benson study at Harvard which provides sound evidence for believing that intercessory prayer does not work.

Atheist? Yes. Dogmatic? No. Above the door leading to my belief center the small sign reads, "Evidence required for entry." The door is always wide open, but for more than thirty five years religionists have simply walked by.

39. Comment #7242 by Randall on November 17, 2006 at 9:15 pm

Christianity does not advocate creationism. Saying that because creationism is false, God does not exist, is tremendously narrow-minded and fallacious. In fact, those who argue this way are exactly the same as the fundamentalists they so roundly criticize. One uses fundamentalist arguments, such as creationism to say that God exists; one uses these exact same arguments and says that because they are false, God does not exist.

So far everyone on this site who has attempted to disprove God's existence has done so with outmoded or flawed theories, which are not held by the Catholic Church (the only one I can be certain of, as it is the only one I belong to) Many Christians will not change their minds, not because they are narrowminded, because the proof meant to convince them to do so is not proof at all.

If you wish to make progress in this struggle between atheism and belief in God, then pick doctrine-actual, solid, clearly stated doctrine-and argue against that.

40. Comment #7258 by Steve on November 18, 2006 at 12:04 am

"Even the question of God's existence (or the probability of its existence) is so epistemologically devoid of content or meaning as to be not worth answering."

Yes, exactly.

However, various "sacred" texts gives us definitive descriptions of some gods who, it is asserted, exist. We can certainly limit our attentions to those characters as described and dismiss the possibility that they exist.

If believers then squirm around re-defining "god" in some other way it is up the THEM to tell us the new definitions. Otherwise there is no point in having any opinion on them.

41. Comment #7353 by Roy on November 18, 2006 at 10:06 am

I listened to the podcast with interest, especially the last part about "Home Schooling". Talk about the lunatics running the asylum, surely the term "Creation Science" is an oxymoron?
"Now children, that naughty Mr. Einstein was wrong about the speed of light, those stars out there are only 10 feet away, not millions of light years."

42. Comment #7615 by Randall on November 18, 2006 at 10:27 pm

Joad,

Could you explain how "Cogito, ergo sum"-a motto with which I am quite familiar-precludes the existence of God? Why is it impossible for both you and God to exist?

Say we are characters in a video game. We are not constrained to act in any particular way, except by the laws of the universe. If we are being controlled, there is no evidence of it. In other words, within our universe, we have free will because there is no one forcing us to make any particular choices. What, exactly, is wrong with this state of arrangements?

As for Dracula...I have not yet seen proof anywhere that everything the Bible tells us about Jesus is a falsehood. Common sense (quite apart from historical evidence) tells us that this was no ordinary man, and that the miracles attributed to him have at least some basis in actuality.

Where is the evidence, on the other hand, that Dracula can actually do what he claims? Where are the statements of who he is, what he stands for, and what his purpose is? In essence, where are the proofs that he existed and that he was who he says he was.

I admire your creativity; however, if you intend to say that the Bible has the same amount of historical validity as an obviously fictional story, please do so, and then present your proofs.

In response to a previous question...I'm not sufficiently qualified to tell you why God created. I'm not sure anyone is.

43. Comment #7805 by Randall on November 19, 2006 at 12:57 pm

But according to you, video game characters actually do think. "They think they are deciding to go places and do things." In the game, they make decisions and deal with the consequences of them. To them, it is as if they ARE thinking.
You cannot protest that they are "really" video game characters, because to them, the game is reality, and nothing outside it exists. Just because we were created does not mean that we aren't real, yes?

Writing a book doesn't make the contents true because you are creating the essence of the book. The New Testament, the part with which we are concerned when looking at the historicity of Jesus, is not a story that somebody came up with, it is a narrative of a real person's life. It's simply the difference between fiction and nonfiction.

I've heard about the vagaries of Ms. Coulter's books but was vaguely thinking about adding her to my to-read list...I assume you wouldn't recommend them?

44. Comment #11152 by Randall on December 3, 2006 at 11:40 am

Joad,

How cute. Does it truly stand to reason that some early people decided to create a savior called Jesus, invent some miracles and the reasons for them, and then die by torture defending those miracles? Why are there no records of martyrs, facing execution, crying out "I made it all up!"

Mark,

God does not look for most of what you listed. He wants you to act in a certain way because in the end, both you and He will be happier that way, and the world will be better because of it. That seems simple enough, doesn't it?

45. Comment #11720 by sparkie_t on December 6, 2006 at 10:03 pm

Hi Joad

Mark here (user name changed after reg)

A couple of points:

Of course a Christian biblical god doesn't look specifically for these traits in humanity for entry into heaven. However just a basic understanding of different faiths and theologies will show that many different requirements are cited as necessary by religious faithful. For example while one faith requires you just to be compassionate and loving, another requires you to blow yourself up, or not wear a condom in an AIDS ridden society. My point was to use a (tongue in cheek) method to show how ludicrous the idea of heaven is in the face of the evidence of an expanding universe and our position in it.

Secondly the very fact that you took what I said literally (that I really thought the bible teaches you to be cool), shows me the inflexibility of your analytical processes. I suggest you develop your critical analysis skills, as you will find this helps you in matters of spirituality, science, culture, politics, and many other walks of life.

Hope that clears things up.

Sparkie_t (formally known as Mark – well actually still known as Mark, just not here)

Other Comments by sparkie_t

46. Comment #11722 by Vardu on December 6, 2006 at 10:35 pm

As an atheist, I have never claimed that God does not exist, I simply have never been convinced by any of the theistic arguments for the supposed entity's existence.
The one thing I have observed is that, many mysteries that were once attributed to a supernatural God have now been supplanted by completely natural explanations and, for the life of me, I cannot think of one that has gone in the other direction.
In fact, the more we humans learn about the universe and life, the less we credit Gods' intervention within either.
Mind you, belief in God is, obviously, a consoling and comforting belief for many, but that, as Richard Dawkins points out, doesn't make the belief true.

Other Comments by Vardu

47. Comment #11726 by Vardu on December 6, 2006 at 10:57 pm

I don't think anybody deliberately goes about to create a savior by any name, sparkie_t, but certain individuals make claims for themselves and then convince others to believe in them. Geza Vermes has clearly shown that there were many claimants about like Jesus in First Century Palestine, charismatic teachers and leaders who gathered considerable followings. Jesus was just one of them, manifesting, as Anthony Storr points out in his great work, Feet of Clay, all the flaws that are entirely typical, though not universal, of such iconoclastic, and iconified men. They believe themselves to know the truth, usually by personal revelation, and their followers believe them too. They are often dismissive of detractors, derisive and damning. The New Testament, perhaps inadvertently, identifies that this was Jesus' attitude. But this is not surprising. It reveals him merely to be one amongst many cast in the same psychological mould.
The above mentioned Geza Vermes in his own study of Jesus the Jew reveals him to be one of potentially many cast in the same cultural mould.

Other Comments by Vardu

48. Comment #11776 by sparkie_t on December 7, 2006 at 8:56 am

Hi Vardu
Thanks for the reply, I will have to claim ignorance on this Vermes character, but will check it out soon (added to the long list of things I would like to look into).

However I would like to point out that my last comment doesn't say (or imply - you might disagree) that people/societies set out to invent a god or 'create a savior by name'. And as such I am in complete agreement with you, with one added inquiry. Why do the vast majority of societies throughout history (regardless of geographical location, size, ethics, or politics) need to identify with a creator god? I think this is an interesting (maybe even important) question.

Of course even I, a novice in this field, can recognise possible reasons: The need to personify the natural world, or god as a gap in the scientific literature.

'As an atheist, I have never claimed that God does not exist, I simply have never been convinced by any of the theistic arguments for the supposed entity's existence.'

I am curious about this statement, and would like you to expand if you can. Firstly recognizing the inability of both science and theology to ever completely prove/disprove anything, how do you believe in anything? The scientific method, logic, mathematics are all products of humanity, and therefore open to scrutiny, but that doesn't stop us believing certain things as true.

While I think you may be being pragmatic I don't want to put words in your mouth. I hope you will comment on this, as I am interested on this subject and seem to have come to a halt in my head!

Other Comments by sparkie_t