1201. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #14320 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 22, 2006 at 2:51 am

What you need to succeed in this next crusade Peterg123 is a Christian version of the 72 virgins to stiffen up the enthusiam for your campaign.

For 72 virgins I might seriously consider swapping sides.

Also, Islam holds the view that babies that die go straight to heaven. From a pure marketing perspective, in the developing world, this doctrine is a big winner. I'd suggest you guys adopt that one too, if the catholics can "disappear" limbo/purgatory, surely such a change is a doddle?

Don't say we never give you nuthin'!!!:-)

1202. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #13813 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 19, 2006 at 2:03 pm

If you view this life and the world that we see around us with all its problems as the "be all and end all" then your point might have more impact.

That is simply begging the question. What evidence do you have that there is anything more than this? The bible. Why should we beleive the bible? Because it tells us to. Thus you come full circle to your view that "there is more" than this.

Shaun, that is just rubbish. A book of dubious authorship, written thousands of years ago is not evidence. The writers are dead, those recorded in it (if they ever existed) are dead, the witnesses to the miracles are dead. Long dead. It wouldn't even qualify as hearsay in a court of law.

Have you never heard the adage "don't beleive everything you read.". This is exponentially true if the text is thousands of years old, written by God knows who:-)

It is beyond laughable to reply to the observation "the world is a chaotic mess, therefore your omni everything God is a logical fallacy" with the response "Ah .... but this isn't everything, so it'll all be ok in the end".

You see that right? You cannot escape the illogic of god by invoking he/she/it/them:-) ROTFL

1203. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #13787 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 19, 2006 at 12:47 pm

... and glosses over the "difficult" questions as if they either do not exist or are of no consequence.

I was amazed to read this. Honestly Shaun, did all my posts about the incompatibility of gods omnipotence and omnibenevolence just go unread?

Religion is the one with the nightmare of reconciling inconsistent and impossible claims.

God loves us but leaves us all to die, except a choosen few, God made the hummingbird, but he also made the mosquito? God has in the last few thousand years improved tolerance to malaria among africans, while condeming thousands to death from sickle cell anemia?

Come on, grasp when your beaten and leave the field with some dignity.

By the way, italics can be generated with <-i-> and then closed with <-/-i->. However there should be no hyphens, that was just to prevent them activating. For bold, simply replace the i with a b.

1204. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #13757 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 19, 2006 at 9:51 am

It's amusing to watch how you fundamentalist atheists react whenever your faith is attacked.

Faith in what, David? The non-existence of God?

People are annoyed because they have been misrepresented, not because their "faith" has been "impugned". Get used to the atheist lobby, it looks like Dawkins has roused the dragon from it's slumber:-)

If someone where to say that christians eat human flesh, and drink human blood, a not unreasonable misunderstanding given various scriptures and distasteful dogma, I'd be the first to defend you guys. Why can't you be even handed enough to extend us the same courtesy?

Liddle misrepresents the position completely, chapter and verse has been cited where this is the case. Are you so unconvinced of your own position that you don't have the intellectual honesty to admit when something is clearly false?

1205. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #13519 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 18, 2006 at 4:23 am

http://www.letter2ted.org

Nice. Signed it. Poor guy, it really capture the tragedy of his situation.

1206. Kim Hill interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #13517 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 18, 2006 at 4:15 am

By golly!!!! Don't miss out on the follow up interview with the theist. That Kim Hill is a tough interview, she gently and politely eviscerated him and if she is not totally onboard with the Dawkins view, she did a spectacular job of representing it.

She completely OWNED that poor guy. I'll be tuning in to radio new zealand again:-)

1207. Kim Hill interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #13488 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 18, 2006 at 2:09 am

Wow! Good work Kim:-)

Dawkins, Harris et al have given us the tools to drive moderates into the corner where they basically admit that it's all fluffy bollix. Fantastic.

1208. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #13472 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 17, 2006 at 10:57 pm

I fully admit that I am a recent convert to atheism in an active form and this community. I therefore apologise if I am speaking unduly negatively, however having viewed the behaviour of religious people I am hesitant to adopt similar methods merely with an opposing message.

Hi John, welcome to the club:-) It's not a question of being "unduly negative", it's a question of making comments that are supported by reason and evidence.

The bulk of contributors have come to the conclusion that the evidence supports the view that this kind of action is positive. Hence you are getting some blowback, plus atheists/agnostics are just as human, flawed and subjective as the next guy. We do try:-)

The reason I think this is wonderful, is because when I was 14 I spent about 3 months in terror of having inadvertently "blasphemed the holy spirit". It was absolutely traumatic, and even now 27 years later it has power to make me shudder.

I only recently made the complete break (all hail Dawkins the messiah, and Harris who foretold of his coming:-) ), and I was intriugued to see that such mumbo jumbo could still exercise a hold, honestly, the sooner people get out, the better.

We need to have a no holds barred global discussion about the nature of god, with luck that will reduce most modestly intelligent, moderate religious people to theists, deists or agnostics. These are, once the evidence has been objectivley assessed the only rational options open. But we have to have the discussion!! Stuff like this really does help.

1209. Richard Dawkins on The Sunday Edition

Comment #13378 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 17, 2006 at 10:34 am

Sent the following to ITV.

Hi Guys!

The two interviewers in the segment with Dawkins repeatedly interrupted him, and completely let that other idiot of the hook. Constantly banging on about the same absurd point, which had nothing whatever to do with the existence or non-existence of a god. Clearly they had a theistic bias, and constantly posed questions in a skewed and partisan way.

Dawkins must be commended for his patience with such persistent idiocy. Really ITV, try and get it right next time.

1210. Richard Dawkins on The Sunday Edition

Comment #13355 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 17, 2006 at 7:55 am

Hi all ... it was sort of interesting that Richard didn't subject him to more of a savaging.

Puzzling oh ... and I deny the holy spirit and Allah can sodomise himself. Erm ....no offence to the gay community ...

The kind of weak unsubstantive theisim Benn retreats to is the only refuge of a geuinely intelligent theist. All the detail is easy to refute, and anyone of modest intelligence who thinks about it can see that.

So it's useful to read what the atheists of the past have said, because there criticisims return to the fundamentals, to the detail and that is where we need to continue to hammer. I've been reading a guy called Robert Green Ingersoll online lately ... and let me tell you he is brilliant. A quote :

All that is necessary, as it seems to me, to convince any reasonable person that the Bible is simply and purely of human invention -- of barbarian invention -- is to read it. Read it as you would any other book; think of it as you would of any other; get the bandage of reverence from your eyes; drive from your heart the phantom of fear; push from the throne of your brain the coiled form of superstition -- then read the Holy Bible, and you will be amazed that you ever, for one moment, supposed a being of infinite wisdom, goodness and purity, to be the author of such ignorance and of such atrocity.

Our ancestors not only had their god-factories, but they made devils as well. These devils were generally disgraced and fallen gods. Some had headed unsuccessful revolts; some had been caught sweetly reclining in the shadowy folds of some fleecy cloud, kissing the wife of the god of gods. These devils generally sympathized with man. There is in regard to them a most wonderful fact: In nearly all the theologies, mythologies and religions, the devils have been much more humane and merciful than the gods. No devil ever gave one of his generals an order to kill children and to rip open the bodies of pregnant women. Such barbarities were always ordered by the good gods. The pestilences were sent by the most merciful gods. The frightful famine, during which the dying child with pallid lips sucked the withered bosom of a dead mother, was sent by the loving gods. No devil was ever charged with such fiendish brutality.

One of these gods, according to the account, drowned an entire world with the exception of eight persons. The old, the young, the beautiful and the helpless were remorsely devoured by the shoreless sea. This, the most fearful tragedy that the imagination of ignorant priests ever conceived, was the act, not of a devil, but of a god, so-called, whom men ignorantly worship unto this day. What a stain such an act would leave upon the character of a devil! One of the prophets of one of these gods, having in his power a captured king, hewed him in pieces in the sight of all the people. Was ever any imp of any devil guilty of such savagery?

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/

Check it out ... great stuff.

1211. Response to Richard Dawkins' Criticisms in The God Delusion

Comment #13211 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 16, 2006 at 7:58 am

Free will again. Not surprising of course, it's absolutely critical to justify the total shit that god has otherwise made of the world.

Free will is a crock and here is why. In principle, operationally day to day, I have "free will" in the sense that I may at any given moment choose X or Y. This is "free will" because although my decision at any given moment could be predicted with certainty, I personally don't have all the relevant inputs, and thus cannot.

However from the perspective of god (the classic christian definition) I cannot possibly have free will. Every decision I take is the sum of a vast variety of inputs, environmental, historical, chemical, hormonal. A complete knowledge of all of those inputs would make prediction of my actions entirely possible.

So god creates us knowing all the forces impinging on us for the duration of our lives, and can predict with absolute certainty what the outcomes will be. My decisions are NOT random from gods perspective, they are inevitable. What a complete FUCKWIT he was to go ahead with it then in the form that he did.

Finally, we get to heaven and complete obedience (although the fall of 1/3 of the angels throws some doubt on this) is assured. So what the heck was it all FOR?

Free will is a weak bullshit concept trotted out be theists to justify the clearly random, injust world we live in.

1212. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #13153 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 15, 2006 at 11:45 pm

And this is not a contest of equals, and science need not lower itself to childish oaths and pledges to get the job done.

You are right about that, but not the way you mean. Something like 80% of people believe in one or another of these myths, a sizeable minority are determined and fanatical. Science and reason is the little guy in this fight. This video is the metaphysical equivalent of a kick in the balls. We should take what we can get.

David, no one is giving credence to this rubbish, just highlighting how nonsensical it is. The truly childish behaviour is to live in terror of punishment for saying words. For good measure, I spurn and reject allah and piss (metaphrocially) on the quran.

Should I be killed for that? Some people think so. Highlighting that kind of lunacy is the point of these kinds of activities, blunting the predictable outrage of the religious, until this kind of thing no longer bothers them, and anyone can say it.

1213. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #13124 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 15, 2006 at 4:51 pm

Oh ... and I deny the Holy Spirit. There it's done.

1214. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #13123 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 15, 2006 at 4:50 pm

Comment #13122 by RichardC on December 15, 2006 at 4:38 pm

I agree with Kergillian and don't think this is really the best 'rational response', being rather childish and needlessly provocative.
It's just going to get religious people's back up and entrench them in their own camp.

I have to disagree. I frequently find that those that have never had faith, persistently underestimate the pernicious ability of the meme to infiltrate every aspect of ones life. What for you is a silly superstition, was for me at the age of 14 the stuff of nightmares.

Many christians are not even aware this scripture exists, and many of those that are live in perpetual terror of inadvertently blaspheming the holy spirit. Merely making people aware of this doctrine is positive, because it illustrates the fundamental injustice and incoherence of christianity.

As a recent "convert" to atheisim, the power of this scripture to terrorise me is still very real. When you genuinely beleive in an eternal hell, this shit is frightening.

Nope, keep on mocking, the more the merrier, and I mean that in the grim, embittered, ready for the long haul sense.

1215. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #12889 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 14, 2006 at 8:06 am

Comment #12805 by Mark Taunton on December 14, 2006 at 12:03 am

Briefly in answer to your question (380). None of God's angels have ever sinned, God evidently made them incapable of it (as I hope to become, at a future day).

Exactly ... so why not skip the whole mortal coil, death, ressurection, redemption and skip straight to the incapable of sin part?

Mark and Shaun, it's been fun, but we've really explained our position as fully as possible. I hope someday you look back on this interaction and realise what nonsense any kind of organised religion is.

All the best.

1216. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #12511 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 12, 2006 at 9:43 am

... Without freedom to choose you are just a drone in the hive, if you think that would be better than what we have now then you are entitled to that opinion.

Rubbish. If god doesn't want me to kill people, then create me in such a way that I don't. Strengthen my conscenience to such a degree that I am simply incapable of harming another human. Create a world where population and resources are in perfect balance.

I still have free will to paint, go for a walk, watch TV, read a book, go for a swim, move to another country and discover a foreign culture, listen to music, compose music or any of a million things in a utopian world of near infinite resources where anyone can do anything they like as long as it does not hurt another. I'm a mere human, but it took me 5 minutes to conceive of this arrangement.

The whole free will crock is a smokescreen to get your fictious god off the hook of a darwinian world geared towards survival of the fittest.

1217. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #12457 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 12, 2006 at 3:37 am

353. Comment #12425 by Mark Taunton on December 12, 2006 at 1:01 am

Hi, Brian. I don't fear being in a minority. Interesting NewSci this past week - the man who discovered that stomach ulcers are primarily caused by a virus, not by stress or the like, was a maverick going totally against the grain because he wasn't part of the consensus to start with. He wasn't alone :-)

Yes, he was a maverick then and most new discoveries start out in exactly the way you describe. However, he's not a maverick now, because he has convinced a substantial chunk of his peers with evidence.

Your "evidence" such as it is, is accepted by almost no one, not even in fields sympathetic to your basic religious views. Until such a swing were to occur, we have to consider your opinion on these subjects suspect and subjective.

In short, every wild haired crackpot with a theory is not an Einstein. An fact, almost none of them are:-)

As regards your comments on the Quran and Book of Mormon; Millions of people in those faiths will argue as vociferously for their holy books, as you do for yours. They see your holy book as flawed and suspect, for to them entirely rational reasons, just as you dismiss theirs.

The only sensible position is to dismiss all of them, and to stand outside any of the bubbles of delusion occupied by people of faith. There are many good reasons to dismiss them, but by far the best is that any all powerful and loving god, would surely have at the very least got the communication of the message right!! All these competing holy books, and the many divisions of interpretation even within the various faiths is surely overwhelming evidence that it's all nonsense?

1218. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #12421 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 11, 2006 at 10:48 pm

Hey Mark. There are two major problems with the position outlined in your last post, and they expose your extreme bias in the discussion.

Firstly, your contention that the bible is an amazing and convincing source of prophecy. This view is held by only the smallest group of people.

Any random group of individuals can assert any random view they like, this does not make it true. It must pass some reasonable test of peer review or independent assessment.

Your assertion is therefore useless as "evidence" because it fails the modest hurdle of even a majority of biblical scholars and theologians agreeing with your view.

On the contrary, the bible has been repeatedly exposed as historically inaccurate, and since the 19th century, textual analysis has exposed seams, layering and multiple authorship at different times. I confess that I am no expert, but as with evolution or global warming, I have a pretty good grasp of the majority view.

Secondly, how much time have you spent assessing the quran, the book of mormon or any of the hindu holy texts? I'm guessing almost none. Thus your "evidence" such as it is, is horribly biased. You need to at least give these other texts as complete a review as you have the bible.

I for my part, have dismissed them all, with only a cursory inspection (except the bible), on the grounds that their foundational hypothesis about god is clearly flawed. You know the reasons at this stage:-) Plus the fact that they are all filled with so much that is objectionable, injust or downright wierd.

That option is not open to you. If you're claiming one is the absolute true way, you must assess all of the others just as throughly to avoid the accusation of bias. Here s a good place to start : http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

1219. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #12282 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 11, 2006 at 1:43 pm

Shaun, I found your method of reasoning very .... detached. You seem to lack an appreciation for the level of suffering that exists in the world. We are not bricks, the world is not a building site. The pain, loss and anguish in the world is real.

First, quoting the bible does not help. You and I both know it is a politically edited piece of work, heavily biased by influences going back to ancient egypt and beyond. This may not bother you, but it says to me it's a lot of crap. So spare me the infinite regression of quoting a book that is considered the word of god because it says it is.

Second, I could easily improve on this arrangement. Any halfway humane entity would have limited our "free will" to benign largely harmless exhibitions of independence. This is what responsible parents do every single day.

They do not warn their children about scalding water, and then let them pour a kettle over themselves.

They do not warn their children not to play in traffic, and shrug their shoulders when the kid heads off to the motorway.

Insane, lunatic and irresponsible asocial freaks behave like that.

Third, the bible makes clear that this is all about gods convenience, not ours. We are created to serve him, on his terms, or be destroyed. Clearly the whole "free will" thing is total crock of shit!! Plus the angels were created, ostensibly without free will, yet lucifer and co. rebelled??

The god of the bible is a genocidal monster, willing to allow the torture of literally, billions of sentient beings for his convenience, and then blame them for it. How could anyone worship such an entity? Even if the bible were the word of god, we only have his word for it's veracity, and why would you trust such a self obsessed, self serving creature?

1220. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #12243 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 11, 2006 at 12:16 pm

The main thrust of your objections to the case I present seems to be based on the view that: unpleasant things happen in our world; ....

Absolutely correct.

... "Your entire premise proceeds from the assumption that God exists"
I would have thought that goes without saying? ...

I don't think our positions are equally rational. The position "an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god does not exist" squares far more readily with the world we see. The alternate position, yours, requires convoluted, and ultimatley contrived explanation.

The only reason the view "there is a god" is so widely held is due to millenia of cultural momentum. A mere few hundred years of science is gradually countering this incredible inertia, and we are beginning to turn the corner.

1221. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #12042 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 9, 2006 at 2:05 pm

What kind of adults would my children grow up to be if I pandered to their every whim and let them dictate the terms and conditions in our home? What type of individual would they turn into if my sole purpose in life was to cosset them and provide them with what they thought they needed to be happy?

These are junvenile and ridiculous analogies. No parent would allow their children to be killed, or whole entire generations to be damned as an "object lesson". Such a parent would be locked up and have their remaining children put into foster care.

Tens of thousands of people die every day of preventable diseases, humans have done much in the last 200 hundred odd years to put a dent in that holocaust, why has god been sitting on his hands for the last 10,000?

Your entire premise preceeds from the assumption that god exists, thus you must twist, squirm and engage in convoluted logic to explain the state of reality we find.

I make the assumption that god does not exist, how does this square with the facts? Why do bad things happen to good people? There is no god. Why do good things happen to bad people? There is no god. Why do natural catastrophes wipe out ten of thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands every year? There is no god. Why is there disease, death, war and occasional good stuff? There is no god, and we either make the good stuff happen ourselves,or we don't.

A perfect fit with the facts.

We have been given free will from the very beginning and we have chosen to go our own way, and we are living with the consequences of that choice.

Who is we? Adam? Eve? Would you kill a child for something their parents did? Would you beat a child for something their parents did?

That is morally indefensible, and makes god a monster, it illustrates once again how religious doctrine decouples morality from cause and effect. Things are wrong when they injure others, not because god "says so".

God is dealing with a very complex and difficult problem – you and me!

Yet god is by definition all powerful, all knowing, all good. Things are clicking along exactly as he planned, or else he isn't all knowing. He made us as we are. Does this world really look to you like god has it together?

Theology, and all of your postings are a futile exercise in trying to have your cake and eat it. God cannot be all knowing and simultaneously wrestling with a profound conundrum, thats nonsense. He cannot be the source of all things, and not be responsible for evil. He cannot be all powerful and all good while simultaneously helpless to improve the lot of humanity.

Thus he simply is not ....

1222. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #12033 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 9, 2006 at 12:55 pm

I note that not all on your side of the debate say that sort of thing, though. Statements of solid conviction abound, not made only by people like me.

Sure they do, we are all human and want to validate our world view, because it is in turn a kind of validation of us.

For the record, there may be a god, I conceed that possibility, I just don't think he/she/it can be good, or really care, but I am very nearly certain that none of the main religions have any idea what god is really like.

I am genuinely not particularly hung up on evolution one way or the other, just totally disenchanted by mainstream religion. In a funny way, I suspect we may be alike ... I've opted out, and you've opted to beat a new path back to original apostolic basics. I applaud your motives, but your quest is doomed, and you are just the latest in a long line:-(

As regards the child question. I suspect the answer would be a resounding no. You and I both know, that such a thing would be an immoral act.

However, it is illustrative of the inherent danger of any system that decouples our ethics from cause and effect, from our own inate moral sense. That reduces morality to the dictate of some other, as opposed to what we know is right or wrong.

You strike me as a very decent and thoughtful person, and this is the horror of religion that it has the power to subvert and torture good people like yourself, and for absolutely nothing.

Good night.

1223. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #12025 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 9, 2006 at 11:17 am

Comment #12021 by Mark Taunton on December 9, 2006 at 10:54 am

The Bible predicted not only global political developments, .....

This is mere unsubstantiated assertion on your part. I've read the bible so have many others, and very few of them draw the conclusions you draw. In the absence of new information, this puts you firmly on the wrong side of reality.

Rather, he fully expected trouble to arise, for reasons entirely consistent with the Bible's general message about human nature and its inclination against God ....

Yet, god created us, with full foreknowledge, and allowed all this suffering, misery and death as a direct and known result of our "free will" a "gift" forced upon us so that god can get off on our worship.

You don't see how self serving and despicable such a creature is? To subject millions of sentient beings to misery and death for his own glory? If such a being exists we should do everything we can to destroy him, not worship him.

Let me ask you a question Mark, do you have children? If god asked you to kill one of them as a test, would you?

1224. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #12022 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 9, 2006 at 11:06 am

You will say in effect that it's the scientific facts that matter, not the apparent weight of any given "authority". But you can without inconsistency do effectively the same, as if to dismiss my point?

There is no inconsistency here. You are confusing authority with the consensus produced by the scientific method.

You, and a very small group of fellow travellers have formed a minority opinion about the bible, thousands of years after it's writing and with recourse to nothing more than your own musings on the subject.

This is not the same thing as a scientific hypothesis exposed to rigorous and relentless scrutiny be people with a vested interest in proving it wrong, and their pet theory right.

In addition, you do exactly what I have described in practically every other area of your life. You refer to plumbers, electricians, accountants, lawyers and pension fund managers when it comes to these specialist areas. You do due diligence to ensure you won't get screwed of course, but you don't go into the detail.

Thats how I view complex issues in my life and especially scientific questions of major import.

In the field of religion there is nothing like the constantly renewing consensus, and shifting attitudes, we see in science. On the contrary it is an endless cycle of the same stuff recurring and being squashed and/or gaining the upper hand for a while, before it gets squashed by the next cycle.

Yet from your line of argument above, it is entirely valid to do that with the vast array of competing ideas in religion. On what logical basis do you make a difference in that regard between the two domains?

I'm amazed that you would even ask such an obvious question!!! Scientists are just mortals, stumbling along. The process of each new generation of scientists replacing the one before is driven by personal greed, arrogance and diligence with an occasional dash of humility and altruisim. They have also only had a few hundred years to get it together.

God on the other hand has a "birds eye view" of the process, an ability to see the whole chain of events from start to finish. He has had eternity to draft and execute his plan. Plus, an unprecedented power to intervene and establish his credentials.

That he has not done this, is directly responsible for the world we see. The whole christian story is a series of patchwork interventions to get things back on track.

I manage projects for a living. If I had made as dramatic a shit of things as god, especially given perfect knowledge of all inputs, outputs, costings and resources required, I would be FIRED and rightly so. I mean honestly. REALLY. Just look at the world that god made. A world where some organisms can only function by burrowing into the eyeball of a human child. Where cats play with mice. Where one human can hack off the head of another because of a difference about imaginary friends.

We are on this little raft barrelling through the universe, and all we have is each other Mark, there is no god. We need to make the best of it, treat each other well and not waste our lives on unproductive fantasy. In effect we need to act as if we were a small, intimate and related band of humans, no more than a 100 strong. Us against an uncompromising and unforgiving universe, because thats the way it is.

1225. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #12009 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 9, 2006 at 8:03 am

Interesting thought! The lengths some people will go to to avoid the obvious conclusion!

Ah but thats the problem. It isn't at all obvious to many of us, at least not anymore:-/

Your hypothesis fails because you invoke a boundlessly complex entity (god) to explain the mystery of the emergence of modestly complex life (us). It doesn't get you anywhere.

Now, I'll gladly grant you that the "many universes hypothesis" is far from satisfactory, but it's orders of magnitude more likely than this vast entity called god, and at least it's not simply a dead end about which no more can said.

The next problem with the god option is about his properties and is multi fold.
1) We've been at this for millenia and still have no real idea what god is like, what his properties are etc. Lots of conjecture and speculation of course. The various books bouncing around purporting to explain this stuff all contradict each other, and even within the broad sweep of each tradition engender violent disagreement on the basics.
2) Evil, injustice call it what you like, simply kills the notion of god put forward by all the main monotheistic religions. God simply cannot be all good and all powerful in the face of what we see. The hypothesis "god does not exist, doesn't care, or is self absorbed shit" is a far more logical explanation of the facts of life we see. It simply cannot be talked around, except by recourse to bullshit about the wisdom and mystery of god. The world is manifestly injust and nasty. Nuff said.
3) Science has told us more about the world in a mere 300 hundred years than religion in the preceeding 10,000. Why on earth should we keep flogging a dead horse that has basically always been dead?
4) Where you born in Turkey you'd be muslim, or in India a Hindu, or in Scandinavia in the time of Vikings, a worshiper of Thor. It is mere blind chance that has made you a xian. Think about it ....

1226. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #11953 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 8, 2006 at 2:25 pm

Shauntheboy, thank you for taking the time and effort to respond to my posts. My mind is not changed as regards god, but I've clearly misjudged you, and for that I apologise.

As regards the reading you cite, it's fairly uncontroversial and commonplace for examples of this nature to be used. The audience understands how evolution works, and is not confused or distracted by the incongruity of using a designed artifact to explain the process.

The problem with claiming the bible is the word of god is that it is merely one of a competing plethora of texts, all claiming the same thing. It is not a matter of "faith" that the bible is nonsense, it is patently obvious to anyone with an open mind on the subject who gets past the first 2 chapters of Genesis. The first glaring contradiction is already right there. In addition the utter failure of the thousands of christian sects to agree on what this stuff means is surely damning evidence of the very human source of the content of the bible.

I used to be a christian, I even spent about 4 years touring with a christian theatre group called "covenant players". In the course of the last 5 years of Bush, Blair and Iraq, I began to question my faith, pull at the threads and eventually to hammer at the superstructure until the whole thing came crashing down. I think that anyone who genuinely subjects their faith to rigourous scrutiny will attain the same result. I'd recommend you get away from your Xian buddies for a few months and really let your faith have it, you'll be better for it in the end.

It is madness to base your life on the circular logic of a book that is the word of god because it says so.

It is madness to base your life on vague personal "spiritual experiences" when we now know that the brain can conjure voices, images and tactile sensations from thin air. MRI scans have been conducted and mapped the activity while it was happening.

Any omnibenevolent, omnipowerful god is a logical impossibility in the world we see. Thousands of books have been written to explain this inconsistency, when the obvious simple hypothesis ... there is no god, fits the world we observe perfectly.

Good luck, and good night:-)

1227. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #11877 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 8, 2006 at 2:00 am

My sole intention was to show that there was a genuine debate amongst atheistic evolutionists about what the facts of the fossil actually tell us.

Gee ... I'm amazed, scientists that disagree? At least that's how the method functions, what excuse do you religious types have?

We of course know this, I simply object to the context you are attempting to shoehorn these comments into. That is the bollocks, not the fact that these people disagree.


Of course these men then go on to propose alternative naturalistic solutions to the problem of gaps and lack of transitionals.

Exactly, thats the bit you people consistently leave out.

As for your most recent comments questioning my integrity, I'm not really sure what to do. I think I'll sleep on it :-).

It may not be intentional, you may be genuine, but the shameless misrepresentation and disingenous quote mining from creationists circles is a scandal.

It is also silly for you and I to discuss a moving target as complex as evolution. We might just as well debate quantum theory, or gravitation or relativity. We rely on the expertise of those in the relevant fields to inform us. We do this every single day, in hundreds of different ways.

So I insist on bringing the conversation back to the nature of god, because that exposes that the whole endeavour as pointless, in that context, any discussion on evolution is a total sideline.

1228. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #11873 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 8, 2006 at 1:36 am

.... how come it is so right, not only on these but also on many other things we can ourselves observe in the real world?

Thats the problem Mark, hardly anyone of substance agrees with you on this. That aside, the myriad of disagreements, within christianity itself, on even substantive dogma completely invalidates this position.

If the bible is such a wonderful and overwhelming demonstration of the power of god, why are billions of us left comprehensivley unimpressed? By my count roughly 66% of the human race, but by your more exclusive measure, I'm guessing practically everyone.

The standard response to this is "hardness of our hearts" blahh, blahh, blahh. This is simply nonsense. Why should I consider an entity god that can't even make a decent case for itself?

The creator of the universe,with complete foreknowledge, makes a creature that is imperfect, then blames it for that imperfection, killing his own "son" as a sacrifice to "pay" for that inbuilt and foreknown imperfection.

Now, we must exercise our "free will" to accept this sacrifice our be damned for eternity.

All of this based on nothing more than a book, cobbled together by clerics with an agenda 1700 years ago, which has been torn to shreds at every level in the last 150 years?

It is utter lunacy. Wake up and smell the coffee!!!

1229. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #11813 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 7, 2006 at 1:04 pm

Tom, If god were even somewhat loving and even half as smart as a modern fourth-grade schoolchild, he could have saved millions by putting verses like the following in his scripture.
Book of Hygiene:
1:1 Wash your hands after going potty.
1:2 Wash your hands before cooking.
2:5 Don't walk around barefoot in pigshit.

Book of Safe Food Preparation:
2:4 Sure, it's OK to eat pork, just cook it well first.

Book of How to be a Human Being:
1:4 Slavery is wrong, always, forever, under all circumstances, period, no if's, and's or but's.
4:9 Humans come in a variety of shapes, sizes and colors.
4:10 If a being looks like you, except for shape, size or color - even if that being acts different from you, it's a human being, just like you.
6:13 All humans are related and should treat each other with compassion.

But the allegedly loving, smart god could not offer this advice because god's creators did not know it.

Evil exists. If god can stop it but does not, why call him good? If god abhors evil, but is powerless to prevent it, why call him god?

With apologies to Epicuris.

1230. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #11807 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 7, 2006 at 12:50 pm

In the chapter I was reading the other night, Micah 3, God tells us that there will be a long period when basically he will not communicate directly with us.

You are satisfied with that are you? The bible, the word of god (on its own recommendation), has an obscure passage that talks about communication and thats sorted for you? I'd need a little more.

Even if the passage as you understand it were applicable, it hardly gets god off the hook. In summary it's simply, I'm crap at communication because I said I would be. WTF?? You'll need to do much better than that.

Billions will die and go to hell (by your reckoning), simply by virtue of the blind chance of their birth. Surely god has failed these people? Why would you respect, let alone worship such a maleovlent, despicable entity?

1231. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #11790 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 7, 2006 at 11:20 am

In the meantime could we stop calling all the religious people intellectual retards? Some of them may be but not all.

As a previous beleiver I agree. However, guys like Shaunyboy who come to a site like this replete with overwhelming evidence that religion is nonsense, deserve no respect whatever. They may not all be retards, but they are all in the grip of a clear delusion to those on the outside looking in.

God cannot be both omnibenevolent, and omnipowerful, and whether an entity approximating the monotheistic god exists or not, he certainly doesn't deserve worship. A savage, uncompromising kick up the arse maybe for making such an amazing shit of things.

1232. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #11784 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 7, 2006 at 10:48 am

Ahhh Shauntheboy, still talking nonsense, while dodging the real questions. You truly are a piece of fascinating psycology.

Billy, you are wasting your time with this one, he is clearly a hardcore "faith head".

1233. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #11723 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 6, 2006 at 10:42 pm

I sincerely hope these are not misquotes. I have put the full reference including the page number so that you can check up on me if you like. I have these books in my personal library and they are well thumbed I assure you.

Rubbish, I've seen the same pap 10 different ways, you are about as sincere as the "give it to me baby" of a $10 whore:-) I challenge you to publish the paragraph either side of your quotes, I'm not your research assistant!!!

The influence of Greek and other philosophy on mainstream, (and even small sect!) Christianity is pretty well documented. I certainly don't believe I have any special revelation or any sole ownership of truth.

So what you beleive as a Christian is not absolute? You just think it might be true? You muddle along hoping you've got it right, and everyone else can do whatever they think is best as regards salvation and so forth? Pull the other one:-)

While you are floundering on that question, how about the "why is god such a poor communicator?" question. I have yet to hear from any of the religious types on this. It's simple question, 2000 years after christ, and 1300 after big M., we still have utter confusion and disagreement about the properties of god.

How can you consider such an incompetent worthy of respect, let alone "god"?

However, my point has never been to lecture you about God, the only time I have ever discussed God with you is when you have asked a question that relates to Him or His purpose.

What on earth could you know about this stuff? What could anyone? You don't consider your arrogant, condescending "relates to Him or His purpose" lecturing? You have a bit of a tin ear there guy:-)

There is no verifiable evidence to support an evolutionary mechanism capable of producing the diversity, complexity and interdepence we see in the natural world, and the cosmos.

Once again your staggering, towering arrogance shines through. Who are you? What have you published? Why should I consider your comments more reliable than an established scientist like Dawkins, or any scientist at all?

I am not an expert on evolution, in point of fact there is tons of stuff that I am not an expert on. So I take my lead on complex subjects from people who are experts in the relevant field. The bible has been ripped to shreds as an authorative source on anything, including history! Arguably it's strongest suit. So please ..... I'd be mad to base my life on something so wrong, on so many fronts.

Shaunyboy, you have it exactly ass backwards. You base your life on the bible, and then try and crowbar the available evidence into that impoverished framework.

It is pathetic and sad, not least because a cursory glance at the rampant injustice in our world invalidates the claim of any god whatever to omnipotence and omnibenevolence at a single stroke. Evolution is not your problem, really. Your whole premise is flawed.