YAY, desert of godlessness!!! It's very pretty here, and we have awesome native fauna. :)

I could not help it-- I had to make a blog post about the Dessert Of Godlessness. :)

> atheists don't have a conspiracy
> to cover up pedophilia

Preposterous. Atheist pedophiles cover their tracks all the time.

You make this mistake a lot: Making people be not-religious doesn't therefore make them more decent. I'm all for making fun of Popes, but you have to play fair and use logic.

Say what you want about Ratzenberger, but at least he's ugly. I think that's good. JP2 got a lot mileage out of a handsome and playful demeanor, which won't be an issue for his successor.

Ratzinger, not Ratzenberger. I meant the Pope, not the Cheers guy,

Oh, Crid, I am loving the thought of Pope John Ratzenberger, though!!!

"Well you see, Narm, it's like this-- drinking Communion wine kills off the slowest and weakest brain cells first. Thus yer surviving brain cells are the faster and more efficient ones. And that is why you always feel smarter after a few Masses."

Preposterous. Atheist pedophiles cover their tracks all the time.

You make this mistake a lot: Making people be not-religious doesn't therefore make them more decent. I'm all for making fun of Popes, but you have to play fair and use logic.

Where that argument fails is that in general the atheist pedophile works alone; and if the pedophile is caught he is punished.

They don't have a systemic group that will cover up, hide and move them around.

> Where that argument fails is that
> in general the atheist pedophile
> works alone

Which argument fails? I'm not saying the Catholic church didn't do horrible stuff. (As Hitchens likes to joke, No Child's Behind Left.) But I think the structure of the church merely attracted the pedophiles, I don't think it created or sincerely meant to encourage the abuse. Why would it?

But I see what you're getting at.

> are just people who don't believe
> in unproven crap

(Is this worth another round?)

(Sure, why not.)

I'd wager that atheism correlates only weakly with disbelief in unproven crap. If there's analysis showing that atheists did better in the markets in recent years than churchgoing investors, we haven't seen it yet.

I'd wager that atheism correlates only weakly with disbelief in unproven crap.

You may be right -- but at least it is one less layer of crap that you have to dig through to get a person to think.

Everybody believes lots of things for irrational reasons. For irrational reasons I believe in God; for irrational reasons Amy doesn't. For irrational reasons I believe that using reason improves the accuracy of someone's worldview; for irrational reasons other people believe that it's only valid to believe something for rational reasons. (Heh.) We each depend on our internal sense of "correlation equals causation" to determine the elements of our worldview. Just because every redhead Bob meets is a Democrat doesn't mean that every redhead is a Democrat, but evolution has conditioned Bob to behave as if it does.

Even people who reject organized religion often end up inventing their own. Every political philosophy has followers who treat it like a religion. Even scientists can be closeminded. As people age we tend to become more set in our ways; the inputs into our worldview that occur earlier in life are weighted more strongly than inputs later in life.

Anybody who claims to base their entire belief system on reason is deceiving themselves.

Anybody who claims to base their entire belief system on reason is deceiving themselves.

This is why I have convictions, not beliefs. Convictions are based in reason, beliefs are based on feelings. One came from a thinking process, the other is simply set into whims. Mixing the two is like mixing water and a 2-ton granite block.

The Irrationality of NOT believing in God? Can you explain to me in simple, concise term how it is irrational of NOT believing a fairytale? Or thing that are not proven? or the fact that you don't own the Brooklyn Bridge? Why wishing for something and using one's reason is the same thing for you?

I have, right now, a 5$ bill and a 20$ bill in my pocket. Regardless of the fact that they are the same piece of paper in shape and weight, no amount of wishing or praying will turn them into two 100$ bills. Do this conviction is an irrational belief for you? For eons, man tried to turn lead into gold, calling for help all the divinities he created, to no avail. Do realizing that Lead will never turn into gold is a faith by itself?

Anything that can be judged by reason can be measured, weighted, compared and even re-adjusted. This is why we have toasters and not just wishing for the toast to roast itself.

Amy, it is a well-known tactic of those who advocate irrationality to evoke that one's opinion (regardless of the reasoning behind it) is in fact a belief. It's their way to drag someone at their level.

Looks like I will have to go back reading Einstein for a while. Physicists are quite the deal breaker for those who wish. :D

For irrational reasons I believe in God; for irrational reasons Amy doesn't.

Utterly incorrect. I see no evidence there's a god; therefore, I don't believe in god.

That's irrational. Reason says lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. It's also irrational to disregard nonscientific evidence such as purported eyewitness accounts.

Reason alone inevitably leads to solipsism.

Anybody who claims to base their entire belief system on reason is deceiving themselves.

This is why I have convictions, not beliefs. Convictions are based in reason, beliefs are based on feelings. One came from a thinking process, the other is simply set into whims. Mixing the two is like mixing water and a 2-ton granite block.

I agree that it's often useful to distinguish between conclusions based on correlation and conclusions based on logic, but the terms "opinion", "conviction" and "belief" aren't good ones to use for that because in standard usage they mean the same thing.

Regardless of what you call it, you have a worldview, which I called a "belief system" earlier. Every worldview is based on subjective experiences. Trying to interpret our experiences logically is good, but going from observation to conclusion is not something we're entirely conscious of. We start forming conclusions before we even know how to think logically, and many people simultaneously believe contradictory things. (In my opinion, identifying and eliminating contradictory beliefs is important.)

The Irrationality of NOT believing in God? Can you explain to me in simple, concise term how it is irrational of NOT believing a fairytale?

One is at the top of this post (lack of evidence). Here's another: Charlie disbelieves in God because a person he admires and respects told him that God doesn't exist. Here's a third: Dave disbelieves in God because when he was growing up, a priest molested him. Those are all irrational (and common) reasons for believing something.

An irrational belief is not necessarily incorrect, just as a belief formed through use of reason isn't necessarily correct. A proof based on false axioms can still be internally valid. Discovering truth can be hard.

I think it's tremendously unfortunate that people are inherently irrational. Think critically, be skeptical, and avoid jumping to conclusions.

> one less layer of crap that you
> have to dig through

Agreed.

> For irrational reasons I believe
> in God; for irrational reasons
> Amy doesn't.

No. In talking about Easter with family recently, I've been thinking about Hitchens' point that it's children who ask the most obvious, devastating questions about religion. Rationality is already hard at work within a well-loved, properly-stimulated kid. It's only by pummeling these questions with weirdly emotional answers that the child is taught not to ask. And some children are better students of weirdness than others.

Weaker parents often use those same techniques to freak their kids out about sex, too, but it doesn't help. Sex is stronger than stupidity. It has to be.

> Even people who reject organized
> religion often end up inventing
> their own.

Agreed, and...

> Anybody who claims to base their
> entire belief system on reason
> is deceiving themselves.

Very strongly agreed. But acknowledging that human nature has weaknesses doesn't therefore mean that anything goes. As William A. Henry put it, “It is scarcely the same thing to put a man on the moon as to put a bone in your nose.”

Here in the 21st century, it's easy for us to dismiss the belief of earlier generations in dragons, gargoyles, unicorns, & ogres as silly superstition & fairy tales. But it wasn't until the Victorian era that dinosaurs & other prehistoric creatures were properly classified, & it was realized that earth's geologic history went back almost 5 billion years. Today, when a paleontologist digs up a T rex or a pterodactyl, he knows what it is. But when an ancient Greek or Chinese found a perfectly preserved fossil while digging in a marble quarry, how could he possibly have known that it had been dead for 100 million years? Sure, they used their imaginations to embellish them, but they had plenty of evidence, rock-solid evidence, that mythical beasts really existed.

I don't automatically assume that belief in monsters or gods is rooted in irrationality. For most of mankind's existence, it was a perfectly rational explanation for how the world came to be & why it is the way it is, based on the evidence & their understanding at the time. Beliefs that were universal for most of humanity's existence are going to stubbornly persist in the face of modern scientific knowledge to the contrary.

The alchemists' quest to turn lead into gold wasn't completely insane. Lead & gold are right next to each other on the Periodic Table. They're both very heavy but very soft & malleable metals with low melting points. In fact, using modern nuclear technology, you can turn a few atoms of lead into gold. Seeing as they're so much alike, why is it surprising that 1000 years ago people thought that some tinkering & magic spells could turn one into the other? Even today, educated people who should know better think that fat is a fattening poison, instead of being a vital part of a healthy diet, & helping to make food taste better besides. How long will it be before that belief is relegated to the past, like alchemy?

> Reason says lack of evidence is
> not evidence of lack.

1st, it's 'absence', not 'lack'.

2nd, the claims made by the religious are too extraordinary and detailed to be defended by your kind of sniping.

I really, really can't prove to you that as I've been driving around Los Angeles, Paris Hilton hasn't been following a block behind me in her McLaren eager for the thundering sexual encounter that will finally bring to her the sense of adult fulfillment she's been striving for in recent years.

There's just no way to prove she's not back there, and absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, right?

But thoughtful people would wonder why I'd be so eager to think so.

> It's also irrational to disregard
> nonscientific evidence such as
> purported eyewitness accounts.

Right. We don't have to disregard it, we just have to give that evidence appropriate weight. You've given us a good start with the word "purported."

> Reason alone inevitably leads
> to solipsism.

Horseshit.

> not something we're entirely
> conscious of

People do that a lot on this blog, say 'You don't realize what's going on in your own head'. It's very teenage and unsophisticated, and never accompanied by a reason to believe that the present commenter, rather than the earlier ones, has a grip on reality.

> An irrational belief is not
> necessarily incorrect, just
> as a belief formed through
> use of reason isn't
> necessarily correct.

Stop blowing hard! Seriously, tell that shit to an airline pilot who's promising to safely get you to Vegas before dusk. The point is that reason is testable.

You call to mind a favorite retort: The fool says: "Even a broken clock is right twice a day!" The wise man replies: "The instrument is nonetheless useless."

Think critically, be skeptical, and avoid jumping to conclusions.

I am okay with that statement. This being said, you are the one who brought your beliefs here this means you are the one who needs to give me a PROOF of what you are advocating. If you can't, I will discard it.

Just like Bigfoot and the Lock Ness Monster; put the proof on the table and I will examine them, critically and skeptically. If you can't bring me suck proof, I will discard your claim as junk.

You call to mind a favorite retort: The fool says: "Even a broken clock is right twice a day!" The wise man replies: "The instrument is nonetheless useless."

Thanks a lot for the retort, Crid. I love it. I have to write it down somewhere.

Amy, answer me this:

Why is it mostly secular leftist atheists who believe that Man-Made Global Warming will destroy us all within a few decades?

It's becoming clearer with each passing month that the much publicized beliefs of Al Gore & Co. are pure fiction, not supported by facts. Yet this "religion" he has created has convinced the aforementioned atheists to believe it all without any questions whatsoever.

Do you know "secular leftist atheists"?

Do I know any? I live in Canada - they're everywhere!!!

I added those two adjectives before "atheists" to be very precise.

I was raised as a Roman Catholic but am now more of an agnostic. The reason I'll never be an atheist is the same reason I'll never be a Fundamentalist __________ (fill in the blank). In both cases such people are absolutely convinced what's out there, or that there's definitely nothing more out there in the case of atheists.

The simple question of "How did it all begin?" which cannot be answered is another reason of why atheism doesn't cut it for me.

Anyhow, getting back to the environmental thread, I find it beyond laughable to hear secular leftist atheists mock religion and then go on to state how anyone who doesn't subscribe to Al Gore's treatise on Global Warming is an ignorant moron. Would that be more hypocrisy or stupidity?

> In both cases such people are
> absolutely convinced what's
> out there

No, the better atheists are only certain we've seen no evidence of a omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent Creator.

Play fair. Give us some evidence, and then we'll readily be "absolutely" (or at least substantially) convinced. We're not the ones being dogmatic.

Besides —

> The simple question of "How did it
> all begin?" which cannot be
> answered is another reason of why
> atheism doesn't cut it for me.

This essentially concedes that you'd prefer to believe a lie than live with the discomforting uncertainty. You wanna know, even if you don't...

But acknowledging that human nature has weaknesses doesn't therefore mean that anything goes.

Absolutely. The whole point is to figure out what's true, and the less we deceive ourselves about ourselves the easier that is. (Not that it's ever easy.)

the claims made by the religious are too extraordinary and detailed to be defended by your kind of sniping.

I'm not defending the claims of others, I'm saying that it's irrational to criticize them for being irrational. Criticize them for being wrong if that's what you believe.

Reason alone inevitably leads to solipsism.

Horseshit.

The point is that reason is testable.

Testing requires reason, but logic is self-sufficient. It doesn't make any sense to test whether "((a implies b) and b) implies a". I think you're confusing reason and science. Reason necessary for science, but science is not necessary for reason. For example we can reason about things other than the real world, such as math.

Science requires us to behave as if our senses can be trusted at least some of the time. Reason does not. You can't prove that you're not a brain in some scientist's vat, and neither can I. That's solipsism. I reject it on the basis that as far as I can tell it doesn't matter: if I behave as if my senses are accurate I can minimize pain etc.

Think critically, be skeptical, and avoid jumping to conclusions.

I am okay with that statement. This being said, you are the one who brought your beliefs here this means you are the one who needs to give me a PROOF of what you are advocating. If you can't, I will discard it.

We're all bringing our beliefs here. I'm not trying to evangelize you: your beliefs are your own responsibility, and nobody can force you to change your mind. I'm sticking up for the non-inferiority of my beliefs.

I believe in God and the Bible (more or less) because when I act as if it's real, things turn out better than when I act as if it's all made up. The various objections and criticisms I've heard all have internally consistent answers so far.

This "things turn out better when I act as if X is true" is the basis for every worldview, and contradictory worldviews exist because people have different experiences. It fascinates me that people way smarter than me, like Antony Flew and William Craig, disagree on such issues.

This "things turn out better when I act as if X is true" is the basis for every worldview, and contradictory worldviews exist because people have different experiences.

There's a science who studies this; it's called Ethics. those studies have been around way before the common era with the ancien Greeks. This allows us to judge a society, not only their core values but the results of those values on their development. I don't see "Beliefs" here but facts.

I believe in God and the Bible (more or less) because when I act as if it's real, things turn out better than when I act as if it's all made up.

I can tell you from the get-go that you are not respecting 95% of the bible. The bible tells us that homosexuals are bad and they need to be killed, that a rape victim need to marry their aggressor if her father refuse to take blood-money from the rapist, that killing disobedient children is the dandy thing to do. Do you know about unicorns? They can be found in the King James's version of the bible. Hilarious.

Of course, you will tell me that the message of Jesus is the most important part, right? Jesus told us that the dumb and the poor will get to heaven first, that dead-beat dads who follows him are blessed and the idea of cursing fruit trees who don't bear fruits out of the season. Quite a classy guy!

I can go on for hours but my typing is quite limited. If you had the time, read the bible cover to cover. I am sure you will disagree with most of the text.

This whole things leads me to another point; by blindly following a code based on whims, you are amoral. I don't said that you are a bad person but that you own no morals at all. The "Faith/Belief" system you use is not based on life on earth but winning the ticket for a mythical, never-ending happiness after your death. The worst things on earth has been done in this quest. In fact, the bible says that you need to kill me since I am an unbeliever. On the other side, what is a murder to reach eternal happiness?

My Ethics are based on the ideal that man is an end by itself and that he needs to live a self-centered, rational existence. My choices are made to sustain my life on a long term and must serve me in priority. A simple example; personal hygiene. I wash myself for three very good reasons: Personal comfort, avoiding medical problems and being socially acceptable. Would you like to discuss with someone who dint washed himself for two weeks? I don't. From this example, you can extrapolate my ethics on all the spheres of life. This allows me to lead a life based on objective values, not subjective wishing.

> I'm saying that it's irrational to
> criticize them for being
> irrational.

Not at all. It makes perfect sense to point out that someone hasn't done the math. For example:

> Testing requires reason, but
> logic is self-sufficient.

You keep dreaming up these little aphorisms.

> Criticize them for being wrong
> if that's what you believe.

They're wrong. Irrationality is often why. The little fuckers don't make a lick o' sense.

Excuse me Crid, but your comments necessitate the need to go back to definitions:

Atheism - Absolute certainty that there is no God or other kind of Supernatural Power.

Agnosticism - No certainty as to whether or not there is a God or other higher power, but very much open to the possibility that there is something "more" out there.

I realize that your whole shtick is to publicly swear at and belittle those you disagree with but it's quite pathetic when you attach yourself to a belief system (atheism) and then change its well established definition to suit your ego.

I can tell you from the get-go that you are not respecting 95% of the bible...

I've found a consistent interpretation that doesn't require the things that your interpretation does.

The "Faith/Belief" system you use is not based on life on earth but winning the ticket for a mythical, never-ending happiness after your death.

Pretty close: I believe that I've already "won" the winning ticket, and now I'm in the process of saying "thank you" by trying to be good.

I'm saying that it's irrational to criticize them for being irrational.

Not at all. It makes perfect sense to point out that someone hasn't done the math.

Let me rephrase: It's silly to criticize a worldview for being irrational because every worldview is irrational.

Being irrational isn't even bad, if you judge by the same criteria as natural selection. (I don't, but I'm still fascinated that evolution favors irrationality.)

Testing requires reason, but logic is self-sufficient.

You keep dreaming up these little aphorisms.

Thanks. I try to be concise.

Let me rephrase: It's silly to criticize a worldview for being irrational because every worldview is irrational.

Okay. So you are telling me that the Occidental equality of the sexes, the Confucian vision of the woman and the Taliban who sees the woman as lower than a goat have the same irrational vision of the world regarding womanhood and that we can't apply any rational criticism of them? Interesting.

Being irrational isn't even bad, if you judge by the same criteria as natural selection. (I don't, but I'm still fascinated that evolution favors irrationality.)

Hey, feel free to be irrational as long as you want. Just keep it for yourself. I don't want to deal with it.

> necessitate the need to go
> back to definitions

We can if you want. Let's start with some Google results... Google's handy and reliable and has lots of street cred, with no highfalutin' pretensions.. First, let's put "define: atheist" in the search line (note lowercase "d"). Here are some selected results:

Definitions of atheist on the Web:

* Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods, or the rejection of belief in deities. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist

* An Atheist is a member of the religion that teaches that God does not exist; moreover an Atheist is someone who is convinced that God does not exist.
www.creationkid.org/dictionary.html

* atheism - (from Greek: a + theos "not god") refers in its broadest sense to a denial of theism (the belief in the existence of a single deity or deities). Atheism has many shades and types. Some atheists strongly deny the existence of God (or any form of deity) and attack theistic claims. ...
www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Atheism

Now, let's Google "Define: atheist" with an uppercase D. We get results including:

atheism: Definition from Answers.com
atheism n. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
www.answers.com/topic/atheism - 439k - Cached - Similar pages -

[Emphasis mine.]

Your description of atheism was simplistic and coarse ("that there's definitely nothing more out there in the case of atheists"). Perhaps something in your life gave you some perspective on the immoderacy of your earlier Catholic practice, such that while you've broken away somewhat, you still feel compelled to describe atheism in similarly fanatic terms, so that you can regard yourself as comfortably suspended between extremists. (You didn't answer the challenge about being uncomfortable with uncertainty; maybe you're farther away from a sensible center than you want to be.)

I see no reason to permit you to do that, or to allow you any of the other condescensions for which believers in our culture are typically forgiven. In youth I was compelled to spend thousands of hours in churches, and then to pretend those hours hadn't been wasted, as if good points had been made and good proofs had been presented. I'm not patient any more. You specifically didn't answer my point about the lack of evidence for believing in God, but you should believe that I'd love to hear a good challenge.... It might redeem a few hundred of those lost Sundays.

> your whole shtick is to publicly
> swear at

This is public?

> and belittle those you disagree
> with

Friends have speculated that it comes from being the dimmer baby child in a stubborn family of bright folks. But anyway, it's tremendous fun to piss off people like you, snide little farts who so richly deserve it.

> It's silly to criticize a
> worldview for being irrational
> because every worldview is
> irrational.

Says who?

> Thanks. I try to be concise.

No one will begrudge you more space if you make better sense with it.

So Amy, I've been rolling this around my head pre-coffee this morning, and I just wanted to mention to you that I think "The Sahara of Godlessness" would be a great title for the new book you're looking to start soon...