Ricky Gervais Asks The Right Question
In an essay in the WSJ Gervais writes:
Why don't I believe in God? No, no no, why do YOU believe in God? Surely the burden of proof is on the believer. You started all this. If I came up to you and said, "Why don't you believe I can fly?" You'd say, "Why would I?" I'd reply, "Because it's a matter of faith." If I then said, "Prove I can't fly. Prove I can't fly see, see, you can't prove it can you?" You'd probably either walk away, call security or throw me out of the window and shout, ''F--ing fly then you lunatic."This, is of course a spirituality issue, religion is a different matter. As an atheist, I see nothing "wrong" in believing in a god. I don't think there is a god, but belief in him does no harm. If it helps you in any way, then that's fine with me. It's when belief starts infringing on other people's rights when it worries me. I would never deny your right to believe in a god. I would just rather you didn't kill people who believe in a different god, say. Or stone someone to death because your rulebook says their sexuality is immoral. It's strange that anyone who believes that an all-powerful all-knowing, omniscient power responsible for everything that happens, would also want to judge and punish people for what they are. From what I can gather, pretty much the worst type of person you can be is an atheist. The first four commandments hammer this point home. There is a god, I'm him, no one else is, you're not as good and don't forget it. (Don't murder anyone, doesn't get a mention till number 6.)
...So what does the question "Why don't you believe in God?" really mean. I think when someone asks that they are really questioning their own belief. In a way they are asking "what makes you so special? "How come you weren't brainwashed with the rest of us?" "How dare you say I'm a fool and I'm not going to heaven, f-- you!" Let's be honest, if one person believed in God he would be considered pretty strange. But because it's a very popular view it's accepted. And why is it such a popular view? That's obvious. It's an attractive proposition. Believe in me and live forever. Again if it was just a case of spirituality this would be fine.
"Do unto others..." is a good rule of thumb. I live by that. Forgiveness is probably the greatest virtue there is. But that's exactly what it is - ‐ a virtue. Not just a Christian virtue. No one owns being good. I'm good. I just don't believe I'll be rewarded for it in heaven. My reward is here and now. It's knowing that I try to do the right thing. That I lived a good life. And that's where spirituality really lost its way. When it became a stick to beat people with. "Do this or you'll burn in hell."
You won't burn in hell. But be nice anyway.
Let's be honest, if one person believed in God he would be considered pretty strange. But because it's a very popular view it's accepted. And why is it such a popular view? That's obvious. It's an attractive proposition. Believe in me and live forever.
It's funny to me how the nature of religion has changed over the millennia. It started as a way to make sense of the world. Man's brain had increased in size and he became curious about how things worked. Then came huge state-level civilizations, and religion got fucking crazy. Rituals and bloodletting and tributes to the gods so they would allow the new year to come and wouldn't wipe you off the face of the planet. It went from practical to more symbolic, especially as religions spread outside their places of origin and through the generations. We look at people creating their own religions (ahem, L. Ron Hubbard) as nuts, as if they're really any less bizarre than the ones that already exist (seriously, click on the hyperlink, it's worth it). Longevity does not equal credibility.
I don't think there is a god, but belief in him does no harm. If it helps you in any way, then that's fine with me.
Careful, Ricky, you're going to spoil the image of the atheist as hellbent on converting everyone. I think this is the way that most feel: we're not handing out pamphlets on the street telling everyone they can do whatever they want because there's no hell. We don't have a monthly quota of new attendees we have to bring to our atheist congregations. There is no atheist "religion" like many seem to think. We don't hold any particular set of values except for that there is no god.
No one owns being good. I'm good. I just don't believe I'll be rewarded for it in heaven. My reward is here and now. It's knowing that I try to do the right thing.
I didn't grow up religious like many in my neck of the woods. My parents both did, and, aside for my first year at middle school, I attended church only with friends. I went to a Christian school where we had devotionals and spiritual retreats. I explored all that and came to the conclusion that if I were right now given definitive proof that there is a god, it wouldn't change the way I lived my life--the good or the bad.
NumberSix at December 21, 2010 1:05 AM
This part is very Jewish:
There is no direct mention whatsoever of an afterlife in the Torah. And a famous Rabbinical saying is "the reward of a mitzvah (commandment/good deed) is a mitzvah" - which can be interpreted as Gervais does, that goodnesss is its own reward.
Judaism does not emphasize pie in the sky when you die. It emphasizes choosing justice and kindness in this world. Which is why even very ignorant Jews still talk about "Tikkun Olam" - literally "fixing this world". Which is why immediately after the revelation of G-d at Sinai, the Torah segues into a panoramic list of "social justice" commandments.
Ben David at December 21, 2010 1:23 AM
"It went from practical to more symbolic, especially as religions spread outside their places of origin and through the generations."
And brought forth a new profession (the second oldest?) - that being the shaman, the intermediary, or in more modern terms - the priest/preacher. To think that people get PAID for interceding with this fantasy creature known as "god" and telling their parishoners how best to satisfy this creature (all the while making sure they are never comfortable with their level of obedience)....makes me think I'm not so bright. After all, I have to WORK for a living.
gharkness at December 21, 2010 3:46 AM
What a raging coward. How sad.
He starts out by attacking things that only Muslims do - killing people that believe in other gods and stoning people to death for their sexuality. These are things that Muslims do, today, right now.
Christians do not do these things. Jews do not do these things. Hindus and Buddhists and Mormons do not do these things. Muslims do these things.
But then, he turns to attacking the Jewish/Christian Ten Commandments and the Christian "Do unto others..." No mention of Islam, anywhere. Except of course, for the apostate/infidel murder, for which he fails to ascribe a faith.
Coward. Coward. Coward.
Tom at December 21, 2010 4:16 AM
The more I think about this, the more pissed I get.
I eagerly await this cowardly douchebag's Op-Ed next July 27th, four days before Ramadan, in which he attacks Islam in the most popular newspaper in the country. That should be fun.
Oh, wait, you mean he's too much of a coward to even think about writing anything like that? You mean he'd rather just attack Christianity/Judaism while backhandedly tossing in the murder that Islamic adherents readily commit in the name of their religion? Oh, okay, sounds good!
Tom at December 21, 2010 4:25 AM
It must be an unfathomable torture to be as smart and right as Ricky Gervais, when everybody else is just so wrong. I feel for him. I really do.
Old RPM Daddy at December 21, 2010 4:56 AM
"It must be an unfathomable torture to be as smart and right as Ricky Gervais, when everybody else is just so wrong. I feel for him. I really do."
This type of comment seems to get heavy rotation whenever the question of belief comes up. Belief in the absence of evidence is a virtue, nay, a requirement of religious belief. Non-belief in the same absence is considered arrogant, obnoxious, insulting. (Many atheists are so, of course, but so are many believers, and Gervais was pretty mild.)
Astra at December 21, 2010 5:58 AM
Well it's easy to attack Christians and Jews because we won't blow you up for it.(At least not anymore. Check your history there Tom, Christians HAVE killed for their Religion in the past) But let's face it, self proclaimed "Christians" can be some of the most judgemental and close minded people in the world. And unfortunately, those are the ones that are the most vocal and give the rest of us a bad rep.
Even if I disagree with him about God (because that is my personal faith), and even though I find his article to be somewhat pretentious, I do agree with his overall sentiment. Do good and live a good life just because it's the right thing to do, not because you believe that you will go to Heaven for it. If that's your only motivation to be a good person, than you aren't really a good person and don't really deserve the 'reward' you believe you are getting in my opinion.
Somewhere, the line between Spirituality and 'Religion' got blurred. Religion is not the same as Spirituality. Religion is a business for lack of a better word; it's distorted and corrupt. Spirituality is simply believing in and having faith in something (whatever that something may be for that person) bigger than oneself without requiring proof. I know it seems a silly notion to believe in something without having proof to some but hey, if it brings me comfort and peace then what's the harm right? As long as I'm not shoving it down my neighbors throat then I don't see why my believe in God is anyone else's concern. Just like Ricky's non belief isn't my concern. Just because we don't share the same belief in God, it doesn't mean we can't have a drink together and share a good laugh.
Sabrina at December 21, 2010 6:02 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/21/ricky_gervais_a.html#comment-1805678">comment from Old RPM DaddyIt must be an unfathomable torture to be as smart and right as Ricky Gervais, when everybody else is just so wrong. I feel for him. I really do.
And what's logically wrong with what he writes?
Amy Alkon at December 21, 2010 6:17 AM
Astra, point taken. But the Gervais extract quoted above was a little obnoxious, and kind of whiney. To whit: "In a way they are asking 'what makes you so special?' 'How come you weren't brainwashed with the rest of us?' 'How dare you say I'm a fool and I'm not going to heaven, f-- you!'" Seriously? The poor dear seems to be feeling oppressed.
This isn't to say that Gervais doesn't have some valuable things to say on living a good life, as Sabrina and Ben David's have noticed above. And, as Sabrina points out, being obnoxious is hardly exclusive to atheists.
Old RPM Daddy at December 21, 2010 6:19 AM
Tom writes: "The more I think about this, the more pissed I get. I eagerly await this cowardly douchebag's Op-Ed next July 27th, four days before Ramadan, in which he attacks Islam in the most popular newspaper in the country. That should be fun.
Why? It's Christmas, which is a Christian holiday, and his Christian friends and acquaintances in a predominantly Christian culture are the ones who ask him why he doesn't believe. He's writing to answer that question. Why should he address about Islam, or Hinduism, or Buddism, or Pastafarianism? Those aren't the people whose question he is answering.
Anyway, why do you take his article as an attack? It's not an attack at all - he is just printing his half of a conversation he has had numerous times. Your reaction is one I have encountered too many times myself: some Christians just cannot accept my atheism. They ask why I'm not going to Christmas services, or Easter services, or whatever, so I tell them. They then try desperately to "save" me, and take my refusal to convert as some sort of personal affront. It gets bloody tiresome...
a_random_guy at December 21, 2010 7:58 AM
My point is that Christians and Jews haven't done it in hundreds or thousands of years.
Ask George Tiller about this. Oh, wait...
Christians are no longer doing this on the scale Muslims are, but they are still killing in the name of God and generally making everyone's life harder.
The problem with killing in the name of God (apart from killing in the name of God) is that there's no one to whom we can appeal the verdict. If a dictator orders a lot of death and destruction, we can kill him, depose him or wait until he dies. When God orders people dead or hurt, what then?
People rarely stop being dickholes when they think they have the blessing of the Creator of All Things on their side.
MonicaP at December 21, 2010 8:00 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/21/ricky_gervais_a.html#comment-1805706">comment from Old RPM DaddyThat's Ben-David, who took a little vacation from his homophobic postings on other blog items. It's the evidence-free belief in god that causes so much of the misery of homosexuals in our society. Ben-David likes to go on about how promiscuous gay men are as a way to justify his homophobia -- and, in turn, his evidence-free belief in The Big Guy In The Sky. The truth is, MEN are promiscuous, and evolved to be that way, because it gave them the best shot of spreading their genes. But, for the fact that most women won't go to bars and blow men in the can, heterosexual men would behave just as gay men do.
Amy Alkon at December 21, 2010 8:09 AM
Tom you are an idiot.
While entire groups of christians are not out mudrering people(though they used to quite regularly), even today a few indiviual christinas do.
Abrotion doctors get murdered, american christans funded an african nation inititve which lead to the criminalzation and execution of homosexuals, etc.
So yes even today your relion, thoroughly neutered long ago, still cranks out a few nut jobs
lujlp at December 21, 2010 8:10 AM
a_random_guy:
I can accept your atheism just fine. I could really care less what you believe or don't believe. I'm not going to try to convert you or shame you or judge you. I know I'm far from perfect, and I've got enough of my own problems to worry about.
My problem with this column from Gervais is that he begins with this: "I would just rather you didn't kill people who believe in a different god, say. Or stone someone to death because your rulebook says their sexuality is immoral."
He then goes on to specifically take issue with Christianity and Judaism. In doing so, he is obviously and blatantly conflating murder in the name of religion with these two religions. As I state above, the only mainstream religion in the world today that murders people for sexual acts/apostasy/non-belief is Islam.
Yet Gervais chose to write this column four days before Christmas, and to leave out any mention of Islam whatsoever, while including the bit about murder in the name of religion. I would have aboslutely no problem with the column if that bit was not included. But it was.
Tom at December 21, 2010 8:10 AM
@Sabrina - Of course Christians have killed in the name of religion. As have Jews. As have adherents of pretty much every religion on Earth. In fact, adherents to pretty much every ideology, political party, state, country and race on Earth have killed in the name of that entity or belief at one point or another.
My point is that Christians and Jews haven't done it in hundreds or thousands of years. Certainly not at any point since Ricky Gervais has been alive. The only religion that has done this, and continues to do this, is Islam. Yet Gervais sees fit to toss in the offhand accustation of murder in the name of religion in a column that is otherwise entirely devoted to Christianity and Judaism.
Like so many other cowardly Hollywood/political/media personalities, he's attacking the soft target that he knows won't fight back, instead of the target that will blow him up or cut his head off.
Tom at December 21, 2010 8:17 AM
lujlp - By your own admission, these couple examples you mention are "nut jobs." They are hardly representative of Christians in general, and should not give Gervais (or you) license to paint the entire religion as one that murders apostates and non-believers or stones people for sexual practices.
And I appreciate the irony of being called an "idiot" by a semi-literate moron who made at least eight basic spelling mistakes in a three paragraph post. You even managed to spell "Christian" three different ways.
Tom at December 21, 2010 8:49 AM
@ Tom,
I do agree that picking on Christians right before the sacred Christian Holiday, (which honestly has been bastardized beyond recongition anyway but that's for another thread) is totally tacky. And because he knows we won't cut his head off for it, there is something a little spineless about it. Of course it's easy to pick on Christians. What are we gonna do? Throw a bible at him? I don't disagree with you on that.
Regardless, he has the right to say what he feels about it and while I find some of his comments about Christians to be a bit smarmy and ill timed, I do see that he has some valid points.
Besides, he wasn't picking on JUST us Christians. He was commenting on religion as a whole and I don't take great offense to it. In fact, I agree with some of his thoughts, just not on how he approached it.
We would still be remiss to not remember that there was a point in history where people of our faith were doing just what he says and killing people in the name of our faith. Sure we don't go around collectively murdering people in the name of God anymore (the Muslims have that all taken care of for Allah now) but that doesn't mean there aren't some out there who claim to be of the Christian faith who wouldn't if they were extreme or motivated enough. There are cults all over the country who do all kinds of things in the name of God. Only they usually end up killing themselves by drinking poisoned Kool Aid in some crazy dude with a Jesus complexs' basement. In that case, I say let 'em kill each other off. The less crazy "Christian" people running around spouting off ignorant God propoganda the better.
Most Christians live their lives simply, lead by example, and coeixst peacefully with the rest of society without all the fire and brimstone but unfortunately, those are not the ones that Ricky is referring too. He's referring to the zealots who get the attention because they are very public and vocal about their "christianity", and those Christians are usually the most ignorant and obnoxious of the group. I agree with him about those "Christians".
Sabrina at December 21, 2010 8:49 AM
"Ask George Tiller about this. Oh, wait..."
MonicaP, that's juvenile and predictable. Like the drooling infant lujlp, you cite a single lunatic as an excuse to label a religion of billions as murderous savages. Just like when the left inevitably trots out Timothy McVeigh as evidence of the massive right-wing violence just about to erupt in this country. I await you or lujlp whipping out the "Hitler was a Christian" card next.
Tom at December 21, 2010 8:55 AM
@TOM
I agree with sabrina, but Tom had the historical part a bit inexact:
My point is that Christians and Jews haven't done it in hundreds or thousands of years.
on the top of my hat:
Mass murder:
* christian against islam: crusades (wikipedia: of nearly 200 years, between 1095 and 1291)
* catholic against protestant: The European Wars of Religion were a series of wars waged in Europe from circa 1524 to 1648, following the onset of the Protestant Reformation (wikipedia). (personal question: why do you think protestant fled Europa to america?)
Individual murder:
last year: On May 31, 2009, George Tiller, a physician from Wichita, Kansas who was nationally known for being one of the few doctors in the United States to perform late-term abortions, was shot and killed by Scott Roeder, an anti-abortion activist (wikipedia, see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence).
What you wanted to say is : "in recent history, christianity as a religion did not enforce mass murder, while unfortunately, some zealots still believe the good old middle age is not over."
My take on it is: wait that the oil will be in shortage, and we'll see for new crusades .
nico@HOU at December 21, 2010 9:00 AM
@Sabrina (and everyone else) - Please read this carefully as there seems to be confusion about what I'm saying.
I have absolutely no problem with Gervais taking on Christianity. As you say, he is free to write what he wants to about the religion, at any time he wants. Yes, his timing is tacky, but I could care less about he (or anyone else) being an atheist.
What I do have a problem with is his inclusion of the bit about murder in the name of religion, without mentioning Islam. The entire focus of his rant is on Christianity and Judaism. Therefore, one would not be wrong to assume he is claiming Christians and Jews are out there murdering people in the name of their religion left and right. They are not. Muslims are. And yet he doesn't mention this. Because he's a coward.
Tom at December 21, 2010 9:03 AM
@nico - Please tell me you can do better than a war against fellow Christians that happened about 500 years ago. Because that's desperate.
As for Tiller, I'll just copy and paste my response to Monica - Like the drooling infant lujlp, you cite a single lunatic as an excuse to label a religion of billions as murderous savages. Just like when the left inevitably trots out Timothy McVeigh as evidence of the massive right-wing violence just about to erupt in this country. I await you or lujlp whipping out the "Hitler was a Christian" card next.
Tom at December 21, 2010 9:08 AM
@ Tom,
Going back and reading it again, I can see your point.
Sabrina at December 21, 2010 9:14 AM
Another fascinating facet from The Religion of Peace:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/news/world/2010/12/afghan-sex-practices-concern-us-british-forces
Seriously, how does an entire culture get so fucked up?
Eric at December 21, 2010 9:28 AM
"And what's logically wrong with what he writes? "
Well for one thing, he can't prove his own existence - what he thinks is his consciousness could just as easily be explained as a very complex chemical reaction and a delusion - but that's not where he starts with his doubting. If he is going to accept an unprovable dogma like that, why stop there?
Jim at December 21, 2010 9:44 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/21/ricky_gervais_a.html#comment-1805777">comment from JimThere's a good bit of evidence that Ricky Gervais exists. He leaves footprints, poop, etc.
What evidence do you have that god exists?
Amy Alkon at December 21, 2010 9:52 AM
Ah, Jim is a follower of Bishop Berkeley.
"I refute him thus."
Astra at December 21, 2010 10:04 AM
Gervais is right to lump Christianity in with Islam and other religions because his problem isn't with the savagery of it, it's with religion as a whole -- simply the fact that people practice it. In that sense, Islam and Judaism and Wicca are all the same -- a system of beliefs based on a fantasy.
Religion doesn't have to shoot you between the eyes to be a death trap, BTW. The Catholic Church frequently reveals itself as a death cult, when it opposes condom use in Africa on the basis that every sperm is sacred, or tries to force a 9-year-old incest victim to give birth to a child that will kill her, or opposes medical advances that will save countless lives while making it difficult or impossible for people who are too far gone for help to end their suffering.
At least Muslim jihadists aren't pretending to care about us.
MonicaP at December 21, 2010 10:07 AM
Got any more recent examples? Say...from the last century or so.
Personal answer: The majority of Protestants who fled to America fled Protestant Europe.
Many of the English Puritans who migrated to America in the 1600s were fleeing civil unrest in England (Protestant Royalists vs. Protestant Parliamentarians).
You mean the Islamic invasion of the formerly Christian eastern Mediterranean. And the Christian counter-invasion.
Just love how the Crusades are being portrayed as unprovoked violence of rapacious Christians against innocent Muslims.
"The specific crusades to restore Christian control of the Holy Land were fought over a period of nearly 200 years, between 1095 and 1291." - Wikipedia [emphasis mine]
"The Muslim presence in the Holy Land began with the initial Muslim conquest of Syria in the 7th century under the Rashidun Caliphs." - Wikipedia [emphasis mine]
"Another factor that contributed to the change in Western attitudes towards the East came in the year 1009, when the Fatimid Caliph al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah ordered the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. ... Pilgrimages were allowed to the Holy Lands before and after the Sepulchre was rebuilt. The Muslims eventually realized that much of the wealth of Jerusalem came from the pilgrims; for this reason and others, the persecution of pilgrims eventually stopped. However, the damage was already done, and the violence of the Seljuk Turks became part of the concern that spread support for the Crusades across the Christian world." - Wikipedia [Note the "persecution...eventually stopped" means Muslims were persecuting Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land]
"The papacy of Pope Gregory VII had struggled with reservations about the doctrinal validity of a holy war and the shedding of blood for the Lord and had, with difficulty, resolved the question in favour of justified violence. More importantly to the Pope, the Christians who made pilgrimages to the Holy Land were being persecuted." - Wikipedia [emphasis mine]
Conan the Grammarian at December 21, 2010 10:09 AM
Hi, Tom! Hey, are you the stellar example of the beatific Christian, calling lujlp "drooling infant"?
Your offense has stripped you of the decency you could have stood upon to make your points.
I see that a lot.
Christianity imprisoned Galileo, burned whole hordes and armies of witches and held Europe by the divine rights of kings. Forget Tiller - look at the confident ignorance expressed by modern Christians in public office.
When Christians remember the basic tenet of their professed religion - the unheralded sacrifice for others - they do great things. We are here because of British Protestants, as opposed to French or Spanish Catholics. When the principle of sacrifice is discarded, there is nothing more than a loudness making excuses for itself and belittling others while citing a "higher power".
You should stop that.
Radwaste at December 21, 2010 10:18 AM
Per Radwaste: "When Christians remember the basic tenet of their professed religion - the unheralded sacrifice for others - they do great things."
Well put, and something more people should remember. I'd pour you a beer if I could!
Old RPM Daddy at December 21, 2010 10:26 AM
For all the talk atheists complain about religious people getting in their face, they sure do get in the face of religious people themselves. How quick they are to mock religions and religious people. Well, except for one religion, the dhimmies.
hadsil at December 21, 2010 10:32 AM
@nico - Please tell me you can do better than a war against fellow Christians that happened about 500 years ago. Because that's desperate.
How soon we forget: what about the protestant vs. catholic violence in Northern Ireland? That is very recent history indeed.
a_random_guy at December 21, 2010 10:33 AM
"There's a good bit of evidence that Ricky Gervais exists. He leaves footprints, poop, etc.
What evidence do you have that God exists?"
Well, there's the whole universe thing. Plus, much of nature is just too perfectly formed to be totally random. I think I read that scientists even agree on that - how unlikely the odds of random cells linking up just so and forming creatures on their own. To me, it's more logical than illogical to believe in a creator, though I don't take the bible literally.
lovelysoul at December 21, 2010 10:39 AM
Creation, infinity, eternity are arguments for the existence of Deity. Therefore, "Why don't you believe in God?" is a more logical question than "Why do you believe in God?"
Handled gracefully, "Why don't you believe?" is a gracious invitation for the just announced atheist to share. Atheism is multifaceted. When someone announces they do not believe in God, listeners remain puzzled as to what the atheist believes. It could be any of many things.
Conversely, if I announce my Catholicism, listeners have an immediate solid conception of what my beliefs are.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It ought not be overlooked that "Why don't you believe in God?" only occurs AFTER an announcement that one does not believe in God. The announced atheist is often desiring and almost begging for a follow up question.
Therefore, while "Which question is more logical?" is interesting to consider and to bat about, I have little empathy for any atheists who have actual complaints. Either don't bring your atheism into conversation in the first place; or explain - like an adult - why you brought atheism into the conversation even though you do not wish to more fully address that subject in the conversation. Buck up. Being ungracious and rude is a HUMAN trait, as opposed to a particularly Christian trait. There's a LOT of rude damned atheists in this world.
gcotharn at December 21, 2010 10:41 AM
Radwaste - I'm not really interested in your opinion of my decency. But you should really stop judging people based upon your idea of morality. You're starting to act like one of those *ick* Christians.
However, I am glad that you apparently hold Christians to a higher standard of behavior than atheists (or whatever lujlp identifies as).
Tom at December 21, 2010 10:44 AM
What a lot of you are forgetting is that there is a difference between "religion" and "spirituality", to wit (yes, I've said this before, but I'm saying it again): Religion is for people who are afraid of going to hell; spirituality is for people who have already been there.
I hope everybody has a Cool Yule!
o.O
Flynne at December 21, 2010 10:48 AM
MonicaP, I'm sorry that you're so angry and hateful towards Christians. It's sad, and pretty sick.
But, again, you completely and totally miss the point.
Gervais DOESN'T lump Christians in with Muslims. He doesn't mention Islam at all. His entire column is focused on those terrible murdering, stoning, deceiving Christians and Jews.
Tom at December 21, 2010 10:49 AM
The Agnostic argument goes that if you can't prove that God exists and I can't prove that he doesn't, then it is logical for people to believe what they want. But it is not.
The Objective argument goes that reason is the faculty which allows humans to interpret the information gathered by their five senses. It is our only means to perceive reality and our only source of knowledge. No person has ever seen, touched, smelled, heard, or tasted God. Certainly there have been many to claim this, but none can offer proof ... and certainly none can be repeated on command.
You can't prove that the alignment of the fourth moon of Jupiter didn't cause me to be the reincarnation of the Pharaoh of Egypt either. But by treating arbitrary claims as meriting cognitive consideration, one also treats the arbitrary as on a par with the rational and evidentially supported. And this is the most irrational position possible.
Therefore, the only rational and logical response is to state emphatically that God does not exist.
AllenS at December 21, 2010 10:53 AM
For all the talk atheists complain about religious people getting in their face, they sure do get in the face of religious people themselves.
How so? I have yet to have an atheist knock on my door and try to convince me there is no God, and I'm not trolling churches telling people not to believe. This is the Internet. People can walk away if they don't like the content.
I'm sorry that you're so angry and hateful towards Christians. It's sad, and pretty sick.
You misunderstand. I'm not hateful toward. Christians. Most are pretty decent people. I'm hateful toward Christianity. I'm hateful toward all organizations that cause pain and suffering and death with no recourse to justice. Aren't you?
He doesn't mention Islam at all. His entire column is focused on those terrible murdering, stoning, deceiving Christians and Jews.
Why does he have to mention Islam? Are you angry that he doesn't mention Wicca? Again, his point is that religion sucks, not that certain religions suck. He mentions Christianity and Judaism because it's a message timed for the Christian and Jewish holidays, and he knows his audience.
MonicaP at December 21, 2010 10:56 AM
"I'm not hateful toward Christians. ... I'm hateful toward Christianity."
I'm sure, in your head, perhaps in academia, there's a difference. But in the real world, hating Christianity means you hate those who adhere to and define themselves by it.
Why does he have to mention Islam?
First, please go back and reread all my previous comments. Done? Good. Now I'll repeat the point I've made about twenty times in this comment thread.
He doesn't have to mention Islam. But he starts his column by ranting against people who murder those who don't believe in their god, and stone people for sexual acts perceived as deviant. Muslims do this. Muslims are the only religious group in the world today who regularly do this. Christians do not do this. Jews do not do this. For Gervais to begin his column by lamenting murderous religions, and then fail to mention Islam, is a problem.
Tom at December 21, 2010 11:09 AM
First, please go back and reread all my previous comments. Done? Good.
Awfully presumptuous to think that I would do this a second time, but OK, moving along.
in the real world, hating Christianity means you hate those who adhere to and define themselves by it.
Actually, no, and maybe you can't make the distinction, but I can. I see religious people as people who are being preyed upon by those willing to take advantage of very basic human psychological needs. But go on telling me what I believe.
It seems like your problem is that he just didn't mention the religion you take the biggest issue with. I'm OK with that, since I take issue with all of them.
You actually have a legitimate complaint. Too bad your tendency toward pretentious mockery makes it more entertaining to address that, instead.
MonicaP at December 21, 2010 11:20 AM
a_random_guy - Not to excuse it, but I fail to see how the violence in Ireland falls under Gervais' "I would just rather you didn't kill people who believe in a different god, say."
Tom at December 21, 2010 11:20 AM
>>But in the real world, hating Christianity means you hate those who adhere to and define themselves by it.
Not so fast there, Tom.
Though I probably haven't got the quote quite right, it goes something like: "hate the sin, but LOVE the sinner"!!
Jody Tresidder at December 21, 2010 11:21 AM
"Well, there's the whole universe thing. Plus, much of nature is just too perfectly formed to be totally random. I think I read that scientists even agree on that "
Saying that the "Universe" is proof of God is like saying that Christmas presents mysteriously appearing under my tree is proof of Santa Claus.
And while there are patterns in the universe, patterns can be found even in truly random sets, e.g. patterns will emerge in random sequences of numbers. The existence of patterns does not contradict the existence of randomness.
"Creation, infinity, eternity are arguments for the existence of Deity. "
How can these possibly be an argument for a deity? An all knowing all powerful super hero is an arbitrary invention to suppress peoples' fear of the unknown. Besides, it creates more questions than answers. Where did the deity come from? And as I've said before, arguing for the unprovable is irrational.
AllenS at December 21, 2010 11:21 AM
MonicaP - Good, I'm glad we agree, and that I could bring you around to my point on the issue at hand.
Tom at December 21, 2010 11:22 AM
"Plus, much of nature is just too perfectly formed to be totally random. I think I read that scientists even agree on that - how unlikely the odds of random cells linking up just so and forming creatures on their own."
These two sentences do not follow one from the next. Scientists would agree that much of nature is the result of extremely unlikely events, but not that their extreme unlikelihood means that they could not have occurred without an outside agency.
Astra at December 21, 2010 11:22 AM
Jody - It's too bad that most atheists seem to only cite Christianity when it's convenient for mockery.
But to your point: A Christian defines himself by his religion. Christianity - the belief in Jesus Christ as the son of God and the savior of mankind - is who a Christian is. To divorce the two, for Monica to say that she hates the belief, but does not hate the people who hold the belief as central to their every act and breath, does not work.
Tom at December 21, 2010 11:32 AM
That's evidence a physical human body exists. But does the consciousness that calls itself Ricky Gervais exist? Or is he part of a solipsistic construct? Does he exist only in the mind of Timmy Westphall?
There are things that science "knows" exist, but hasn't "proven" its existence (e.g., dark matter).
Conan the Grammarian at December 21, 2010 11:37 AM
It seems your point was that Gervais is a coward for not mentioning Islam, which is not something we agree on.
To divorce the two, for Monica to say that she hates the belief, but does not hate the people who hold the belief as central to their every act and breath, does not work.
As someone who does not believe in God or take part in organized religion, it's easy to divorce the two. Christians seem able to do it, too; otherwise, evangelicals would run hard and fast from us heathens instead of continually trying to convert us.
The problem here is that Christianity is not a belief: It's a religious system designed to codify a set of beliefs and control the way people behave.
I don't care if people believe that wine and bread literally become the body and blood of Christ when the priest says the magic words. I start caring when they start insisting that "God's word" be taught in elementary schools. And this is the inevitable result of religion: Believers feel compelled to shape the world the way God wants it, and religious organizations give them the power and money with which to do that.
MonicaP at December 21, 2010 12:01 PM
"Mass murder:
* christian against islam: crusades (wikipedia: of nearly 200 years, between 1095 and 1291)
* catholic against protestant: The European Wars of Religion were a series of wars waged in Europe from circa 1524 to 1648, following the onset of the Protestant Reformation (wikipedia). (personal question: why do you think protestant fled Europa to america?)"
YARP! My understanding (to add a bit of context) is that for several hundred years prior to the Christian crusades there was a vicious onslaught of oppressions, rapes, tortures, impalings, behadings, field-dressing of Monarchies children before their eyes, quartering, cutting off body parts of people in front of their families, boiling people alive....(I could go on) at the hands of Muslims. Orianna Fallaci, an atheist, probably has one of the most concise, useful and graphic depictions of this in her two books - The Force of Reason and The Rage and the Pride.
As far as Protestants fleeing Europe to America are you speaking of the Pilgrims? This had more to do with usury (against their religion) and taxes imposed by the Bank of England . So in a sense, yes, religious freedom and to avoid religious persecution (via usury). But it's how you've chosen to phrase this leaves me questioning your full grasp on this history - rather than your ability to regurgitate spoon fed anti-Christian talking points.
No Christian should be that threatened by this article a few days before xmas or any other time of year if they were secure in their belief... just sayin'. Dude is a bit of an ass though.
Feebie at December 21, 2010 12:18 PM
Tom, I agreed you had a point about Ricky's column and how he excluded the main offenders (Islam) of murder in the name of religion... but take a breather man. Don't take it so literal. Read the entire thing, not just the piece of it Amy posted here. It's actually very well written.
Was he as "inclusive" as he could have been regarding other religions? Certainly not. Do I agree with him 100% on it all? No. But I get it. I can see where the exclusion of Islam and Muslims is bothersome seeing as they ARE the ones literally murdering in the name of their religion, but I get what he was doing when he wrote it. He was talking about Christianity more specifically in some spots but overall, I think we was refering to religion as a whole. If I were to take him at face value regarding Christianity, he was likely refering to actual references in the bible that refer to punishing non believers and homosexuality being a sin and all that jazz about burning in hell for our sins. But I don't think he was implying that we are actually going to stone him to death. He was making a point using extreme examples because it makes for a more interesting read, not because he truly believes that we Christians are going to stone him. (and if he does believe that well then there isn't much we can do to change his mind other then NOT stone him and prove him wrong) It's not like his article is going to make a huge world change anyway. He's a comedian for heavens sake. How much clout can he actually have?
By the way, from one believer to another... calling people "drooling infants" and basically having a temper tantrum about it is making you more like the Christians that Ricky is talking about. How about a little grace? Isn't that what your so upset about anyway? That we are being portrayed as murderous, stone throwing, judgemental, close minded, blood thirsty nonthinkers? Well acting like an ungracious, impatient, namecalling, toddler about it certainly isn't making our case any stronger. And if you don't care about what I, a fellow believer, think about your decency then you have far bigger problems with your faith than this article my friend.
Sabrina at December 21, 2010 12:20 PM
*****My point is that Christians and Jews haven't done it in hundreds or thousands of years. *****
Oh, well that makes it okay, then. *eyeroll*
Daghain at December 21, 2010 12:26 PM
"Oh, well that makes it okay, then. *eyeroll*"
No, Islam still behaves the same way they have for centuries. Never evolved, never moved forward. It doesn't make it okay, but there IS a difference.
We aren't dealing with the same philosophy, religion nor the same people. In Islam - nothing has changed.
Feebie at December 21, 2010 12:30 PM
I believe in God. I don't push my belief on anybody. I have two friends who are atheist. I've asked them both why they don't believe in God, because I'm interested in what they have to say. I don't want to convert them. I don't want to prove them wrong. They're not going to change my mind. I don't want to change theirs. I just am curious as to what thoughts brought them to where they are now. It's the same reason I ask my Orthodox Jewish friend why he'll only take a certain number of steps on the Sabbath. I'm curious about people and what makes them tick.
UW Girl at December 21, 2010 12:54 PM
@allenS of 11:21
I said:
"Creation, infinity, eternity are arguments for the existence of Deity. "
You said:
"How can these possibly be an argument for a deity?"
Would you agree that creation, infinity, eternity are arguments for a supernatural power/understanding which is greater than that which can be fully comprehended by humankind? B/c that was my point. I used "Deity" for sake of brevity.
gcotharn at December 21, 2010 1:14 PM
"How soon we forget: what about the protestant vs. catholic violence in Northern Ireland? That is very recent history indeed."
This is socio-political classism and derived from England's supremacy over Ireland - more so than religious differences.
History...context....people,,...please!
Feebie at December 21, 2010 1:24 PM
>> This is socio-political classism and derived from England's supremacy over Ireland - more so than religious differences.
Listen -- strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony
Eric at December 21, 2010 3:13 PM
Listen - Who is anyone to determine what the basis of a government is in another country (unless of course, they mean to destroy you or cause you DIRECT harm)? They could probably have been more easily persuaded to change by capitalism then by dividing them up and culturally, tearing the country to pieces. IMHO - England liked to stir up shit...a lot. It could have been done a several different ways without causing that hornets nest.
Besides, I didn't say which was better. I only said that the disputes between these two religions were more from an socio-political basis (in Ireland) then a religious one. Otherwise they'd be blowing up buildings because of the Virgin Mary or the sacrament of confession.
Feebie at December 21, 2010 3:41 PM
Hi, Amy!
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at December 21, 2010 4:10 PM
Some elf hiding in my server charging you by the word?
Amy Alkon at December 21, 2010 5:02 PM
One point that needs to be made. When Christians or Jews murder people, whether in the name of G-d or not, they are not following the teachings of their religion. When Muslims do it they are.
ken in sc at December 21, 2010 5:29 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/21/ricky_gervais_a.html#comment-1806098">comment from ken in scActually, the Bible says you should kill people who, for example, wear two different fabrics. The difference? The Bible is taken as allegory, and the Quran is to be taken literally and unquestioningly as the word of god. The Hadith -- the words and actions of Mohammed and his close followers -- are to be emulated. Mohammed who married Aisha when she was 6 and had sex with her at 9. Mohammed who regularly had innocent non-Muslims murdered to steal their wealth and rape their women.
Those who are not informed about Islam should not be posting as if they are.
Read the Quran, read thereligionofpeace.com and jihadwatch.com, and read the Hadith. And then come back and tell us what Islam does and does not advocate.
Amy Alkon at December 21, 2010 5:34 PM
I'd like someone to get this God person on Letterman for an interview and an update.
Not sure what the server is charging for that comment but it looks like I'm the big spender tonight, Crid! Ha!
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at December 21, 2010 5:35 PM
"Would you agree that creation, infinity, eternity are arguments for a supernatural power/understanding which is greater than that which can be fully comprehended by humankind?"
I, for one, would not, if, as you say, this is how you define "deity." Just because we don't understand it (yet) doesn't mean the tooth fairy did it. It only means we haven't figured it out. Even if we NEVER figure it out, that doesn't mean it's magic.
gharkness at December 21, 2010 6:04 PM
"Would you agree that creation, infinity, eternity are arguments for a supernatural power/understanding which is greater than that which can be fully comprehended by humankind? B/c that was my point. I used "Deity" for sake of brevity."
"Scientists would agree that much of nature is the result of extremely unlikely events..."
Then, why is it so strange or wrong to believe in a creator, a god? At worst, we're wrong, but then, we'll be dead, so it won't matter. But what if we're right? Being an atheist seems like the dumbest strategy, and also a very depressing, pessimistic view.
lovelysoul at December 21, 2010 6:58 PM
@gharkness
Who said anything about magic?
I do believe creation, infinity, eternity are better understood, by a power/understanding which exists in another dimension, than is possible for humans to comprehend in this dimension. Thats not magic. Thats me, looking at creation, infinity, eternity, and reasoning that some power/understanding must comprehend those things at greater depth than human understanding is capable of. Thats me using logic. Whatever entity created existence is God. Can we agree on that?
gcotharn at December 21, 2010 7:02 PM
You did: "supernatural power" = magic.
"Whatever entity created existence is God. Can we agree on that?"
No, we cannot agree on that, at least not until you can show me this entity. You know, where *I* can see him, and see some evidence of existence beside the 'magic' he works.
Because I don't believe in magic.
gharkness at December 21, 2010 7:20 PM
"Radwaste - I'm not really interested in your opinion of my decency. But you should really stop judging people based upon your idea of morality. You're starting to act like one of those *ick* Christians.
However, I am glad that you apparently hold Christians to a higher standard of behavior than atheists (or whatever lujlp identifies as)."
Like many self-professing Christians, you're making things up. As for your "decency" - I didn't use that term. I asked you a question, whether calling Lujlp a "drooling infant" was indicative of your status as a Christian. You ducked that question by trying to make this about me. Nope. That's your conduct, above.
You're also fabricating a bias on my part w/r/t the behavior of Christians. I hold people to the standards they assume and present. So far, you're just making excuses for boorish behavior. You should be honest about that, as BOTU is.
But you haven't even recognized the tenets of the religion you're defending. I suppose I'll have to wait for you to do that for you to behave in a civilized manner.
-----
"Would you agree that creation, infinity, eternity are arguments for a supernatural power/understanding which is greater than that which can be fully comprehended by humankind?"
I'm very sorry to have to repeat this, but you have to define those terms and present an example of each so that others may know what you're talking about before you go on.
Ay, but there's a rub: you cannot point to any example of "creation". No, the car in your driveway was converted from other materials. No violation of the laws of conservation of matter and energy occurred. Had a baby? Same notation. That small body was built from raw materials obtained from obvious sources.
"Infinity" and "eternity", when not used in their primary role of exciting an emotional response in the reader or listener, are simple mathematical concepts that aren't even particularly useful. Consider this: there is a category of number which is less than many numbers you can name - the non-denumerable. The famous example is Pi. It's irrational. It cannot be "counted". Yet it is profoundly useful!
There is another widespread misconception, about the word, "random". It is NOT the same thing as "unpredictable".
Consider the lottery. It's unpredictable, but only up to a point: the solution will ALWAYS be six different numbers, none repeated. If it were "random", the result would not be just numbers - it would be, "5, cinnamon, force, red, Josephus and 3i". What?
Here's the payoff: there are four fundamental forces acting on every particle and wave in view. They ALWAYS act in specific ways. These are described in the laws of physics - and guess what? No process obeying the laws of physics is truly random. No universe with a law of physics can be truly random.
Not knowing this is a big handicap in studying probability, and it's one of the big obstacles to explaining to the faithful why prayer doesn't work to make physical changes. The plain fact there is that you cannot set aside the law of cause and effect by simple begging, which is all a prayer really is.
But about definitions: Never mistake a human language construct, even mathematical, for reality. It is used to describe reality. There is a difference.
It is our job to recognize when we reach the limits of utility in such descriptions, and to use some rigor in following those who have determined the more obscure relationships between things we can see and use - because if we do not, we end up spouting gibberish.
Radwaste at December 21, 2010 7:42 PM
@gharkness
I understand where you are coming from. You ought ditch "magic" and acknowledge where I am coming from: I can see, in creation/infinity/eternity, active power and understanding which is beyond what humans are capable of. To best of my understanding, many or most atheists can also see such power and understanding at work in creation/infinity/eternity. They merely have a problem with theism.
Let me try this: how do you comprehend/describe the power which created this dimension of existence?
And be careful :) to not fall into the reasoning of the lady who interrupted a physics professor to say: "You are wrong, sir. The Earth is balanced on the back of a turtle." Physics Professor: "And what is under the turtle?" Lady: "Silly man. Its turtles all the way down!"
gcotharn at December 21, 2010 7:47 PM
@radwaste
I ask the same of you: how do you comprehend/describe the power which created this dimension of existence in which we humans dwell?
gcotharn at December 21, 2010 7:50 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/21/ricky_gervais_a.html#comment-1806137">comment from gcotharndescribe the power which created this dimension of existence in which we humans dwell?
Because you don't have evidence for an explanation doesn't mean you just get to make shit up.
Amy Alkon at December 21, 2010 8:35 PM
I love this. It's very articulate and well-written. Gervais's original conversion to not believing in God was very similar to mine-no big dawning moment; it just seemed like the obvious conclusion once I was old enough to start thinking about it logically.
I would venture a guess that the reason Islam is not specifically mentioned is that we live in a predominantly Christian country and probably 95% of Gervais's religious friends and acquaintances are Christian or Jewish. You'll notice he didn't mention Wiccanism or Satanism either, although no doubt both sectors have some pretty f-ed up beliefs.
Shannon at December 21, 2010 8:59 PM
*****"Oh, well that makes it okay, then. *eyeroll*"
No, Islam still behaves the same way they have for centuries. Never evolved, never moved forward. It doesn't make it okay, but there IS a difference.
We aren't dealing with the same philosophy, religion nor the same people. In Islam - nothing has changed. *****
And what exactly did that have to do with my response? Tom was implying that since it hadn't happened for a long time it wasn't as bad as Islam. I call bullshit. It's ALL bad. ALL OF IT. Just because it's in the past does not mean a fucking thing, except that some religious leaders have figured out that their persecution has to be a little more...subtle. It's not progress, it's protection.
About the only thing you can say for Islam is that, assholes that they are, they at least don't lie about it.
Any time you can brainwash a group of people to crucify others in the name of their god, you have a problem. I don't give a rat's ass what name you give it, or what year it happened in, or whether it's happening now.
But then again, I'm a godless heathen, and I'm not apologizing for it.
Daghain at December 21, 2010 9:01 PM
"I can see, in creation/infinity/eternity, active power and understanding which is beyond what humans are capable of. "
One more time: define these words you use. I do not think they mean what you think they mean. I have described what their uses are, but not their definitions, because that is your job. I challenge you to produce a meaningful definition for "active power". Power, in physics, the only rational method of describing the relationships we measure constantly, has the definition of "energy expended per unit of time".
You have an emotional, not a rational attachment to those terms. You probably need a father figure to be responsible for the spectacle of the night sky. Yet need does not produce reality.
And I can tell immediately that you have no idea what humans can do. You have the cure in front of you, but you're not using it. If you were, you wouldn't be going on like this.
I describe my surroundings in rational terms, because I recognize that belief does not affect reality - it's the other way around. You might look here to see how you form beliefs. Yes, there's a common process.
Radwaste at December 21, 2010 9:25 PM
@Amy Alkon
The draconian fashion in which you interpret the principle: do not make shit up, doesn't allow much room to entertain the mysteries of life. Was I truly making shit up? Or, was I trying to explain the unexplainable, as best I could, while counting on readers of good will to use their own poetic understanding in the places where I was incapable of excellent description?
gcotharn at December 21, 2010 11:13 PM
@Amy Alkon
The draconian fashion in which you interpret the principle: do not make shit up, doesn't allow much room to entertain the mysteries of life. Was I truly making shit up? Or, was I trying to explain the unexplainable, as best I could, while counting on readers of good will to use their own poetic understanding in the places where I was incapable of excellent description?
gcotharn at December 21, 2010 11:13 PM
Or, was I trying to explain the unexplainable, as best I could, while counting on readers of good will to use their own poetic understanding in the places where I was incapable of excellent description?
Your best explanation of the unexplainable is conveniently unfalsifiable. And it's not unexplainable, we just don't yet know what the explanation is. That's where science has one up on religion as explanation: good science actually seeks to prove that something isn't true. It adapts old models to reflect new information and doesn't fill in the gaps with things that can't be proved wrong (again, I'm talking about good science--ahem, intelligent design).
NumberSix at December 21, 2010 11:21 PM
apology for double post. I need a new mouse.
@Radwaste
Talk about making shit up! I have an emotional attachment and need a father figure?
I'm trying to understand where you are coming from.
To me, if human words are inadequate to describe creation (i.e. the beginning of existence) - and they are - then that is a clue that some entity exists which is superior to humans. Which is also an inadequate way to describe - as it necessarily must be - given humanity's inferior power and comprehension.
It seems, to me, your logic is: if gcotharn can't plainly describe it, or cannot describe it in physics or mathematical terms of which I approve, then gcotharn ought not mull it or entertain it or wonder about it, and gcotharn definitely ought not try to describe it while counting on the good will and poetic understanding of readers.
If this is your logic, then you have a game going, b/c anyone can deconstruct any word into oblivion. I'm not impressed with the game. Its not very clever.
I'm impressed with people who can look at the creation of all existence and understand that something exists which is more powerful than man. I'm impressed with persons of good will who use their poetic instincts to understand what I am saying. I would be impressed if you would answer my question: Did something more powerful than man create all existence? i.e. does something more powerful than man exist?
B/c, bringing this all the way back to the blogpost: if we can look at Creation and infer that something more powerful than man exists, then its logical to ask "Why don't you believe in God?"
gcotharn at December 21, 2010 11:51 PM
@Number Six
re unfalsifiable
I'm not arguing that I've scientific proof. I'm just saying: given whatever immensity is behind Creation, its logical to ask "Why don't you believe in God?" People who answer the question will also have logic behind their answers. I'm simply arguing that the question itself can be sensible and appropriate; in fact is more sensible than "Why do you believe in God?" IMO.
gcotharn at December 22, 2010 12:02 AM
When I ponder the immensity of the universe (not Creation, since I don't truck with that, either), it leaves me in awe of how things have evolved to work the way they do. I celebrate the fact that there are so many things that we have no idea how or why the came about, because it means that we have that much left to explore. I think that's thrilling.
in fact is more sensible than "Why do you believe in God?" IMO.
That is definitely your opinion, since I find your way more illogical. It's not logical to ask someone why he doesn't believe in something he has no way of proving exists. It's just that since most of the world does have at least a passing belief in one god or another, it's the default position. That doesn't make it the most logical one.
NumberSix at December 22, 2010 12:16 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/21/ricky_gervais_a.html#comment-1806237">comment from gcotharnTo me, if human words are inadequate to describe creation (i.e. the beginning of existence) - and they are - then that is a clue that some entity exists which is superior to humans.
Well, that's just silly. By your logic, what entity created the entity?
Amy Alkon at December 22, 2010 12:19 AM
@Number Six #2
re "It is explainable"
I suspect its not explainable or understandable until we move into the next dimension of our existence. I understand that you disagree.
However, lets assume Creation is explainable and understandable to human beings: some power still had to trigger Creation, and somewhere in there exists God, imo.
I have thought that most atheists believed in that immense power which I call God, and merely had a problem with the theistic concept of a personal God. But, so far as I can tell, Amy Alkon and Radwaste and gharkness are following a "don't make shit up" principle which precludes drawing any conclusion about the mystery of the beginning of existence - including the conclusion that a supernaturally powerful entity must have been involved.
gcotharn at December 22, 2010 12:22 AM
> my server charging you by the word?
Aw, gimme a break... It was a condensed tweet... A little morsel of humility that I thought needed your consideration specifically.
There's no point in putting extra words into a comment, especially for no reason. Adding extra text without purpose is just a waste of time... And doing so quickly becomes both repetitive and redundant. Verbiage, like any human product, can overwhelm to no good purpose. The sentences can stack up and up and up, such that eventually the reader has to wonder why he (or she) is being bothered with such a fattened missive. It's important not to let the length of a message get out of hand!
Concision... Knowutimean, Jellybean?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 22, 2010 12:22 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/21/ricky_gervais_a.html#comment-1806242">comment from gcotharnI'm not arguing that I've scientific proof. I'm just saying: given whatever immensity is behind Creation, its logical to ask "Why don't you believe in God?" People who answer the question will also have logic behind their answers.
Again, because something's big and inexplicable doesn't mean you can make shit up to explain it: "Oh, there must be a god."
You have no evidence there's a god: it's a convenient way for you to explain you cannot.
Amy Alkon at December 22, 2010 12:23 AM
But, so far as I can tell, Amy Alkon and Radwaste and gharkness are following a "don't make shit up" principle which precludes drawing any conclusion about the mystery of the beginning of existence - including the conclusion that a supernaturally powerful entity must have been involved.
They're (we're) also not allowing for the conclusion that a giant purple Guinea pig was involved. Because we can't prove it one way or the other. It is actually about scientific evidence, gcotharn, because where science seeks to explain, religion gets stuck in hanging unfalsifiable conclusions on things. If you say it's because of a god, how can you go any further? This is the problem I have with Intelligent Design: it's filling gaps in our knowledge with things we can never research.
NumberSix at December 22, 2010 12:29 AM
@Amy Alkon
I don't know what created the entity. Linear thinking won't get me there. I suspect different dimensions exist, and the explanation lies there.
How do you think about Creation - fully allowing, of course, that "Creation" is a limited and necessarily inaccurate description.
gcotharn at December 22, 2010 12:32 AM
I think it's a dangerous game to play to say that because we don't understand something, then it is completely beyond our understanding (on this dimension). You're in fact creating more untestable claims to explain one untestable claim.
NumberSix at December 22, 2010 12:35 AM
@Number Six
I appreciate, much, your polite engagement on this.
Lets go back to your celebration that we have that much more to explore. You are likely to die before science proves anything about the beginning of all existence. In fact, humans are likely to cease to exist before science proves anything about the beginning of all existence. It is beyond the limits of science. All we will ever have about it is reasoning. You guys must have some reasoning about it, musn't you? You have no thoughts or wonderment about it?
If the Big Bang created everything, what was behind the Big Bang? It couldn't have been natural forces, b/c natural forces did not exist before the Big Bang. Nature itself was created at the Big Bang. That means the cause of the universe must be something beyond Nature, something we would call Supernatural.
Robert Jastrow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Jastrow
was an agnostic. Jastrow:
"Science has proved that the universe exploded into being at a certain moment. It asks: 'What cause produced this effect? Who or what put the matter or energy into the universe?' And science cannot answer these questions."
"[S]cientists cannot bear the thought of a natural phenomenon which cannot be explained, even with unlimited time and money. There is a kind of religion in science, it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the universe, and every effect must have its cause, there is no first cause...
"This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control..."
gcotharn at December 22, 2010 1:01 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/21/ricky_gervais_a.html#comment-1806291">comment from gcotharnHow do you think about Creation - fully allowing, of course, that "Creation" is a limited and necessarily inaccurate description.
Why are we capitalizing "Creation"? And what do you mean by "Creation"?
I have no idea how the world got here, and because I'm not 8, I don't have to invent explanations for everything I don't know. I just say I have no idea, and that I think being alive and much of the planet is pretty awesome, and leave it at that.
(I also don't think that Job petted a dinosaur, and there's no evidence there was such a person as Job, but plenty of evidence there were dinosaurs.)
Amy Alkon at December 22, 2010 1:12 AM
@Amy Alkon
Thanks for explaining. I did wonder. Now I know.
gcotharn at December 22, 2010 1:26 AM
> Ben-David, who took a little vacation
> from his homophobic postings
This word has got to die.
Listen, if you want to read Psychology Today, (aka 'the fun parts for knowitall non-majors'), go ahead. If you want to WRITE for it, we're all happy on your behalf.
But the reduction of this once-nuanced-yet-modest term from the medical arts to a schoolgirl razz of "Big meany towards teh gay!" is beneath you... If you're a serious student of human nature, sexuality, or science.
When "homophobe" turns up twice in a single paragraph like that, how could it be anything but a teenager's taunt?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 22, 2010 1:37 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/21/ricky_gervais_a.html#comment-1806300">comment from gcotharnI notice that you don't offer any evidence to support your beliefs, just a wee response to my joke about Job. Is that...because there IS no evidence to support them?
Amy Alkon at December 22, 2010 1:38 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/21/ricky_gervais_a.html#comment-1806303">comment from Crid [CridComment at gmail]You, Crid, go after Ben-David for his rants about teh gays. Don't knock me on terminology.
Amy Alkon at December 22, 2010 1:41 AM
"You are likely to die before science proves anything about the beginning of all existence."
True
"In fact, humans are likely to cease to exist before science proves anything about the beginning of all existence."
True
"It is beyond the limits of science."
And THERE is the huge leap of logic. This does not follow.
"All we will ever have about it is reasoning."
And what "reasoning" concludes that the beginning of all existence is caused by some unknown or unknowable guy in the sky? Yeah, magical reasoning.
"You guys must have some reasoning about it, musn't you? You have no thoughts or wonderment about it?"
Of course we do! I would love to get an idea of how many of the people who stayed up most of the night to watch the full lunar eclipse were atheists....and who were believers. I have an idea, but it would just be a guess, because I have no data other than personal observation. Believe me when I tell you that atheists are often consumed with curiosity about the natural world. They just harbor no illusions about the fact that it IS, indeed, natural, and not mystical.
The thing you don't seem to acknowledge (or maybe you just reject it) is that it is perfectly OK to say: I. Don't. Know.
I don't know 1) whether the universe had a beginning 2) if it had a beginning, whether it will have an end, and 3) whether it was caused by some "other" being and/or 4) if not caused by some "other" being, who, by the way, also had no beginning or end..... HOW it happened. And guess what? I will probably never know. And it's okay to not know.
In fact, I would posit that it is better to say "I don't know" than to make up something because my limited knowledge makes it impossible for me to figure it out.
There was a time when the sun was pulled across the sky by a chariot of fire. When illnesses were caused by "humours." When reproduction occurred when entire miniature little men (or women) were contained in side sperm, and of course it was the woman's "fault" if all the offspring were female.
All of these myths have been dispelled by concentrated research and the resultant increased understanding. I don't expect this to stop; do you? We most certainly will not not live long enough to understand it all.....but we won't quit trying and we refuse to believe that it's magic just because we don't understand it.
gharkness at December 22, 2010 4:43 AM
gcotharn: Define "creation" and provide an example.
You've been ducking this - as I expected. Typically - and I have been addressing this topic for years, so I will be greatly surprised if you come up with something I haven't seen - this is done by people who invoke a large, powerful white man in charge of the Universe, but who has time for whether they've seen a breast today and how it came into view.
Go ahead. Be different. But: be very different.
Radwaste at December 22, 2010 6:35 AM
Re "...if we can look at Creation and infer that something more powerful than man exists, then its logical to ask "Why don't you believe in God?":
There is another bit of defining to do here. Ordinary study of the Earth shows quite a bit of the assertions in and about the Bible are flatly wrong. Do be sure that when you mention God, you make the necessary distinction between something "responsible" for everything we can see and God™ as approved by King James and his relatively ignorant ilk.
You (plural) might not appreciate how some things develop. Back on 2005, I pulled this off a forum because it illustrates a basic problem some people have understanding processes:
This is an example of why "one guy" does not have to be the answer. Of course, there's a bunch of others, not the least of which is that you have to talk like a simpleton to equate something which cast the laws of physics with somebody who cares a whit about you personally...
Radwaste at December 22, 2010 6:53 AM
OK, for the sake of this ONE agrument let us assume tha god does exist, if god does exist then he created me as the dylexic person I am, and Tom - ridiculing my physical inability to spell is ridiculing gods creation, and in turn ridiculing god - therefor your argument instuls god and not me the meat puppet on a string that I am.
There is no evidence of a god like being, let alone one that wants us to worship it, if there was you see the thing the people who wrote the bible claimed to see.
When was the last time anyone saw a man split a river, or a sea? Call water out of a rock? Burst into flames for speakig gods name?
Also Tom, if by your logic noone can disparage christianity itself without disparaging every individual christian, would not the same reasoning hold that no indivudal christain can be held blameless for christianity's crimes?
Or do you like most religious people want it both ways?
Also you want to know the funny thing about christians and jews? You people are already at least 50% atheist. Seriously how many of gods laws to you find unpalatable? Slavery is endorsed by your god, as is murder, and rape(so long as its a vigin, or someone of a different ethnicity). Also being christmas time did you know god specifiaclly stated that christmas trees are immoral? They are a form of pagan idolitry, as is Santa Claus fyi.
Also bravo going strait for insults rather then debating the actual arguments themselves - just like most christians ignore the message and attack the messenger, not very 'Christ like" is it?
I swear it people like you Tom who are more apt to create an athiest then an athiest is to convert someone away from their religion - so please, by all mean, keep spreading your venom ans far and wide as posible
lujlp at December 22, 2010 6:59 AM
@gcotharn - we've only been writting for 6000 yrs or so and look at how far we have come in that time, and how musch further along we'd be if not to the disasterous effect on humanity that christianity and islam have had - imagine how much further we'd be.
We know that matter is immensly bundled energy - an exploding nuke convers little of its actual mass into enegry.
Just beacuse you dont know the 'cause' doesnt mean god did it.
At one point god caused the sun to rise
We discovered to sun rising was an optical illusion cause by the earth rotation
We discovered the univiers was bigger then our planet - and suddendly gaod caused all of creation and not just out word anymore.
We discovered verifibale evividence pointing to a single event we call the big bang, so god must have caused that.
Now data suggests that, and at this point cosmology start sliping beyond my understanding, that multi dimetional energy membranse collided causing a massive realse of energy - that realse of energy being the big bang, and now people are saying god must have cuased that.
SO here is my question, why do gods followers and adherents have to wait until after science discovers something to tell us that 'god was responsible for that'
Ever wonder why god didnt tell us all this stuff to begin with?
How is it an all powerful perfect being cabale of ANYTHING and EVERYTHING, unchanging(cause why would a perfect being need to change?) is so powerless and ineffecive in ou world. The guy used to move sea, tople mountians, strike people dead, heal the sick,and the lame, and the dead.
And now? He cant do jack shit, even when your life depends on it. WHY IS THAT? Do none of ou christians ever wonder that?
lujlp at December 22, 2010 7:23 AM
Being an atheist seems like the dumbest strategy, and also a very depressing, pessimistic view.
What I don't understand is why we need a "strategy." Either something exists or it doesn't. What should we be strategizing for?
As for it being depressing and pessimistic, I feel that way about belief in God. If you go out into an empty field in an area with low pollution, far from city lights, the view of the night sky is fantastic. Blow-your-socks-off fantastic. I understand only a fraction of the physics and chemistry of it, and I want to cry because it's so fantastic. To think there are billions of people praying on their hands and knees and waiting for something better.
On a different note, I find it interesting that the belief in God is almost always tied to a belief in the continuation of the human spirit beyond death. What if there is a God, yet we all just rot when we die anyway? Would everyone be OK with that?
MonicaP at December 22, 2010 7:34 AM
Then, why is it so strange or wrong to believe in a creator, a god? At worst, we're wrong, but then, we'll be dead, so it won't matter. But what if we're right? Being an atheist seems like the dumbest strategy, and also a very depressing, pessimistic view.
I don't think it's strange or wrong to believe in a creator. I just don't think the evidence supports it. My disbelief is not a strategy and if anything, has led me to more comfort in accepting the ways of the world than depression and pessimism. There is an entire field of religious studies (theodicy) that seeks to explain how evil can happen if a loving God exists, so it's not like the religious have managed to answer this question to their satisfaction through their belief.
Your second sentence is a version of Pascal's wager which only works if you assume that religious belief has no negative consequences in the here and now. Pascal himself suffered greatly for his faith, because he believed he was not saved. For every case of religion providing comfort, there is also one of religion being the source of guilt, angst, and self-loathing.
Astra at December 22, 2010 8:53 AM
"What if there is a God, yet we all just rot when we die anyway? Would everyone be OK with that?" That's a good point.
God may exist - but what does he owe us? The bible says you win eternal life if you believe in that set of stories. But why? Why does god - a non corporeal being with infinite understanding - care if he has the most fans or friends? It's the mentality of a middle schooler who thinks having 500 facebook friends make him better than a kid who has 50. Would God, if s/he/it existed really give a crap about a popularity contest? Wouldn't it make much more sense if God existed, that God would "just be". All neutral, like.
It's just boggling to me how religion, and which religion you end up being part of (if you are at all) tends to be a factor of where you are born. So if you're born in Mexico you are probably Catholic, in Israel you will probably be born into a Jewish family, etc. If each of these religions, with their own perspective on God (God TM - stealing that, Raddy) and God's rules tends to be regionally based...yet each is convinced of its own correctness...which one is really right? And which ever is right - does that mean the rest are totally wrong/going to suffer eternally? So if Islam is right, we all are damned?
Does that make God racist (against Africans)? Anti-Semetic? Or anti-whatever else? It doesn't even make logical sense that an entity, having absolute power and infinite knowledge and existence, would be subject so petty human views.
Gretchen at December 22, 2010 8:56 AM
Crid: "There's no point in putting extra words into a comment, especially for no reason."
"Brevity is the soul of wit"... Shakespeare said so.
Feebie at December 22, 2010 9:02 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/21/ricky_gervais_a.html#comment-1806595">comment from AstraBeing an atheist seems like the dumbest strategy, and also a very depressing, pessimistic view.
Why? You can't appreciate life if you don't believe there's some Big Daddy who cares that you shorted the waitress on her tip?
Amy Alkon at December 22, 2010 9:11 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/21/ricky_gervais_a.html#comment-1806596">comment from AstraPascal himself suffered greatly for his faith, because he believed he was not saved. For every case of religion providing comfort, there is also one of religion being the source of guilt, angst, and self-loathing.
Pascal suffered greatly because he was a dipshit who believed, sans evidence, that he'd burn in hell.
Luckily, the bullshit religions put out varies somewhat. In Judaism, there is no concept of heaven or hell (per my biblical scholar mother -- she studies the Bible as literature, and has since I was a kid). You're supposed to do good works on earth. You can do that even if you don't believe in The Big Daddy.
PS Who created god?
Amy Alkon at December 22, 2010 9:13 AM
Pascal suffered greatly because he was a dipshit who believed, sans evidence, that he'd burn in hell.
Sadly, he wasn't a dipshit, he was a brilliant mathematician and physicist who gave up his scientific work when he had his crisis of faith. An excellent example of a loss to society because of religious belief.
Astra at December 22, 2010 9:33 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/21/ricky_gervais_a.html#comment-1806637">comment from Astrahe was a brilliant mathematician and physicist who gave up his scientific work when he had his crisis of faith. An excellent example of a loss to society because of religious belief.
Yep. Religion poisons everything, as Hitchens wrote.
Amy Alkon at December 22, 2010 10:25 AM
> Don't knock me on terminology.
Your terms betray weak thinking. As does your will to assign chores ("You, Crid, go after Ben-David for..."). I think the popular fascination with gay rights is a sham. It's all about self-aggrandizement.
> Jastrow was an agnostic.
I always dug that guy. He made science look cool. Hell, he made adulthood look cool, and he didn't even play fuzztone guitar.
> What I don't understand is why we need
> a "strategy." Either something exists
> or it doesn't. What should we be
> strategizing for?
Exactly. Hey Sister, Go Sister, Soul Sister, Go Sister...
Ancillary point: What could "strategy" even mean in discussion of sincere insight? How is one's position on a 'battlefield' chosen by anything besides what one actually perceives?
Let's say Monica doesn't reeeeeleeeee believe in God, but she pretends to believe for a whole lifetime. When she dies, won't an omniscient God know she's been lying? Is He supposed to be impressed? Is He going to let her into Heaven anyway?
If He does, how horny am I supposed to be to spend eternity with people like that? This mortal coil is already crawling with perfectly-able bodied people who get blue handicapped parking stickers on bogus pretexts.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 22, 2010 10:29 AM
TWO CENTS!!!
I think keeping an open mind, that us lowly lil' humans do not have the capacity nor the worldly abilities to even begin to comprehend what we DON'T know (let alone being able to prove it - using any scientific methods, that may be FAR, FAR, FAR beyond our understanding and comprehension - let alone abilities or skill sets), keeps me honest, in check with reality. There is a really big world out there, and I ain't in the center of it. It keeps right sized, the fact that...ultimately, I don't know shit.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070203103355.htm
I find that the less absolutes I apply to my own philosophy or beliefs in life, the more freely I am able to have the capacity to develop, learn, create and understand new ideas, in new ways. Coincidently, or not - I am also more pleasant in the process.
In 100 years from now, people of the future will think we were complete morons - I think we can all agree that we could think that of people we've proceeded. Progress is something that just happens.
We have NO idea what will be proven or disproven centuries ahead of us. I think it's worth it for me to not apply any absolute judgement to something I haven't the slightest capacity for understanding if it so exists.
Feebie at December 22, 2010 10:50 AM
> An excellent example of a loss to society
> because of religious belief.
Under no circumstances should we be permitted to dictate the religious beliefs of other people. Nor should we imperiously direct their career choices. And even when we think the one has wounded the other, in ain't none of our fucking bees wax.
You don't wanna work in a lab? Don't work in a lab.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 22, 2010 10:51 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/21/ricky_gervais_a.html#comment-1806690">comment from FeebieI think it's worth it for me to not apply any absolute judgement to something I haven't the slightest capacity for understanding if it so exists.
Wise thinking. I don't say there's no god; I just say I see no evidence there's a god, therefore, I don't believe in him.
Demanding that every question must have an answer is something I realized was unreasonable back in my childhood. Attributing answers without any reason to do so out of some discomfort at unanswered questions is something I don't think I've ever felt compelled to do.
Amy Alkon at December 22, 2010 11:52 AM
I think it's worth it for me to not apply any absolute judgement to something I haven't the slightest capacity for understanding if it so exists.
Indeed. But we have to make sure we don't give too much credence to unsupported ideas.
I've argued with many writers and editors over the notion of giving equal time (or newspaper inches, as the case may be) to ideas that don't deserve it. All ideas are not created equal. Intelligent Design, for example, is not as valid an explanation for the way the world works as the theory of evolution.
I'm like Scully: I want to believe. If someone actually finds scientific evidence of God, I will.
MonicaP at December 22, 2010 12:45 PM
As Genesis reads: In the beginning, God said let there be light. However, the sun wasn't created until the third day, so what is the light? That got me to thinking about the creation story and notices it parallels scientific thinking.
First Day - Light is created from nothingness
Science - The Big Bang happens
Second Day - The waters are separated. This taken to mean the spiritual and physical world, allegorical to earth, heaven, and gehenna in Jewish mysticism
Science - Hydrogen molecules coalesce into Helium and the rest of the natural elements. Early stars form into galaxies
Third Day - The sun and moon are created
Science - Our solar system finally takes form
Fourth Day - The fishes of the sea are created
Science - Evolution begins with the microorganisms in the ocean and eventually sea creatures
Fifth Day - Plants and animals are created. Great beasts roam the lands
Science - Eventually plants form and sea creatures evolve to come ashore and stay on land. Soon dinosaurs roam the lands
Sixth Day - From the dust of the earth Man is created
Science - Man is at the end of line of when creatures have evolved. From the apes comes intelligence. Neanderthals. Cro-Magnons. Homo-Sapiens.
Seventh Day - God rested.
Science - Stuff still happens but nothing Significantly New. We discover stuff that already existed or create ourselves.
:)
hadsil at December 22, 2010 2:41 PM
A few small problems,
Day 2 - water requires oxegyn so it couldnt have been hydrogen sperarted, and why would god just tell his prophets to write the word hydrogen? Also what kind of water is above heaven?
Day 2 the earth was created
Day 3 the plants were created
Day 4 the sun and moon were created
Seems you got your order mixed up, noe tat I've corrected it please explain how plants grew before their was even any sunlight to power their growth, also how did the earth form BEFORE the sun?
Day 5 fish and birds
Day 6 mammals, reptiles, and finally man
And yet we know that reptiles proceeded both mammals and birds, so agin the bible gets it wrong
Day 7 god rests
But he forgot to create females of the species which I supposed happened on Day 8 or 9, maybe even 10 or 11 the bible isnt really clear on that - the only thing it is clear on is that god forgot something
One question - which version of genesis 1 are you working from? Is it one that predates the scientific discovers that invalidate it or did you pick one of te more recent versions which were carfully edited so as not to conflict with scientific knowledge?
Cause it is the later, that is intelectually dishonest both on your part and on the part of those who edite the bible(a crime punishable by hellfire) and if its the former you need to work on your reading comprehnsion.
My point in case you missed it - is no matter which way you answer my question, you are still wrong
lujlp at December 22, 2010 3:43 PM
Thanks, Amy. I think where I may diverge from the typical brand of atheism is that I just don't care to believe devoutly one way or another.
Regarding translating 2,000 year old text l-i-t-e-r-a-l-l-y. I read somewhere that in ancient Hebrew a day (24 hours) as we define it now, was not necessarily the way that they may have been defined way back when. We don't know their definition or measurement of a day was. It was ambiguous at best - and I wish I had more on this then "I seem to remember" - but suffice it to say, if we don't have exact definitions and context for ancient text - it may be unwise to draw literal conclusions to either evidence or disprove certain theories.
I will always think the Torah and Bible are some of the most intriguing books from a literary, historical, cultural and spiritual perspective - even if I don't take them literally. I don't think that detracts from their value in anyway. Religion is a different matter all together.
Feebie at December 22, 2010 4:20 PM
@Amy Alkon
I never gave a second thought to your Job jibe. I was thanking you for graciously explaining, for my benefit, that you choose to not speculate on whether a power greater than man created the conditions in which existence came into being. Before your explication, I thought you might agree with the theory about a creative power greater than man, and merely object to belief that such a creative power is also a personal God.
Re Creation
Earlier in the thread, I used “creation”. Another commenter responded with discussion of creation of an auto, or a chair, or something. I switched to “Creation” in attempt to be more clear.
I do have another question. re “making shit up”: I don’t get how or where you draw the line between theory and proof; valuable and worthless. The Theory of Relativity had value from the moment it was publicized. If Einstein made shit up, then making shit up must have the potential to produce real value.
Separately: a creation event, i.e. a first event which triggered the existence of natural law, is theory, yet is pretty reasonable theory, imo.
And, bringing this back around to Gervais: given the reasonability of the theory that something more powerful than man triggered a creation event, it is also reasonable to ask “Why don’t you believe in God?”, as in “Why don’t you believe in a Deity which triggered a creation event which created natural law?”
And, of course, its reasonable for Gervais to ask: “Why do you believe in a personal God (i.e. theism)?”
gcotharn at December 22, 2010 9:22 PM
@gharkness
Thanks for your reasoned and sincere comment.
Of course I believe it proper and wise to say "I.Don't.Know", though maybe while using punctuation which flows more smoothly. :)
Re your list of things you don't know: I can't honestly say its "okay" to not theorize and sense Deity, b/c sensing Deity is the road to faith is the road to eternal life. My magical faith tells me you're going to Hell. A sad thing.
You conclude: "We most certainly will not not live long enough to understand it all.....but we won't quit trying...."
Don't you see that you HAVE quit trying? Thats EXACTLY what your reliance on and demand of proof amounts to: you have quit trying to understand mysteries of life which will never be proven before your death. You have quit trying.
gcotharn at December 22, 2010 9:46 PM
gcotharn: define "Creation" and produce an example.
You're ducking. I suspect you want to avoid saying "matter and energy came from nowhere" because you know there's no evidence of the process requiring an intelligence.
That's what you're about, isn't it? Intelligent design?
I'll save you a little bit of time on the "Creation" issue: nothing you can point to today was created; it was all converted from something else. Regardless of personal incredulity (basically, your argument is all based on your inability to believe something other than what you've advanced), matter and energy are conserved in chemical and nuclear reactions.
Saint Augustine was talking about you a while back...
Radwaste at December 22, 2010 9:54 PM
@Radwaste
I defined what I mean by "creation" in my Dec 22 comment at 1:01 AM.
I've said this before: creation can't be adequately defined. You believe that circumstance invalidates the concept. I say the inability to define it validates the concept of God behind it.
What do I think/suspect? I think the Big Bang is a possible explanation for creation. I suspect God, one way or another, and who knows how(?), triggered the Big Bang. I suspect that none of us, while we exist as humans in this universe, will understand how something was created out of nothing in some type of first event which created natural law. B/c we will never understand it, its probably not important for us to understand it. The important thing, imo, is that we sense Deity behind the triggering of the creation event.
gcotharn at December 22, 2010 10:06 PM
Dear Radwaste,
Matter and energy came from nowhere.
Sincerely,
gcotharn
gcotharn at December 22, 2010 10:07 PM
@Radwaste,
re intelligent design
I don't follow the intelligent design movement, whatever it consists of.
As I explained in the comment Dec 22 at 1:01 AM, I do suspect a supernatural intelligence designed and triggered the Big Bang first event which created natural law. But, I haven't followed whatever the Intelligent Design movement people have to say about it.
gcotharn at December 22, 2010 10:24 PM
to the commenters who believe they do not fully understand Christianity, and who wonder about aspects of Christian faith: I, and many Christians, recommend C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity". Its a short, easily read explanation of Christian faith.
Thanks to everyone who participated in this comment thread. I gained a better sense of the thinking of atheists. Such is a gift to me, and I am grateful.
gcotharn at December 22, 2010 10:40 PM
I've said this before: creation can't be adequately defined. You believe that circumstance invalidates the concept. I say the inability to define it validates the concept of God behind it
gcotharn
That is one of the dumbest things I have ever read.
Do you know why the sky is blue? Because for the majority of human history we were unable to answer that question, but now weknow why the sky is blue. By your reasoning, up util the very moment we discovered why the sky is blue, the fact that we didnt know was proof of gods existance.
Do you see the massive flaw in your argument?
Also in Einstein was making shit up then why do nukes work genius?
lujlp at December 23, 2010 3:28 AM
"My magical faith tells me you're going to Hell. A sad thing."
Try not to lose too much sleep over it - I certainly won't. Any "faith" which requires belief for which there is no proof (of course, that IS the definition of faith) - is bullshit. BTW, though I certainly am no religious scholar, my experience of religion tells me that lack of belief in god sending one to hell is the hallmark of only ONE religion, so you have been outed. All those other religions that also believe in god do not threaten nonbelievers or require a "personal savior" (gag) to keep them out of eternal torture. BTW what an inducement! If he was all that wonderful, why would he need to threaten people so?
"Don't you see that you HAVE quit trying?"
Utter nonsense. Though my personal career isn't in the physical sciences, I applaud and support those who work in this area. I eagerly read of advancement in all the sciences, but yes, when I was about 8 years old I gave up trying to make sense out of magic. (Am I the only person who realized the parallel between Santa Claus and "god" at around that age?) Once magical thinking is taken off the table, the world opens up to what can actually be true. By your logic, (if it could be called that), we would still be living in caves because everything unknown would be this wonderful mystery that we shouldn't be trying to figure out.
gharkness at December 23, 2010 4:07 AM
I see, once again, that the faithful mistake bald assertion for definition.
There is no room for learning in that head.
Radwaste at December 23, 2010 7:38 AM
@lujlp
It has to be clear, to everyone, including myself, that I am no genius. Still, you misrepresented me re relativity: I carefully referenced the time frame when Einstein publicly introduced relativity.
I am glad you brought this up, b/c: at what point did the Theory of Relativity have value? Did it only have value after the atomic blast? At what point do theories have value? Never? Do they only have value after they cease to be theory?
gcotharn at December 23, 2010 8:08 AM
@gcotharn
It is apparent you don't understand "theory" as it relates to scientific inquiry. A theory is the result of a hypothesis (look it up), which is then TESTED. At any point this theory can be shown to be wrong (at which time it is abandoned), or wrong under certain circumstances, and then it is altered to take into account the latest results of testing. And then it is tested again. And again. The value is in the results of the testing, to answer your question specifically.
A theory is only as good as its latest test, and once thoroughly tested, it is STILL called a theory because guess what - there may be a circumstance occur that hasn't yet been accounted for. So, while all known facts may have been tested to date, a theory will always be a theory because it's not possible to test every possible scenario and our database of knowledge against which to test changes with time and experience.
Those who say "well, evolution is only a theory," prove not their superior knowledge of facts, but their woeful ignorance of the scientific method.
Note: being "ignorant" means not to know. My comments are not a denigration of people who are ignorant. It only means they need to learn some stuff. (We are all ignorant about a lot of things - we just aren't all ignorant about the same things.)
Still, Amy said it best when she said: "we don't get to make shit up." That's the most accurate statement of this whole argument that I have seen to date.
gharkness at December 23, 2010 8:27 AM
@gharkness
Faith is bullshit? You have faith that nothing exists which cannot be explained by natural law. There is no proof of that.
Second, I didn't know anyone cared about my personal religious categorization. I am Protestant Evangelical, and attend a bible church which is filled with wonderful souls who do great work in my community.
Third, re your citation of the many religions which exist:
don't you think Christians, and religious persons of every stripe, understand that thousands of various religious beliefs exist? That the odds of our particular belief system being correct are a thousand to one? a million to one? way worse than a million to one? Don't you think we know that? In the face of those odds, and even though you think we are fools, you might nevertheless give us small credit for having the courage to stand up and say: we know the way out of here. It may be a misguided thing we do, yet its a courageous thing and a loving thing. Think about it: if a person truly knows the way to eternal life, why WOULDN'T that person share that information? Its the loving thing to do. Failing to share the information can equate to a spiteful "fuck you".
Fourth, re a question such as "Why would [God] need to threaten people so?"
I again recommend "Mere Christianity". Its an excellent explication of why Christians believe as we do; of why, for example, we illogically cling to a God who threatens us.
Fifth, I fully support what you reference as figuring things out; fully support science. I thank God for it.
gcotharn at December 23, 2010 8:37 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/21/ricky_gervais_a.html#comment-1807252">comment from gcotharnI thank God for it.
Allah or Zeus?
Amy Alkon at December 23, 2010 8:40 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/21/ricky_gervais_a.html#comment-1807254">comment from gcotharn@gharkness Faith is bullshit? You have faith that nothing exists which cannot be explained by natural law.
Boy, that brainscan you must've done of gharkness sure came back fast!
And I'm guessing that gharkness simply requires evidence before believing in things.
Do you have "faith" that frozen yogurt can fly? Or would you require evidence before believing that? Would it make a difference if a man in a priestly frock told you so? You're awfully credulous about other things that sort of man has to say.
Amy Alkon at December 23, 2010 8:43 AM
@gharkness
At what point does a theory have value? Can't it have value while it remains an unproven theory? "Making shit up", i.e. theorizing, looks like it can be an immensely valuable thing.
gcotharn at December 23, 2010 8:43 AM
@Amy Alkon
re brainscan
Fair enough. I retract my assertion re gharkness' faith.
re priestly frock
Who is doing a brain scan now? I'm a cynical SOB who is hugely suspicious of every supposed "man of God"; hugely suspicious of their claims.
gcotharn at December 23, 2010 8:47 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/21/ricky_gervais_a.html#comment-1807259">comment from gcotharnBut, you believe in god sans evidence, right? Why not believe frozen yogurt can fly on the same terms?
And is it Allah or Zeus, and if so, please explain why there's evidence for your particular Big Guy In The Sky.
Amy Alkon at December 23, 2010 8:50 AM
"Faith is bullshit? You have faith that nothing exists which cannot be explained by natural law. There is no proof of that."
No, I do not have such faith. Remember: it is NOT necessary to have an explanation for everything past I don't know. Not having an explanation doesn't mean it isn't there, and doesn't mean it's magic. Yes, faith is bullshit, and sorry - not trying to call names, but the rest of your post is just plain nonsense. I give up. (that is, I give up trying to reason you into anything.... you can't reason someone OUT of something that they weren't reasoned IN to, and you definitely have no reason in your commentS)
gharkness at December 23, 2010 8:50 AM
And again. The value is in the results of the testing, to answer your question specifically.
======
As you see, I already answered. I have no respect for someone who will not read the answers already given. Don't bother me with any more questions, since you don't read the answers you already got.
gharkness at December 23, 2010 8:52 AM
@gharkness
Its not rude to "give up" a conversation. We don't have to agree. I appreciate your input. It was reasoned, sincere, and interesting to think about.
gcotharn at December 23, 2010 9:00 AM
gcotharnm Einstein didnt make up the theory of relitivity and wait for others to test it - he came up with the thoery as a net reuslt of a myrid of experiments done by a number of noteworthy scientists.
Do you even understand that acientific theories arises as a result of cateloged data, and not as an invitaion to start looking for data?
lujlp at December 23, 2010 9:00 AM
@Amy Alkon
We could argue specifics forever, and I'm not interested in that extended conversation at this time, which is why I recommended "Mere Christianity". It answers queries about why, for instance, Christians believe in a Christian God instead of in Allah or Zeus.
Re believe in God sans evidence
Yes and no. I believe in God sans evidence, i.e sans scientific proof. Over the last 36 hours, or however long I've been returning to this thread, I've come to like the descrip "magic". Most of the questions people have thrown out about Christianity are falsely premised. "Magic" is maybe the most accurate descrip I've seen in this comment thread. It makes me smile.
I do have "evidence" which I am comfortable with. It is partially comprised of theory, such as theory that a first event points to a supernatural trigger.
It is, also, evidence which I sense in my soul, and thus which cannot be proven, adequately described, or defended against ridicule. It can only be personally experienced. Magic.
Something else is relevant to understanding where Christians are coming from:
God cannot be understood through logic. God is not working within parameters which were created by the Big Bang. God cannot be adequately explained in words or in logic. One cannot "get" God (to use a new age term) from the mere confines of one's head. God can only be sensed in action, i.e. in a meeting of reason and spirit which only comes together in action. And, my descrip necessarily is inadequate. I'm trying to say God can only be glimpsed, and even then in barest glimmers, when one is in action.
So, to a Christian, saying God can't be explained, or creation can't be explained --- is not even ridicule. That they can't be explained is part of the point.
gcotharn at December 23, 2010 9:28 AM
@lujlp
Regardless of what came before the Theory of Relativity: when Einstein hit upon the theory, at that time, it was still an unproven theory. Right? Am I ignorant of how that occurred? Thank goodness Einstein has scientific blocks upon which to construct his theory. But he was still making shit up.
gcotharn at December 23, 2010 9:33 AM
So, gcotharn - to sum up: you believe in magic, you don't know what a theory is in practice, don't know and apparently won't learn about the scientific process and you also do not know what constitutes "evidence", because you're using that special definition the faithful use to rationalize things.
Since you believe in magic, be prepared to embrace the reality of the wizard world. It's been described in far more detail than you've displayed knowledge of here.
You have spent all this time saying, "I don't know, therefore God™ did it."
Radwaste at December 23, 2010 10:19 AM
Gee. Does anyone know what "supernatural" definition is being offered?
Because in the Christian world, everything - everything - has to have been magicked into existence by God™.
And therefore, nothing whatsoever can be "supernatural"!
Radwaste at December 23, 2010 10:22 AM
gcotharn, without a doubt you are the most willfully ignorant person I have ever seen on this site.
I can understand ignorance, I can even get past a person with an intelegence limited by their genetic makeup, by willful ignorance and the refusal to learn basic, fundemental principles - quite frankly that should be a capital offence.
Seriously can you even attempt to explain the flaw in your thinking that leads you to belive that scientific theories which are based on repeated, verifiable experiments are "making shit up" and that god, who by your own admission there is no evidence for is "real"?
Gravity is a theory did you know that? Is the only thing keeping you tethered to the earth your inability to make yourself elieve you can fly?
So as gravity just being a theory isnt real, why are we stuck to the ground?
ANd as all math is theory why do planes have to be built in an exact manner in order to creat an airfoil effect which allows flight?
Are you really this stupid?
lujlp at December 24, 2010 12:07 AM
Where's the "like" button? Oh crap, we're not on Facebook! Lujlp, here's your "like"! Radwaste, yours too!
gharkness at December 24, 2010 4:59 AM
So as gravity just being a theory isnt real, why are we stuck to the ground?
Velcro?
And I second gharkness' like for rad and luj.
Steve at December 24, 2010 5:09 AM
That theories can be valuable is exactly my point, and is the point which I have been hoping someone amongst you guys would finally publicly admit to.
Think of Einstein, using scientific building blocks to then take the next step and theorize relativity.
Similarly, assuming everyone here (including me) believes the Big Bang is a legit possible explanation for creation: the science which led to postulating the Big Bang is comparable to building blocks which allow us to take the next logical step, which is to say something Supernatural created the conditions for the Big Bang and triggered the Big Bang.
The Big Bang created natural law. Therefore, whatever created and triggered the Big Bang was not subject to natural law, but existed outside natural law, and therefore was properly termed "Supernatural".
You guys are arguing that there is no sense in considering anything which cannot be understood according to the confines of natural law. You are self imposing strictures which allow you to ignore that something Supernatural has to exist, insofar as something had to trigger a first event which created existence and natural law.
Your self imposed strictures are tremendously silly. You are shutting down your own reason and logic. You are coming to a point and planting a sign: "Do not go further: beyond here there be dragons!" Only, instead of dragons, beyond here there be something which is vastly more intelligent than humankind. And I'm not sure why you are shutting down your own reason and logic; not sure why you refuse to acknowledge that there must have been some type of first event which created the universe and natural law.
Now, if you want to argue that the personal God in which I believe is silly, then I understand your point, and we can agree to disagree. What I don't understand is why you shut down your brain when its time to acknowledge that something Supernatural was out there at the time of a first event of creation.
I'm not trying to get anyone to agree that the Supernatural thing was my personal God. You guys and I will never agree to that in this comment section. Rather, bringing this around to where it began, which is Gervais' question: I'm saying creation is such a good argument for the existence of something supernatural, i.e. for the existence of what we call God (even if an impersonal God, as opposed to a personal God), that "Why don't you believe in God?" is a perfectly logical question.
Do you guys understand the distinction I'm drawing between God as Deity, i.e. God as supernatural power which might be impersonal; vs. God of theism, i.e. a personal God? Maybe you think I am arguing that creation indicates that a theistic God exists. I'm not arguing that. I'm saying creation is an argument that God as Deity exists. Thus, creation validates "Why don't you believe in God?"
gcotharn at December 24, 2010 3:18 PM
An comparative example:
Columbus looked at ships disappearing over the horizon, used his reasoning, and said: I think the world is round.
Columbus' theory was never proven until Magellan (to best of my knowledge).
Today, many look at the Big Bang, use our reasoning, and say: something Supernatural triggered the Big Bang.
Our theory likely will never be proven during the existence of humankind.
So, our circumstance is exactly like the circumstance of ship captains during the interim after Columbus' theory and before Magellan. For us, there will never be a Magellan. All we have is our reasoning. Was Columbus correct? Are we correct that something supernatural triggered the Big Bang?
And you understand how this wraps back around to Gervais' question.
gcotharn at December 24, 2010 3:44 PM
Ought we captain our ships as if the world is flat?
gcotharn at December 24, 2010 3:45 PM
As a Christian, I get tired of people in the news and public making fun of my belief or acting offended by Christmas trees. If you don't want to believe what I believe, fine. That's your choice. Part of the point of the USA is to let people believe what they want, as long as they don't hurt each other.
KrisL at December 24, 2010 5:20 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/21/ricky_gervais_a.html#comment-1808323">comment from KrisLA question -- who's offended by Christmas trees? I'm a big old atheist and I love them and go around wishing people Merry Christmas. It seems a nice thing to say, kind of like Happy Birthday, if I have good intel that you're celebrating it one day.
Amy Alkon at December 24, 2010 5:26 PM
Columbus was an idiot, and FYI people with knowledge of math knew the earth was round thousands of years before Columbus was even born.
You are right that all we have is our reasoning, adly some of us(cough, you, cough) lack even that ability.
It is not reasonable to assume that something supernatural created the universe jsut because we currently lack the knowledge to understand it.
At one time we lacked to knowledge to fly - and people like you proclaimed if we were meant to fly god would have given us wings.
At one time we lacked the ability to preform medicne - and people like you proclaimed needless, untimely death as 'god's will'.
At one time we lacked and understanding of how to prevent lightinging from striking tall structures - and people like you beilved such destruction to be 'god's wrath'.
You arent interested in discussion, your proselytizing.
It would be one thing if you were to claim to belive in a god who set the univierse in motion and went to jerk off somewhere.
But you didnt claim to just believe, you claim that our lack of scientific understanding is poistive proof of such a beings existance.
Thinking like yours has lead to human sacrifce to apease the gods into giving good harversts, or bringing back the sun from its 'rest' each night, or to stop the earth from shaking.
At some point in history people like you claimed volcanoes, and hurricanes to be gods becuase - they lacked certain scientific understanding.
That we dont know how the universe began, less than 120 yrs into seriously reaserching the subject, is not proof that god lives and loves you and crys himeslf to sleep because you watch internet porn.
To proclaim it to be otherwise is to claim that beacuse we didnt understand how lighnting worked a thousand yrs ago it was proof that Zues was taking pot shots at random farmers cause he wanted to fuck their widows.
Again - do you not see the flaw in your reasoning?
We know how lightning works - and it ceased to be 'magic'
We know how earthquakes work - and it ceased to be 'magic'
We know how hurricanes works - and it ceased to be 'magic'
We know how flight works - and it ceased to be 'magic'
We know how disease works - and it ceased to be 'magic'
We know how eclipses work - and they ceased to be 'magic'
If the lack of knowledge of these subjects were proof of gods actions, then why did gaining knowledge on these subject cause god vanish like a mirage?
Not knowing is NOT proof of the supernatural, if it were then knowing wouldnt be proof of the lack of the supernatural.
lujlp at December 24, 2010 5:29 PM
As a Christian, I get tired of people in the news and public making fun of my belief or acting offended by Christmas trees. If you don't want to believe what I believe, fine. That's your choice. Part of the point of the USA is to let people believe what they want, as long as they don't hurt each other.
Posted by: KrisL
KrisL, I love you, you made my chistmas wish come true - I've been waiting so long for a christian to mention their tree.
Jeremiah 10 specifically forbids god followers from enganging in the pagan tradion of decorating dead tress in their homes. Congradulations you have comitted idolitry and will now be punished with eternal hellfire by your loving god, merry christmas
lujlp at December 24, 2010 5:42 PM
lujlp says:
"It would be one thing if you were to claim to belive in a god who set the univierse in motion and went to jerk off somewhere."
Thats exactly what I'm claiming: setting the universe in motion is a good argument for a Deity; a good argument for a Deity is a good foundation for "Why don't you believe in God?", i.e. "Why don't you believe in a Deity?"
I came into these comments to make that small point, then spent days with commenters who would not grant that small point about the logic of a Deity who set the universe in motion.
The moment anyone said: "You've an interesting point about Deity, but I still say Gervais' question was more appropriate vis a vis a theistic God", I was prepared to agree with them re a theistic God.
But no one ever said that. You jackasses have spent days celebrating your own superciliousness and jacking each other off.
lujlp:
"... you claim that our lack of scientific understanding is poistive proof of such a beings existance."
Bullshit. I claim that Big Bang science is a foundation for taking the next logical step re a supernatural trigger. I claim that, even if there were no Big Bang, there had to be a superior intelligence behind some type of creative first event.
Lujlp says:
"That we dont know how the universe began, less than 120 yrs into seriously reaserching the subject, is not proof that god lives and loves you and crys himself to sleep because you watch internet porn"
Finally! You've said something with which I agree. Creation suggests Deity, but does not suggest a theistic God. And wtf do you have against either porn or my individual rights to watch what I want? We both know you are reaching, as best as you can, for insults. Ask yourself this: why would I come into THIS comment section, and stay in this comment section, and read weak ass insults for days and days, if I were a wilting flower of a sensitive pussy? Why in the world do you think I am a fragile and insecure personality who gives a crap about your 6th grade insults?
Finally, re ligntening, hurricanes, et al:
Those can all be explained by natural law which was unleashed by the Big Bang. Whatever first created natural law cannot later be explained by natural law. Lightening, hurricanes, et al are not valid comparisons.
gcotharn at December 24, 2010 6:29 PM
lightning. crap. For some ridiculous reason, I rant, publish, and only THEN read through to find error.
gcotharn at December 24, 2010 6:33 PM
Whatever first created natural law cannot later be explained by natural law. Lightening, hurricanes, et al are not valid comparisons.
Posted by: gcotharn
Sorry g, they are PERFECT comparisons because at one point in our history the natural causes for such occurances were beyond our understanding.
You are assuming that the big bang was a one time supernatural occurance and not something which might happen at regual intervals due to natural forces currently beyond our understanding, just as the cause of hurricanes and volcanoes were once beyond the understanding of our ancestors
gcotharn, the latest comological reaserch suggests that NATURALLY occuring multi dimentional energy strings clashed and the resulting burst of energy created a matter anti-matter explosion which we called the big bang.
This idea is supported by particle accelertor experiments which show that when energy is smashed together at high speeds it creates both matter and anit matter
So your going to have to change your argumnet to 'god created multi dimetional energy strings' rather than god caused the big bang.
And once we disover the natrual cause of those strings you'll have to change your argument again, and again, and agian, and again.
Ever stop to wonder why the argumet for gods existance keeps having to change ever time science finds an explination for the 'unexplainable'?
lujlp at December 24, 2010 8:49 PM
@lujlp
You are making the "turtles all the way down" argument I referenced earlier:
"The Earth is balanced on the back of a giant turtle."
"What's under the turtle?"
"Silly man, it's turtles all the way down!"
I certainly am open to the possibility that natural forces created the Big Bang. But, at some point, there's gotta be something supporting the bottom turtle.
You already acknowledged something supporting the bottom turtle in your 5:29 PM comment:
"It would be one thing if you were to claim to belive in a god who set the univierse in motion and went to jerk off somewhere."
We were in agreement at 5:29 PM. You've had a change of mind at 8:49 PM?
gcotharn at December 24, 2010 9:05 PM
gcotharn, I dont belive in any type of god so there was never any change of mind. You misread an ideological abstraction as a personal statment of beleif, but I have more respect for a person who is a deist rather than a theist.
Although thats kind of like saying I'd like eating cow shit slighly better then eating pig shit. Its all shit, but deism doesnt smell as bad.
And why, at somepoint, does there have to be something beyond our understanding? Ever consider that? Ever wonder why you have the need to belive in something magical?
Because if we were having this conversation 1000 yrs ago you would be arguing that our lack of understanding of storms and natural disaters are proof of god, but it wasnt, it was just a lack of understanding.
How is this somehow different?
lujlp at December 24, 2010 9:27 PM
gcotharn, I just re read everthing you posted on this thread. Just now @905 you posted a comment that made you appaer to beleive in a non personal creator who doesnt interfer, but at December 23, 2010 8:37 AM you wrote you were Protestant Evangelical, which means chistian, which means a personal god who intefers in day to day life.
So, sorry bud your evidentary yardstick just got much, much, longer. By your own admision you worship a god who has handed down a code of conduct on how to live every moment of your life. So either step up to the plate with your evidence or admit you have none.
One last thing
If the Big Bang created everything, what was behind the Big Bang? It couldn't have been natural forces, b/c natural forces did not exist before the Big Bang. Nature itself was created at the Big Bang. That means the cause of the universe must be something beyond Nature, something we would call Supernatural.
Posted by: gcotharn at December 22, 2010 1:01 AM
And
I certainly am open to the possibility that natural forces created the Big Bang.
Posted by: gcotharn at December 24, 2010 9:05 PM
So which is it?
lujlp at December 24, 2010 9:34 PM
I do believe in a personal God. But, in this thread, I am simply making the point that creation indicates Deity. I have not spent time trying to prove or justify a theistic God. Such is too large a conversation for this comment thread, imo, and you guys have pretty much proved that by displaying hysterical mulish denial over the concept of an impersonal Deity.
Jastrow wrote that natural forces did not exist before the Big Bang. He's probably correct, but I don't know why, and am therefore not knowledgeable enough to insist on anything like that, and so I am still open to the possibility of natural forces creating the Big Bang. Doesn't matter to me which is the case, b/c I've used the Big Bang as a way of communicating the idea that there must be a supernatural intelligence behind a first event. The supernatural intelligence cannot be subject to natural law, and thus cannot be explained by natural law. Whether there has been zero Big Bangs, one Big Bang, or a zillion Big Bangs, or more, I don't care. Whichever the case: there has to be something supporting the bottom turtle.
However, if we do wish to pretend it is turtles all the way down, then we can say it is illogical to ask Gervais "Why don't you believe in God?"
gcotharn at December 24, 2010 10:18 PM
SO just to be clear, your argument basically boils down to 'we dont know how it started so it MUST be god'.
Which brings us back to the fact that at one point in time you would have argued the same about volcanes and hurricanes.
Your reasoning doesnt hold up, it is fundamentally flawed.
lujlp at December 24, 2010 11:18 PM
Wtf? My argument is: there was a first event. Its not turtles all the way down.
gcotharn at December 25, 2010 12:11 AM
Your argument is two fold one that lack of adequate scientific knowledge is proof of god an argument which is and has been reapetedly destroyed every time scientific knowledge advances.
And two that existance as a whole is linear in nature, we have no evidence that that is true.
Your argument is based on a currently unverifable assumtion as to the nature of reality.
Given your base assumption can not be proven, any conclusion drawn from it can not be true
lujlp at December 25, 2010 1:31 AM
"Columbus looked at ships disappearing over the horizon, used his reasoning, and said: I think the world is round.
Columbus' theory was never proven until Magellan (to best of my knowledge)."
Wow. Go back to school and get your money back. You have been cheated of an education. Here again, Saint Augustine was talking about you.
Before any part of the Bible™ was written, Pacific Islanders, Egyptians, druids, Native North and South Americans had all worked out celestial navigation. Before the New Testament appeared, Eratosthenes worked out the circumference of the Earth and showed his work, in proper scientific fashion.
Who do you think you're talking to here? An elementary school class? Your basic Don't-ask-questions-I-just-want-to-read-the-Bible-out-loud Sunday School™ class?
How ignorant do you have to be not to notice how the sky changes based on how you travel? How superior must you feel to think that nobody but Bible™-thumpers ever knew anything?
Radwaste at December 25, 2010 9:07 AM
So, using Columbus was stupid. Horrors.
Still, the example of a long ago ship captain remains a valid comparison to a rational person looking at creation. I may come back to it.
@lujlp
I'm not saying lack of scientific knowledge is proof of God; I'm not saying ignorance indicates God. I'm saying logic indicates God.
Second, I'm not saying existence as a whole is linear in nature. Logically: whatever triggered natural law existed in a dimension which was separate from natural law, i.e. in a dimension which was not subject to the strictures of natural law. Its completely possible, maybe even probable, that linear was not a factor in that other dimension.
You, lujlp, say:
"[gcotharn's] argument is based on a currently unverifable assumtion as to the nature of reality.
Given [gcotharn's] base assumption can not be proven, any conclusion drawn from it can not be true"
What? Even if we agreed on what my assumption is - and we don't - it would remain the case that neither "unverifiable" nor "can not be proven" equate to either illogical or untrue.
gcotharn at December 25, 2010 9:47 PM
gcotharn, there is nothing logical about magic
lujlp at December 25, 2010 10:13 PM
@lujlp
IMO, it is correct that there is something magical about believing in a theistic God, i.e. a God who takes a personal interest in me.
However, there is nothing magical about reasoning that a power which was not subject to natural law triggered the creation of natural law. That is logic. And that is deity, and deity = God = existing in a dimension which is not subject to natural law = supernatural = deity = God. Its all the same thing, and all based in logic.
What it's not, is a personal God. For that, imo, requires magic. Conversely, deity merely requires logic.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Several of you guys, based on the way you are arguing against a supernatural deity ... I would not describe you guys as atheists. Many or most atheists believe in deity and do not believe in a theistic God. I think I would describe you guys as agnostic. Maybe you already describe yourselves as agnostic.
gcotharn at December 26, 2010 11:39 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/21/ricky_gervais_a.html#comment-1809156">comment from gcotharnMany or most atheists believe in deity and do not believe in a theistic God.
Um, I would venture that I know FAR more -- and have met FAR more -- atheists than you, and atheists do not believe in any kind of god, theistic or otherwise...or they would not be atheists.
It is most childish to need to believe in a god who takes a personal interest in you and your life -- especially entirely absent any evidence that such a god exists. Religion is a business, and the Church needs you and your dollars (and fear) to keep raking the dough. You are being used if you are a member of the church, and made to be in fear and think illogically in service of that. The church is a psychological drug pusher, basically.
Amy Alkon at December 26, 2010 11:51 AM
@Amy Alkon
I've no doubt you've met more atheists. I've only ever had philosophic/religious conversation with a few atheists, and two of those self described atheists did believe in deity. So, when I said "many or most atheists", I was making assumption and overstating, and I retract that "many or most". I do appreciate your expert testimony re atheists, as I've wondered if, and assumed that, many atheists believe in deity.
And, thanks for the courtesy of trying to save me from the psycho drug pushers. I appreciate it, and will not discount your thoughts on the matter.
gcotharn at December 26, 2010 12:51 PM
"So, using Columbus was stupid. Horrors.
Still, the example of a long ago ship captain remains a valid comparison to a rational person looking at creation. I may come back to it."
As a dog might return to its vomit, sure.
You've been busted for not knowing one damned thing about either the real world or any means to investigate it; even the terms used are a mystery to you.
I'm not going to call you a name, but argument from ignorance, as you embrace again and again, is a fallacy.
Since you also do not know what a fallacy is: it's an error of logic which invalidates your argument.
Since you don't know what "invalidates your argument" means: teach your dog to bark at me, because he'll make more sense than you do; you're making noises and that's all. If you do not have a dog, go buy one and let him argue for you.
Any dog will do. Even one that doesn't bark.
This is how far out you've gone to lunch: you claimed atheists believe in a deity. Wrong. Read a definition for a change - as opposed to making things up.
You're being a splendid example of the religious faithful. That is not a compliment.
Radwaste at December 26, 2010 3:14 PM
@radwaste
And you are a splendid example of a milksop. All through this comment thread, you've busied yourself with deconstruction, a la "Depends on what the meaning of is is". Why? Deconstruction is not particularly difficult, is not at all part of effective communication or argument, and is, if anything, unmanly. What kind of code do you live by? You spend your time furtively slipping around amongst the skirts of the women. A man has the graciousness to work to understand what another is talking about, then has the courage to forthrightly declare agreement or disagreement. If you tried to date my sister, I would kick your ass until you were gone for good. I don't want her marrying some jackass who believes there is value in deconstruction.
And, when you are not deconstructing, you busy yourself trying to prove... what? That I am too stupid to be able to effectively reason or use logic? If that is the case, it ought be very easy to refute the logic of my point: creation indicates deity; creation means "Why don't you believe in God?" is a logical question. You could go straight to my point, thus save yourself the effort of commenting around the periphery of my point. B/c, you jackass, the periphery is meaningless. The only thing which matters is whether my point is valid or invalid. I could be the stupidest man in the world, and it wouldn't matter. The only thing which matters: is my point valid? And the only other thing which matters: stay away from my sister. She needs a man who lives by a worthwhile code.
gcotharn at December 26, 2010 4:24 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/21/ricky_gervais_a.html#comment-1809226">comment from gcotharnLet's simplify this:
There is no evidence there's a god.
There is no evidence your scoop of frozen yogurt can levitate.
Therefore, believing in god is as adult and reasoned a behavior as believing frozen yogurt can levitate. (You would require evidence before believing in the latter -- right? And not just the fact that you'd feel more comfortable and less alone and like life was more meaningful if frozen yogurt could levitate.)
Amy Alkon at December 26, 2010 5:18 PM
And I respectfully disagree. Your standard for evidence is too strict.
Logic indicates a supernatural force triggered the creation of natural law. Similarly, hundreds of years ago, logic might have indicated to a ship captain that the world was round. The ship captain was destined to die before ever knowing his logical insight was proven. As are we who see that creation indicates God.
Second: there is no useful logic which indicates frozen yogurt can levitate, except when it is flying out the hand of an angry spouse.
gcotharn at December 26, 2010 6:07 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/21/ricky_gervais_a.html#comment-1809245">comment from gcotharnLogic indicates a supernatural force triggered the creation of natural law.
Huh? That coming across as gibberish. Did you mean to say something else?
Because it's pretty impossible to debate gibberish.
I require the same evidence for god that I do that frozen yogurt levitates.
Amy Alkon at December 26, 2010 6:51 PM
Logic never indicates magic as the source of anything
And Radwaste isnt a deconstructionist, he was pointing out that you have no idea what you are talking about, and that you have no isea what the definition of the words you use actually express.
IE athiests dont beleive in god, theory is not a guess, Colubums did not 'guess' the world was round with out proof
lujlp at December 26, 2010 7:22 PM
For many Christians, the stronger logical argument is that something triggered the Big Bang.
Logically, whatever triggered it was operating outside the strictures of natural law, as natural law did not exist before the Big Bang. Therefore, the existence of whatever triggered the Big Bang cannot be proven by science which is limited by natural law. We can use natural law to prove whether or not yogurt is levitating, yet we cannot use natural law to prove the existence of a supernatural thing which is operating outside of natural law.
I don't think I ought order my life based on creation's logical indication of God. However, I am moved to fuller consideration of God; am moved to keenly search for other indications of God.
Also, re Gervais, creation provides solid basis for me to ask "Why don't you believe in God?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If your logic is that the Big Bang is explainable by natural law which has yet to be comprehended, well, okay. Your logic doesn't provide a strong enough basis to support Gervais' claim that the burden of proof belongs on the believer. At best, its a push, and the burden of proof equally falls on the believer and the nonbeliever, and it remains perfectly logical for believers to ask "Why don't you believe in God?"
gcotharn at December 26, 2010 8:18 PM
My above comment was directed to Amy Alkon.
gcotharn at December 26, 2010 8:19 PM
Though anyone can reply to it, of course.
@lujlp
I guess we are about done. Thank God.
re deconstruction
My point is its pretty easy to deconstruct the way anyone uses a word. It doesn't constitute proof that anyone's logic is misguided. Deconstruction, basically, is bullshit. Anyone can do it. Its meaningless.
re my errors
That I am fallible doesn't mean my point is invalidated; that I am ignorant of many things doesn't mean my point is invalidated.
gcotharn at December 26, 2010 8:32 PM
Jesus Christ is it really that hard to understand?
"Why don't you believe in God?"
Becuase there is NO PROOF. No sign, nor hint of passage. There is no proof of gods existance.
You want me to take you seriously? Then come up with a better argumnet then 'I dont know how stuff works, therefore god musta done it'
lujlp at December 26, 2010 8:37 PM
gothcarn, the fact you dont know the definitions of the words you used is not evidence of radwaste being a deconstructionist.
Its evidence that
YOU
DONT
KNOW
WHAT
THE
WORDS
MEAN
As for your fallibility meaning your point is invalid - I'm sorry but thats exacly what it means.
If you dont know what you are talking about, the how can your point be correct.
Its like you've been arguing 2+2=3, and when we point out your errors you say, OK I was wrong about everything, but I still got the answer right.
Sorry, but you got the answer wrong
lujlp at December 26, 2010 8:55 PM
Logic indicates a supernatural force triggered the creation of natural law.
No, by your own admission, logic indicates that something triggered the Big Bang (and that something, somehow, was present before it). Your inserting a supernatural force there is your own leap. And luj points out my problem with the whole "God (or a supernatural force of some kind) did it" argument: it's an admission that we don't yet know what did it, which is admirable; but it's also throwing a roadblock in the path of looking for what did it. If you say God did it, where is there to go? What else is there to explore? Or do you support further investigation of things you claim God did, even though you'd rather your godless brethren do the investigating for you while you throw in "a supernatural force must have done that" for the next thing we don't yet know?
It's more logical to say that we don't know, but that we will keep trying to find out. No need to keep tossing "Turn Back Now" signs in the way. And, who knows, maybe one of those further investigations will turn up actual proof that a supernatural force had a hand in something. Isn't that reason enough for you to keep looking?
As far as the atheist/agnostic disparity, please read the post at the very top of this thread. I choose "atheist" because I don't like "agnostic" (it seems wishy-washy to me--like I'm waiting to find out which side is right before I jump on board), but I'd rather have a label that says "I don't know, and I also don't care."
NumberSix at December 26, 2010 9:01 PM
@lujlp
I do need to apologize to you. There was a point where you were arguing that the Big Bang can possibly be explained by natural law which has yet to be discovered. When you were arguing that, I didn't quite comprehend what you were arguing. I only comprehended it later.
I have argued, all through this thread, that supernatural trigger for the Big Bang is superior logic. I retract. So far as I can see, if logic is the sole consideration: supernatural trigger is no more logical than undiscovered natural law. I was wrong.
re "Why don't you believe in God?" vs "Why do you believe in God?"
Gervais argued that the burden is on believers. I see the logical burden as falling equally on believers or nonbelievers. Both questions are equally legit.
gcotharn at December 26, 2010 9:05 PM
@lujlp
Oh yeah, but the deconstruction thing was still bullshit. I'm not sure if you saw all the words Radwaste deconstructed. He took words which have several meanings, and which I used as Dictionary definition #1, and argued that I didn't use the word to mean definition #3. You and I disagree on this. Radwaste was full of shit.
gcotharn at December 26, 2010 9:13 PM
@Number Six
You are correct that my inserting a supernatural force to trigger the Big Bang is my own leap.
I support as much scientific discovery as possible. Always. Always.
I support as much investigation of biblical claims as possible. Always. Always.
Cheap shot, by you, re me wanting Godless brethren to do the investigating. Do you think all scientists are atheists? All persons in bible study are credulous?
I liked the first comment in the thread.
gcotharn at December 26, 2010 9:24 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/21/ricky_gervais_a.html#comment-1809328">comment from gcotharnCheap shot, by you, re me wanting Godless brethren to do the investigating.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." -Carl Sagan
If you contend that frozen yogurt levitates you must provide proof that it does.
People who believe in god are gullible and have a childish orientation toward life, where they cannot live with unanswered questions, so they insist they have the answers: There's a big man in the sky, and he really cares about all of us!
Who or what created the big man? Oh, um, er...
Amy Alkon at December 26, 2010 9:33 PM
@Amy Alkon
Why focus on the most simplistic Christians? Isn't it more interesting to consider the Christians who, had their personal journeys led them there, would have been willing to live with unanswered questions?
You say:
"Who or what created the big man?"
The Big Man exists in a dimension which is not subject to natural law.
gcotharn at December 26, 2010 9:51 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/21/ricky_gervais_a.html#comment-1809338">comment from gcotharnGibberish again.
Amy Alkon at December 26, 2010 10:08 PM
? If the Christian God exists, then He created natural law and exists outside of natural law and is not subject to natural law. In a dimension which exists outside natural law, creation might be a wholly different concept.
You asked "Who or what created the big man?" You taunted "Oh, um, er...." There is your answer.
gcotharn at December 26, 2010 10:18 PM
Cheap shot, by you, re me wanting Godless brethren to do the investigating. Do you think all scientists are atheists? All persons in bible study are credulous?
No, I don't think all scientists are atheists. But those who do believe in a god and are still investigating are not letting their beliefs get in the way of their science. That is where I have a problem. If you're not throwing up roadblocks in the path of science (and other people, for that matter), then you can believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster for all I care. I really have no problem with people choosing to believe in supernatural force per se. If that's how you need to make sense of the world, then have at it. It's what those beliefs can lead to (like saying that a god created the universe and that's that) that I don't like. I'm sure there are countless people who believe in one deity or another who don't force those beliefs on anyone or let the beliefs get in the way of their or anyone else's lives.
What I meant by my statement was was that it's a teensy bit hypocritical to say that you think it's scientifically logical that something supernatural triggered the Big Bang but you're eager for science to keep investigating further to disprove that. Because that's what I've gotten from your arguments that you're not against scientific investigation.
The Big Man exists in a dimension which is not subject to natural law.
I also have a problem with this statement. It's nothing but a conversation-stopper. It's the same as the argument that the giant fuchsia cauliflower floating in my bedroom is real. It's invisible to everyone but me and you can walk right through it without even knowing it. So prove to me it isn't there. It doesn't adhere to any natural law, so you can't prove that it doesn't exist. That's not a valid argument, it's an unverifiable explanation for something that you can't explain. It's belief, not evidence that something exists, no matter how wide your definition of "evidence."
NumberSix at December 26, 2010 11:32 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/21/ricky_gervais_a.html#comment-1809367">comment from gcotharnThe Big Man exists in a dimension which is not subject to natural law.
And you know this how?
Amy Alkon at December 26, 2010 11:44 PM
gcotharn: an atheist does not believe in a deity.
You're simply making things up.
I suppose you get to do that in your line of work and personal life, but you wouldn't last an hour in my job.
Buy the dog.
Radwaste at December 27, 2010 2:36 AM
@Amy Alkon
This is so small as to be not worth all this conversation. But, you said "Who or what created the big man?", i.e. who or what created the Christian God? If the Christian God exists, He exists outside natural law, and the question of linear creation is moot.
I was responding to your question; demonstrating there is no "Oh, um, er" hesitation about your question. I was not opening an argument in which I would demonstrate the existence of God. If you truly have interest in that, I re-recommend "Mere Christianity".
gcotharn at December 27, 2010 10:47 AM
@Amy Alkon
are you wanting to argue the Christian God is subject to natural law which has not yet been discovered?
Christians believe God created all, and therefore cannot be subject to natural law which He created.
gcotharn at December 27, 2010 10:53 AM
@Amy Alkon
are you wanting to argue the Christian God is subject to natural law which has not yet been discovered?
Christians believe God created all, and therefore cannot be subject to natural law which He created.
gcotharn at December 27, 2010 10:53 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/21/ricky_gervais_a.html#comment-1809841">comment from gcotharn@Amy Alkon are you wanting to argue the Christian God is subject to natural law which has not yet been discovered? Christians believe God created all, and therefore cannot be subject to natural law which He created.
I see no evidence that there is a god, therefore whether god can dance on the head of a pin with all the Christians who believe, sans evidence, in god, is a moot point.
Amy Alkon at December 27, 2010 11:25 AM
@Number Six
you say:
"it's a teensy bit hypocritical to say that you think it's scientifically logical that something supernatural triggered the Big Bang but you're eager for science to keep investigating further to disprove that."
Its not hypocritical. Its win/win. If science disproves it: thank goodness, as I will quit believing a lie. Conversely, if science works mightily, yet fails disprove it: thank goodness, as some will then give more consideration to the possibility of God.
re: the big man
read my above responses to Alkon. I was not opening up an argument, but rather responding to an Alkon question which amounted to: who or what created the Christian God?
as to "not a valid argument, [but rather] an unverifiable explanation for something you can't explain"
I get it that it bothers you. Again, if you want an argument for Christianity which is laid out by an academic, and which is heavily dipped in logic and reasoning: C.S. Lewis is your man, "Mere Christianity" is your book. The book was adapted from a series of lectures on BBC radio during WWII. Its a quick read.
gcotharn at December 27, 2010 11:26 AM
@Amy Alkon
re your "Who or what created the big man?"
I interpreted your question as being a jibe about creation and linearity. However, in light of your new response about evidence: did your question about the big man equate to a request for me to justify belief in the Christian God? I will not do that here. First, b/c it would take too long. Second, b/c I cannot do it as elegantly as C.S. Lewis, and his book is at the library and easy to read, and everyone here is literate and could breeze through his book with no problem.
gcotharn at December 27, 2010 11:38 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/21/ricky_gervais_a.html#comment-1809861">comment from gcotharnAgain, there's no evidence for god. If there were evidence, I'd believe in god.
You have no evidence; nobody does; which is why you keep dancing around this.
Amy Alkon at December 27, 2010 11:52 AM
Dancing?! You and I agree that what Christians consider evidence doesn't meet your criteria for what constitutes evidence. No one is dancing.
If you are to truly open to shifting opinion, your shift will occur b/c you change your criteria for what constitutes evidence. C.S. Lewis lays out an elegant case in favor of changing that criteria. I cannot make an effective case in a short time inside this comment section, and you would never shift opinion based upon the fitful fragmented case which would inevitably result, and the whole exercise would waste our time. Conversely, Lewis makes an elegant case in maybe 125 pages.
gcotharn at December 27, 2010 12:11 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/21/ricky_gervais_a.html#comment-1809869">comment from gcotharnThere isn't "what Christians consider evidence," because they don't have evidence -- they just decided to call certain things evidence and use faulty reasoning and call it good.
Amy Alkon at December 27, 2010 12:21 PM
the Christian God exists, He exists outside natural law, and the question of linear creation is moot. - gcotharn
And yet boyo, you rely on existance being linear as 'proof' of gods existance, so how can it be moot? And what proof do you have that our existance even is linear?
ANd most of all why is it every god dman time an athiest asks a beliver for proof the believer up and proclaims that what he "considers" evidence no one else will?
Becuase that brings us right back to radwastes point whish is you dont know what the words you are using mean.
Also I found a copy of Lewis' book online.
http://lib.ru/LEWISCL/mere_engl.txt
if you are so sure of his intellectual prowess tell us which book and sub sections you feel qualify as evidence of your argument.
lujlp at December 27, 2010 12:41 PM
@Amy Alkon
What are you protesting? If, as you say: "[Christians] decided to call certain things evidence", then it follows that Christians consider some things to be evidence of God. You and I are saying the same thing.
I understand your points that Christians use faulty reasoning, make shit up, are credulous, are childishly desperate to have an explanation for everything, and allow ourselves to be misled by psychological drug pushers who use fear to mislead us and to seduce our money and our service. If I left anything out, please inform.
gcotharn at December 27, 2010 1:53 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/21/ricky_gervais_a.html#comment-1809983">comment from gcotharnYou don't get to change the meaning of what evidence is because you have none. It's kind of like watching a car crash happen really, really slowly to argue with a person who makes statements so absent of logic and reason.
Amy Alkon at December 27, 2010 1:58 PM
@lujlp
You ransom noted my quote via leaving out "if". Its a short word, but leaving it out radically alters the context.
Thank you for linking to Lewis' book. If you are interested in why Christians believe as we do, just start reading at Chap 1. The case for a supernatural personal God is best made step by step.
BTW, I make no claims re Lewis intellectual prowess. I only say he makes an elegant case.
"[why does] the believer up and proclaims that what he 'considers' evidence no one else will?"
The believer believes in magic. The believer believes he occasionally senses God or communes with God. The believer believes in a supernatural being which cannot be fathomed through mere logic, but can only be personally sensed when the believer puts his soul/conscience/entire being into action. Who is going to believe that? Not you.
gcotharn at December 27, 2010 2:09 PM
Buy the dog. It'd be better at this.
You cite C.S. Lewis. Want to see what "mere logic" does? I know that's another thing you know nothing about.
Here.
If you want to skip to the end, you can read about discovering planets around other stars. "Mere logic" produces organized effort that leads to real results. Whatever it is that you're doing apparently produces a person inoculated against learning of any kind, so I expect you to blink at the linked article like a pet in front of a mirror, but there you are.
Radwaste at December 27, 2010 4:12 PM
Its not hypocritical. Its win/win.
Ah. I see. It's hedging your bets so you don't back the losing horse. But this isn't Churchill Downs; you can't bet on your "supernatural force" to win, place or show and collect at least some of the winnings.
I get it that it bothers you.
Sweet of you. What, if anything, do you plan to do about it? You get that it bothers me, but you persist in saying the same things over and over even though we've been asking for something different.
Again, if you want an argument for Christianity which is laid out by an academic, and which is heavily dipped in logic and reasoning: C.S. Lewis is your man, "Mere Christianity" is your book.
I don't want an argument from an academic, I want a valid argument laid out by you, since that is what this whole thing has been about. You keep asserting that you have a valid argument and then directing us elsewhere to find it.
NumberSix at December 27, 2010 8:47 PM
Having reignited my own interest in "Mere Christianity" http://lib.ru/LEWISCL/mere_engl.txt I began rereading ... only to discover the first four chapters amount to an argument for Deity! amount to an argument for the legitimacy of "why don't you believe in God?"
@Number Six
re win/win
I'm not hedging bets. I'm standing for truth. God and scientific discovery are compatible. If incompatibility exists, it is a favor, to me, for science to discover it.
re bothers you
Existence of God is scientifically unprovable. Since I assume you understand that, therefore I assume you understand you will always be bothered by the lack of scientific evidence ("valid" argument?) behind Christian belief in God, and therefore I've no comfort to offer you - beyond: "I get it that it bothers you."
A person either gets it that all existence was set into motion for a purpose, or a person does not get it. Logic can be part of the process by which a person gets this.
gcotharn at January 3, 2011 2:31 PM
So long as you confuse the Christian model of God™ for the only deity possible, you will be completely hamstrung.
The claim is that the existence of God™ is "scientifically unprovable". That shouldn't be any sign for confidence in your view - it should be a glaring, white-hot flashing sign you are loony. If God existed, we would have abundant and ever-expanding articles of the science of God: what happens when He does this, that or the other. Instead, we have babble: "Read the Bible™. No, not that part, this part. This way, not that way! You just don't want to believe!"
News flash: what people wrote in the Bible is not God, and what people wrote about Jesus is not Jesus, either - any more than a newspaper story about you is you.
Some state without reservation that the Fear of God™ is the only reason to behave decently with respect to one's fellow man. Yet billions of people read not one syllable of the Bible - and are somehow prosperous and decent.
This is proof that the Bible is defended. Other texts and moral codes have precisely the same result, yet their effect is ignored.
The Earth, the result of forces unimaginably large, must be the creation of this divine being, according to those who rely on the Bible - but no, the Earth bears unmistakeable signs contrary to Bible content. When shown this, people insist that the Earth in front of them, built by the God they profess to worship, be ignored. This is proof that the Bible, not God, is defended.
In stories about Jesus - who was certainly not the only messianic figure in folklore of any level of veracity - the suspension of disbelief is insisted upon repeatedly, and the value of the story of Jesus is so great that even though he is never quoted directly, and books which cite his activities were written decades and centuries after he passed, and officials have edited Bible content, believers insist that varied stories are "evidence".
The abstraction of the perfect man offering himself in sacrifice for the evils of Man is so important that absolutely no one cares about there being enormous gaps in coverage of the man's life. No one cares that they cannot cite his origin. People assert that he was from Nazareth despite the fact that Matthew is quoted in error (See Matthew and Judgments in the OT), and this is defended based on what people think is in the Bible.
---------
Here's the rub: Any being great enough to have built you, and stuck you here in a Universe so big that you'd suicide if you really knew how tiny you are in it, is beyond the scope of a few hundred pages written by a superstitious people. But the normal human can't look around without giving himself credit for merely looking around. He relates everything to himself, and gives himself and other people the primary role in the universe. He pretends that "good" and "evil" are external things, defined and foisted on him by outside agents.
Man does everything possible to cause his universe to revolve around him, never noticing that it doesn't.
If you don't think that God and/or Jesus would exist if they weren't in the Bible, well...
That's a great question, and possibly it will illustrate my point.
The Bible is the story of God and other players from a human standpoint.
Would God exist if no one wrote about him?
Would God exist if someone wrote lies about him?
Would God notice if someone was honestly wrong about him?
Did you notice that as you read these three questions, you thought about the Bible, and not about God?
Radwaste at January 16, 2011 6:18 PM
Leave a comment