I am so happy I have tears in my eyes. I have received my first ‘raving religious lunatic’ comment!
Ok, sure, I realise it’s probably an automated thing that picked up the link from another website I have commented on, but still, I am feeling particularly honoured.
I had every intention of writing a decent post about said comment, however, I have run out of day and since tomorrow and the day after don’t look like they will be any slower than today, the short version will have to do. I won’t publish the dude’s email address in the vain hope that he will make another comment:
the atheist sins not only against God, but also against man…
Where to start.
It never stated in it’s comments which god in particular it was referring to but somehow I doubt it was a follower of Lemminkainen. Unless it is also part of every religion, it is also ‘sinning’ against *some* god (and there are bloody hundreds)
Since there are not a whole lot of people that even follow *their* particular fantasy properly, just about every religious person is also ‘sinning’.
I’m not sure where it is going with the ‘but also against man…’ bit, I don’t break the law. Most people I know don’t either.
Atheist:
have you for but a moment considered that you have adopted a position against 98% of the human race, both past and present?
do you think you are RIGHT and they are all WRONG?
WRONG
Well, you see, it’s like this. All humans are descended from a group of people from central Africa. They worshipped their ancestors tens of thousands of years before the invention of yahweh. Are you saying they’re wrong? Hindu’s don’t believe in the Middle-Eastern gods. There are a billion on them, are you saying they’re wrong? Buddhists don’t believe in the African ancestors, the Hindu gods or the native American spirits, are you saying they are wrong. A billion Muslims say jesus was not the son of god, are you saying they are *all* wrong? Everybody on the planet believed the earth was flat at some point. How is it possible, that you think you are right, and billions of people are wrong.
The fact is, just because a bucket load of people share a delusion doesn’t make them right. Regardless of which particular fairytale floats your boat, you are saying that billions of other people are, in fact wrong, and you are right. But you’re not.
now listen to this arrogant puffed up son of a b***h….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilWM7jIEN_k
little scientist geek who would try to usurp God Himself!!!
Visit:
http://www.isgodimaginary.com/forum/index.php/topic,40909.0.htmls
I thought that was a very nice video of PZ Myers. I recommend it to everybody. No really, he’s being very nice and reasonable.
Also, being called a geek is not an insult and… ok, I’m bored.
you really need to add comment moderation to your blasphemy…
Er, yes, excellent idea. That’s why your comment is here, and not there.
Love the llama, the camelid lineage has a good fossil record.
I got exactly the same thing on my blog. When this religiot realized that I DID have comment moderation turned on, he tried to threaten me with murder in the next message. I told him that I am thinking of passing on the death threat to the Quebec police. The idiot doesn’t realize that a lot can be gleaned from and IP address…
And just how does one usurp something that doesn’t exist?
Yea, look, it certainly wasn’t the most well constructed argument I’ve ever seen, that’s for sure.
I have to say though, I’m terribly happy he found me, I’d be happy to get one of those every day. I think I might email him and ask him though what precisely was going through his mind when he wrote those things… assuming that the person who posted it wrote them in the first place.
I find it interesting that you can say “Everybody on the planet believed the earth was flat at some point.” Did it make the Earth flat or was it an incorrect presupposition?
With that in mind the same can be said for the Theist and the Atheist. One of them has to be wrong? Which has more plausible, logical evidence?
If everyone did not believe there was a God, does that mean He does not exist? If everyone believed you did not exist, would you cease to exist?
One thing I have learnt in life is that truth is truth. It does not change depending on your knowledge or lack of knowledge. It does not change.
Maybe a more interesting post would be why you believe God does not, or cannot, exist?
If I told you that there were pink unicorns prancing about on Pluto and gave you no evidence to support the claim, would you believe it? Do they exist just because I believe they do? Your argument is severely flawed. It is patently irrational to believe in something for which there is no evidence. Whether it exists or not is irrelevant to whether it is rational to believe it exists without evidence. Even if you are right, you are right by a mere guess. If it is a guess, what do you think the odds are that you are right? We can only draw conclusions based on the best available evidence. No one has a lock on “Truth”, whatever that means. I agree that certainty in knowledge would be nice to have, but no one has that. Anyone who thinks they have absolute knowledge is a fool.
It is up to those making the positive claim of existence to present the evidence, not for those maintaining the null hypothesis to show a negative. We can not disprove the existence of all gods (i.e., we do not claim that there can not be any gods), but that is irrelevant. We can only draw conclusions about claims through evidence, and in the absence of evidence in support of the claim of existence (and it seems there is only bad philosophy in its support), we have no reason to reject the null hypothesis.
Some gods are indeed falsifiable base on a careful analysis of its attributes. If you believe in an omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent god, you are done. Such a god is impossible (problem of evil, etc.). If you believe in a god that answers prayers of the sick, you stand on shaky ground. No controlled double-blinded study has ever shown the efficacy of prayer. If you believe in a creator god, why does the universe appear exactly as we would expect in the absence of a creator god? And on, and on, and on. For an excellent review see Victor Stenger’s “God: The Failed Hypothesis”.
Since most of these attributes are routinely assigned to the Abrahamic god, I provisionally reject the claim that such a god exists.
In the end, we all have our philosophical stances, even atheism. Problem is, Christianity seems to answer more accurately to how, what, where… for me.
You say there is no evidence? Just because you say there is none does not mean it does not exist. We could look at information structures, the cosmological argument, the TAG argument etc.
Atheism on the other hand does not seem to prove much to me? Nothing created everything (what about the second law of thermodynamics)? The mathematical impossibility of evolution to account for the complexity of information held in DNA? No stance for morality?
I agree to say that one knows truth or all knowledge is ridiculous and that is why I find it important to always keep an open mind to other views. Christian’s often come across seeming to be know-it-alls, bigots even. However the Christian world view just makes sense, at least to me.
Not sure though that this is the place to get into all of that
hehe. Have an awesome day people.
Actually, it answers nothing as it is indistinguishable an answer from “I don’t know.” Explanations answer how things happen. By what mechanism did a deity create thiings? Without an answer to that question, there is no explanation. And I would far rather say “I don’t know” when I don’t know than say “I don’t know, therefor it must have been through supernatural means.”
Information is very easy for evolution to have generated. Stop reading Disco Institute trash and read what real scientists have to say. Something that is often overlooked by creationists is that there is far more information contained in a snowflake than in the liquid water it formed from. Information spontaneously fomrs. The problem is that people who use the word ‘information’ are ignorant of its meaning in this context. The cosmological argument? It is life that is fine-tuned to the universe, not the other way round. It”s not all that fine-tuned anyway, as there are many combinations of physical constant values which produce universes that produce the prerequisites for life – stars, galaxies, etc. And TAG is a double-edged sword – it’s converse (TANG) is just as valid in disproving a god. As usual, flawed philosophy is all apologists have. Not one shred of evidence establishing cause and effect. It’s difficult to refute TAG. Not because it is technically difficult to do so, but that there are many versions and refutations (which are easy to generate) depend on the version. Yeah, I’ve seen it all before.
Second law? I hate to say it, but the second law (nor the first) has never been broken. I think you mean the first law, that energy can neither be created nor destroyted. The problem is that the net energy of the universe is exactly zero. Positive energy contained within mass and negative (mainly gravitational force) cancel. The total entropy of the universe (coming back to the second law) is indeed increasing and always has been. Physicist Victor Stenger has ably described why these arguments fail in the book I mention above. Due to the expansion of the universe, the maximum possible entropy has increased much faster than the actual entropy of the univese. This leaves lots of room for order, so long as the total entropy of the universe continues to increase (as it does).
Is it a mathematic impossibility for the information (people throw this word around in this context a lot, but I have yet to meet anyone who actually understands the meaning of the word in this context) in DNA to come about? Not even if it was randomly produced. To be sure, it is incredibly unlikely that a viable DNA string could come about randomly, but the probability is not zero, as you assert.
But then no one who understands evolution would ever believe that DNA comes about randomly, as is commonly not understood for some reason. Natural selection (a very non-random mechanism) coupled with molecular genetics provides a detailed mechanism by which information can be added to DNA and maintained. It has been verified time and again in the lab and is so well-established that it is a factual explanation for the diversity of life. There is no reasonable (or even sane) argument against it.
And I most certainly do have a moral ground. I know what I would not want to happen to me, so I do not do those things to other people. Reciprocation is a behavioral trait which evolved not only in our species. but primatology has shown that all moral behavior can be found in chimps and bonobos as well. In fact, its a trait observed in all social mammalian species to varying extents, rather good empirical evidence that it is indeed evolved behavior.
What are you trying to say? That atheists are immoral? That’s more than a bit offensive.
I don’t think that anybody disputes the fact that at some point, people did believe the earth to be flat and that it turned out not to be. The flat earth comment was really to illustrate the point that a lot of people can all believe something that isn’t true and that the number of people who believe something is not an indication on it’s trueness or validity.
I think Isaac Asimov wrote an excellent essay on the relativity of right and wrong here: http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm it is interesting for interests sake. But it really comes down to (and this is following a point of your further along) that right and wrong are not necessarily absolutes. People believed the earth to be flat. People then believed the earth to be spherical but people now know the earth to be oblate (within margins of error of course). The point is really that the “flat earth” believers were more wrong than the spherical earth believers. A key point being: “The basic trouble, you see, is that people think that “right” and “wrong” are absolute; that everything that isn’t perfectly and completely right is totally and equally wrong.”.
My thoughts on your comment about the theist and the atheist: Since atheism is the default position (easily proven by the fact that if you are a Christian, you are by default an atheist as far as the Hindu gods, Norse gods or Roman gods go, and vice versa, so a complete atheist just doesn’t believe in one more god than you do) the burden of providing support for the statement ‘god exists’ falls on the person making it. Proving a negative is also impossible (and what I really believe is not that a god cannot exist but rather that the probability of a god actually existing is so small that it does not matter).
If everybody did not believe that I existed, and I didn’t exist to begin with, I think something would cease to exist…
However, you are entirely correct that a more interesting post will be why I believe what I believe and I was toying with the idea before I got the comment that got me going in the first place. Since this kind of post seems to get a reaction I will probably write a whole bunch of them and I don’t want to spend my very limited material on a comment
@Shamelessly Atheist: For some reason I cannot reply to your comment so I’ll continue here.
I must firstly apologize for coming across the way you have interpreted. It was not my intention. I am not saying that atheists are immoral, I was asking where do you say morality comes from? Christians say God obviously and you have said that there is some evidence that it’s a natural thing.
I can see that you’re getting quite aggressive in your defense of your philosophical stance. It’s hard to have a normal discussion these days about this without people getting emotional. Maybe it feels too personal when people question your belief system.
I was referring to the second law of thermodynamics:
Just does not seem to fit creating everything from nothing? Or the way things are getting more complex in that view rather that slowing down and degrading? There is also no documented case of macro evolution that I know of? Maybe you can point me in a direction so I can read about it?
Obviously when people believe they know they don’t say they don’t know. For a Christian, we believe that God made the Earth. So why would we say we say we don’t know?
Saying that morality comes from god is a fine idea, only, you have to accept that you subscribe to one (your) religion but there are many religions and since every society in the world seems to have similar ‘morals’ I think it is a bit presumptive to say that your god is providing the morality. Since I am not religious and subscribe to no religion and am still moral, I must be getting my morals from somewhere else. Like @Shamelessly Atheist said, there is plenty evidence that primates follow a similar ‘moral’ code to humans. I think you will also be hard pressed to find another species of animal that doesn’t follow the ‘don’t kill your own’ type of morals, since reciprocal ‘morals’ naturally promote species survival.
The second law does not apply to the earth since it is not a closed system. The sun is providing the earth, for now, with new energy constantly.
At the risk of over an over simplified answer, dogs are an excellent example of macro evolution in action. So are pigeons and every other animal bred by people. I suggest you read The Greatest Show On Earth by Richard Dawkins (don’t worry, it explains evolution exceedingly well and doesn’t bash religion). It’s very well written and very entertaining and I think you would enjoy it regardless of religious opinion.
Believing that ‘god did it’ is unnecessary. God of the gaps exists only where people do not understand natural processes. Why did lightning strike that building? God used to do that, now we know it’s because the building is the highest conductive point (and I think lightning conductors on top of churches show a lack of faith
). Why is it not raining in my field? God used to do that too, but now we know it’s because of weather cycles and so forth. What it comes down to is that once you understand the predictable, provable processes that do things, it is not necessary to refer back to the much more complex and unlikely supernatural force.
Christopher Penkin,
Evolution is wrong, because,
http://timcooley.wordpress.com/2010/01/17/evolution-is-wrong-because/
“Or the way things are getting more complex in that view rather that slowing down and degrading?”
Degradation is a load of creationist non-sense, proving yet again the fact that they don’t know anything about science. For example, telomeres are regions of the chromosome that supposedly shorten over time, leading to degradation. The enzyme telomerase extends the length of telomerase, and are produced during reproduction, ensuring that DNA is not degraded. Prokaryotes (ie. bacteria) have no need for telomerase because they have circular DNA. Telomerases are also activated in cancer, so refrain yourself from telling me that it has been intelligently designed.
“There is also no documented case of macro evolution that I know of?”
Macroevolution is evolution occuring over a long period of time, and asking for a “documented case” or “macroevolution in the lab” is almost impossible, because scientists only live 70 years, not 7 million.
However, macroevolution is more easily observed in smaller creatures, usually those that don’t live very long, because we can chew through their generations rather quickly. Macroevolution also depends on speciation, which can also be observed in nature. I have provided you with two links to evidence for macroevolution and speciation.
The most important evidence for macroevolution is probably DNA or the fossil record. Of course, creationists don’t give a dime about the fossil record, as most of them think that dinosaurs coexisted with humans some 6,000 years ago. That’s OK. They can be ignorant if they wish to be.
Evidence for macroevolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Observed instances of speciation: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
I said: “The enzyme telomerase extends the length of *telomerase,”
Sorry, a typo. I meant telomere.
PZ Myers is the man.
May I ask why you’re so obsessed with llamas?
Honestly? I’m not too sure. You don’t hear about llama’s very often and I find ‘llama’ to be an amusing word and I like to be amused