Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« The Morning News | Leave OJ Simpson ALONE! It’s A... »

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

The World is Flat

posted by on September 19 at 8:33 AM

Over at The View

…they’re not just debating whether or not evolution is, like, a real and true scientific fact, but whether or not the earth is round or flat. Because in the bible God said to his son, “Let’s create a earth.” And if He wanted to create a flat earth then, by God, He could damn well create a flat earth.

We’re doomed.

Via Towleroad.

RSS icon Comments

1

Hmmm It is time to totally outlaw religious belief in any form.

These people are mentally sick. Yes, if you think "God" (Some imaginary force/dude/dudette in the sky) could make the world flat, then you are mentally ill.

BTW, still waiting for the unquestionable factual PROOF God exists.

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger | September 19, 2007 8:41 AM
2

DAMN, what an ignoramus. She should stick to performing on scripted sitcoms and otherwise keep her dumb mouth shut. She makes Elisabeth freakin' Hasselbeck look reasonable.



PS: Did Barbara Walters say "internets"? Now that shit is funny!

Posted by chrisdiani | September 19, 2007 8:47 AM
3

The most sensible thing that was said came at the end:

"We have to take a break."

Posted by patrick | September 19, 2007 8:49 AM
4

The best moment is at -0.17:

Barbara Walters: "Look what we have now, with internets!"

Posted by Christin | September 19, 2007 8:50 AM
5

"Look what we have now, with the internets, and babies being born in fertility treatments, and babies being born in...in sperm."

Posted by Eric Grandy | September 19, 2007 8:51 AM
6

Walters mentioned something about we need to respect people's beliefs. I completely disagree, we need to ridicule people that hold these kinds of empty-headed beliefs. I am so tired of being told I need to respect these insane beliefs.

Never thought about the earth being flat or round. Please.

Posted by michael | September 19, 2007 8:51 AM
7

What was Barbara rambling about at the end there, anyway? "We have babies born in sperm"...? WTF?

I appreciate that she allows at the beginning of the clip that it's theoretically possible to not believe in God and still be a good person. Thanks for that, Barbara.

So they replaced Rosie with Whoopie? This may in fact be the most unwatchable TV show ever conceived of and put on the air.

Posted by Peter | September 19, 2007 8:53 AM
8

If you find that conversation hard to believe, check out this. Talk about reinventing the wheel.

Posted by Gabriel | September 19, 2007 8:56 AM
9

It does seem possible that someone could believe in God, or a god, or gods, or karma, or whatever, AND, in addition to that, have the capacity for rational thought and reasoning.

For example, the Dalai Lama has an interest in science and astronomy. He states, "If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change". That is refreshing. If the pope ever said that, I would eat my hat.

Ha-ha - Baba Wawa said "internets".

Posted by Mahtli69 | September 19, 2007 8:58 AM
10

Evolution is not a "real and true scientific fact." It is a theory (and a very good one to boot) based off of those real and true scientific facts.

Posted by James | September 19, 2007 8:59 AM
11

I refuse to watch that clip. Refuse!!

Posted by Mr. Poe | September 19, 2007 9:02 AM
12

I call on reasonable Christians everywhere to rise up and deliver a righteous bitchslap to these morons. Just like Jesus would've done.

Posted by Greg | September 19, 2007 9:03 AM
13

@9 Yes, it is certainly possible to believe in God and science at the same time. It's unfortunate that not more religious people see that they are compatible. For that matter, a lot of scientists don't see this either. People like Dawkins are just as religious about atheism, when in truth the question of God's existence is not something that can be answered by science.

There are a fair number of scientists who will admit the possibility of higher intelligence; they simply do not make specific claims about such an intelligence.

Posted by Gabriel | September 19, 2007 9:04 AM
14

Re the geocentricity link @ 8, I had to dig through my blog archives to find this . Craziness.

Posted by Gabriel | September 19, 2007 9:06 AM
15

It IS possible to not believe in a "god almighty" and still be a good person? Thank goodness Baba said so- pedantic moron... and Michael at #6- Maybe not ridicule but medicate for certain- I refuse to respec the beliefs of the crazy ranting bum on the street corner- I cross the street to avoid him lest he be dangerous and tell my son its impolite to stare at the crazy person- that he needs medical help and isn't getting it. I feel no different about religious beliefs- many that are proven to be dangerous to the sane amongst us- just becuase the narcisitic phychosis is shared by a lot of people makes it no less a mental illness that should be treated!

Posted by NELBOT | September 19, 2007 9:10 AM
16

I have a chapter in the Weekly World News that says the moon is made of green cheese. Must've been created in sperm....

Posted by California | September 19, 2007 9:14 AM
17

What an insipid argument. A circle is both round and flat. Perhaps if any of these bitches could distinguish between round and spherical, they wouldn't need to have the discussion.

I love, however, Hassleback's assertion that the absolutely indisputable fact of the Earth's general spherical shape is equal to the pure conjecture that the Earth is flat. Because, you know, everyone used to believe one wrong thing, so maybe everyone could be wrong again!

Posted by Chris in Tampa | September 19, 2007 9:15 AM
18

Wow. I need to go cry in the corner. BBL

Posted by Original Monique | September 19, 2007 9:23 AM
19

every time i've randomly stumbled upon this show for a few minutes i've heard at least one (usually unchallenged) idiotic, ignorant statement. i find the long and continuing popularity of this show profoundly depressing and disturbing. you might as well listen to a table full of hens clucking and scratching, for all the worthwhile things which come of it.

Posted by ellarosa | September 19, 2007 9:27 AM
20

Meridith Viera was the sanity glue that held that show together. That and they didn't hire Kathy Griffin to replace her.

SUCK IT, VIEW!

Posted by monkey | September 19, 2007 9:27 AM
21

And for the record, because these types of arguments are always so fun, it is not possible to believe in science and a god. Any scientist who believes in a god is compromising his own scientific values. Any scientist who admits the possibility of a god is merely humoring the nuts. Whether something is disprovable by Science or not is irrelevant. There are an infinite number of things that could exist which have absolutely no evidence for or against. Are we to admit the possibility of every one of these infinite things? If you're willing to try, I recommend starting now -- you've a long way to go.

And I'm sick to death of people claiming Atheism or Science is just as dogmatic as Theism. There's no evidence of this; There are simply more than a few athiests out there who refuse to pander to the obviously wrong and harmful religions that people steadfastly believe in despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Posted by Chris in Tampa | September 19, 2007 9:27 AM
22

Still waiting for that undistputed proof of god's existance....

But it would be better to believe in the Tooth Fairy: There are not religous books relating to the Tooth Fairy telling us slavery is okay, kill your enemies and hate people who are different.

Belief in God= Bad and Violent
Belief in Tooth Fairy = Bad but not so Violent

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger | September 19, 2007 9:30 AM
23

And I'm sick to death of people claiming Atheism or Science is just as dogmatic as Theism. There's no evidence of this.

It is just as dogmatic. If an agnostic wants to criticize religious people, fine - but an adamant atheist is really no different than a religious person.

Posted by Gabriel | September 19, 2007 9:31 AM
24

Next they'll be saying we need to burn more witches. :P

Posted by Toby | September 19, 2007 9:32 AM
25

In response to #9:

"There are a fair number of scientists who will admit the possibility of higher intelligence; they simply do not make specific claims about such an intelligence."

In my own limited experience here, I don't think many scientists make specific claims about a higher intelligence because THAT DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE REALM OF SCIENCE. That's a matter of faith, of religion. Science cannot (and should not seek to) answer religious questions. And for a good number of scientists (at least the ones I know), science and religion are entirely compatible for them. I think staunch athiest like Dr. Dawkins are not meant to represent the whole community of scientists. Scientists are diverse in their religious beliefs (atheism to fundamentalism, and everything in between) as the general public.

I try to remind myself that the division is not as clear cut as "science vs. religion" or "scientists vs. non-scientists." The world is round, but the world is also grey.

Posted by James | September 19, 2007 9:32 AM
26

In case you haven't noticed, all of the religions currently practiced are demonstrably incorrect. The most adamant atheist still believes that the existence of a god is possible, especially since the word begins to lose its meaning outside of the context of a religion. Pretty much anything can be a god. A giant "On/Off" switch in the center of the Universe, for example.
But you'll never find a truly religious person who believes in the possibility of no god. Anyone you know who says they do is really just an atheist who prefers the shackles of their own religious beliefs.

Posted by Chris in Tampa | September 19, 2007 9:38 AM
27

I've never heard of The View until this post.

I can't be alone here, am I?

Posted by matthew fisher wilder | September 19, 2007 9:43 AM
28

@21- When we die, is there a "heaven", does our life force get reabsorbed into the cosmic soup, are we just worm food, or what? I agree there are an infinite number of things that could exist, but this is a pretty basic question for which Science has no answer.

I don't put Science in the same category as Atheism or Theism. It's like comparing apples and oranges.

Accordingly, I do think Atheism can be just as dogmatic as Theism. The common thread between them is Faith, which is anathema to Science and Rational Thought. The Atheist believes there is no god, but cannot prove it any more than a Theist can prove there is a god.

Posted by Mahtli69 | September 19, 2007 9:44 AM
29

@ Chris in Tampa, I am an atheist and god does not exist nor could a god exist except in the minds of the mentally weak and feable. The same minds that allow George W Bush to be President.

Religous belief is simply a mental disorder and one that tends to have violent results.

No religon? No 9-11.

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger | September 19, 2007 9:44 AM
30

Buford joined the war on illiteracy today, and bought himself a high powered rifle.

Posted by opus23 | September 19, 2007 9:46 AM
31

"In my own limited experience here, I don't think many scientists make specific claims about a higher intelligence because THAT DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE REALM OF SCIENCE."

That's exactly my point.

Posted by Gabriel | September 19, 2007 9:46 AM
32

And once again people using the Fox News tactic of mudding the waters on the question of god's existance. (If they can not win then confuse the arguement so the other side can not win) And, pat themselves on the back for being "intellectual" about their arguments.

Posted by Fuck you all | September 19, 2007 9:48 AM
33

This clip makes my head hurt.

You never thought about if the earth is flat or not? ARE YOU A FUCKING IDIOT?

The earth is round, evolution is a more viable theory than the seven days of Genesis, and watching 'The View' makes you noticeably stupider, and me noticeably angrier.

The end.

Posted by Jessica | September 19, 2007 9:48 AM
34

If they can not win then confuse the arguement so the other side can not win

If you're confused, that's your fault.

Posted by Gabriel | September 19, 2007 9:49 AM
35

Where's Ken Hutcherson when you need him?

Posted by Lee | September 19, 2007 9:49 AM
36

A few notes: evolution is BOTH a fact and a scientific theory. It is a fact that species have evolved and are continuing to evolve, it is ALSO a theory about how that evolution happened. The theory is supported with such an overwhelming abundance of evidence, that it would be foolish to not accept the theory as true.

As far as science evaluating religios claims - of course science is capable of examining any claim that effects the real world. A claim that god make you feel nice is not able to be evaluated by science, but a claim that god answers prayers, or heals people is able to be critically evaluated by the scientific method.

At this time there is no scientific evidence that any of the religious claims have any truth to them. So why would anyone believe in something with no evidence? (other than being brainwashed as a child) A rational person wouldn't.

Posted by Cheeto | September 19, 2007 9:50 AM
37

i postulate: adrian's theory of de-evolution. ladies and genetlmen, the view.

Posted by adrian! | September 19, 2007 9:52 AM
38

@28 There is no faith in Atheism. Atheism is the natural state of being for any sentient thing. It takes no belief or faith to believe that there is no god, because it requires no evidence to believe something doesn't exist.

@29 Atheists who don't admit the possibility of a god are merely using too narrow a definition. If you define god as anything that is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, or some combination thereof, then of course there's no such thing. However, those definitions only come out of a religious context. My Giant On/Off switch is a god, because it caused the Big Bang, which provides a convenient and all too easy answer to why it happened. It's virtually impossible, and therefore finitely improbable, or some such. I don't have my Hitchhiker's Guide on me at the moment, sorry.

Posted by Chris in Tampa | September 19, 2007 9:54 AM
39

Cato tYY: You misspelled "feeble" in that sentence about people with weak and feeble minds.

Posted by flamingbanjo | September 19, 2007 9:55 AM
40

The burden of proof is on the postive side. In this case the burden of proof rests on those who think God exists. It does not rest with the negative side of the debate.

Posted by Hello? | September 19, 2007 9:56 AM
41

Barbara Walters' face looks like it's made out of rubber bands.

Posted by Carollani | September 19, 2007 10:06 AM
42

@28 - When we die, is there a "heaven", does our life force get reabsorbed into the cosmic soup, are we just worm food, or what? I agree there are an infinite number of things that could exist, but this is a pretty basic question for which Science has no answer.


Science has a very good answer to this question, it's just not an answer that most people like to hear. No heaven has ever been discovered and no "life force" has ever been detected. And it's pretty well documented that we become work food when we die. We have centuries of evidence.

Posted by F | September 19, 2007 10:08 AM
43

For Gabriel at #31,

I think I see what you were saying now. Sorry for muddling the point!

Posted by James | September 19, 2007 10:08 AM
44

True, science and religion deal with completely separate realms of understanding, but the notion that science cannot ever definitively resolve the question of whether "God" exists or not doesn't make sense.

In scientific terms, the question is quite simple: IF God exists, then there must be some evidence of his existence, whether overt (e.g. burning bushes, voices from the sky, etc.) or covert (manifestations of some higher power having influenced otherwise natural processes - which is the entire crux of the "Intelligent Design" platform); but in any case, evidence of some kind.

To date, no such evidence is forthcoming. At best we have 6,000 year-old oral recounts of encounters with a supposed "Lord of Lords, Host of Hosts" or whatever, but nothing that can be verified, examined or that can be reproduced under controlled conditions. Meanwhile, believers for the most part take it for granted that their God has no need for such empirical "proof", and that in point of fact, it is their "faith" in his existence, despite the abject lack of any evidence whatsoever, that makes such proof unnecessary (which, in my mind always begs the question: if God doesn't feel the need to "prove" his existence, why do some believers claim that he "speaks" to them nevertheless? If that were the case, why wouldn't any of these folks think to keep a tape recorder at-the-ready, just to, you know, settle the question?).

Belief in an omniscient, omnipresent, paternalistic Supreme Being may have made some sense to people ignorant of the natural processes of how the physical universe works several millenia ago, but in this day-and-age, with our far superior understanding of these same processes, it represents at best a quaint anachronism, and at worst indicates that many human beings simply do not possess either the mental capacity, or psychological stability to divest themselves of an outmoded, irrational belief system that has become increasingly irrelevent over time.

And while some scientists may well hedge and state that the absence of such evidence doesn't irrevocably refute the possibility of the existence of God, most others would posit that the dearth of even the most minute amount of evidence in the affirmative makes the likelihood statistically irrelevent.

It's "Occam's Razor": the simplest answer to the question, "does God exist?", based on the heretofore complete lack of supporting evidence would have to be "no."

Posted by COMTE | September 19, 2007 10:27 AM
45

@29 No religon? No 9-11.

i hear arguments like this often, and i'm not sure i agree. to suppose that all significant acts of violence are motivated by religion is not a viable argument. people forming a group that moves to an us v. them mentality does. be it gangs, business, government, or religion. it just so happens that over 90% of the world is religious, that in the past not having a religion was not an option, and that religion can prove a powerful technique to get someone to justify such behavior.

Posted by infrequent | September 19, 2007 10:38 AM
46

@29 No religon? No 9-11.

i hear arguments like this often, and i'm not sure i agree. to suppose that all significant acts of violence are motivated by religion is not a viable argument. people forming a group that moves to an us v. them mentality does. be it gangs, business, government, or religion. it just so happens that over 90% of the world is religious, that in the past not having a religion was not an option, and that religion can prove a powerful technique to get someone to justify such behavior.

Posted by infrequent | September 19, 2007 10:38 AM
47

Funny, when I scanned this clip last night, it never even crossed my mind that she might *actually* believe the Earth is flat. I thought she was making the point (when saying she worries about feeding her kids) that she focuses an tangible concerns and fears, rather than larger abstract concepts that seem to have no consequence to her daily life.

Now I realize I gave her too much credit; the bitch is as dumb as a box of rocks.

Posted by UNPAID BLOGGER | September 19, 2007 10:44 AM
48

@everyone-

I haven't been in the United States for three years now. If this is what you're watching on television...Communist bullshit propaganda is looking pretty good. At least everyone knows it's bullshit. Please tell me that all those people on that horrible show are fake, please please please. I was thinking about going back.

Posted by Dan in Beijing | September 19, 2007 10:50 AM
49

Comte, your premise is false. It's possible for there to be a God without us having any obvious evidence.

Posted by Gabriel | September 19, 2007 10:53 AM
50

"And while some scientists may well hedge and state that the absence of such evidence doesn't irrevocably refute the possibility of the existence of God, most others would posit that the dearth of even the most minute amount of evidence in the affirmative makes the likelihood statistically irrelevent."

Can someone out there find a poll of scientists (and their self-stated relgious beliefs) that might verify this statement? It definitely challenges my own encounters with scientists in my professional and academic life, but I do have to recongize the possibility that I might be wrong, and that most scientists might indeed be atheists.

Posted by James | September 19, 2007 10:58 AM
51

@49 He didn't say it was impossible. Of course it's possible, it's just not likely. And science, as well as life, teaches us that in the absence of evidence to the contrary the simplest explanation is the most likely one.

Posted by F | September 19, 2007 11:06 AM
52

@50 - Here's something, which confirms other things I've read that scientists polled are overwhelmingly atheist.

". . . Edward J. Larson, professor of law and the history of science at the University of Georgia, and science journalist Larry Witham, both theists, polled National Academy of Sciences members in 1998 and provided further confirmation of Leuba's conjecture. Using Leuba's definitions of God and immortality for direct comparison, they found lower percentages of believers. Only 10 percent of NAS scientists believed in God or immortality, with those figures dropping to 5 percent among biologists."

From http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/55593

Posted by Levislade | September 19, 2007 11:12 AM
53

@51 Actually, he did say that there must be proof of God if God exists. That's false.

Posted by Gabriel | September 19, 2007 11:27 AM
54

To Levislade at #52:

Thanks for the link! It's fascinating reading. I was hoping, however, that there'd be a poll from a wider variety of scientists at different points in their careers, not just a few hundred of the top evolutionary biologists. But still, those are interesting poll results!

Posted by James | September 19, 2007 11:39 AM
55

This is basically semantic hair-splitting, but even so: To make a claim for strict atheism, i.e. to say that you know definitively for a fact that such-and-such does not exist transfers the burden of proof to you. If one were merely asking for proof from somebody making the contrary claim, that would be agnosticism. Claiming to know something with certainty is different from reasonably doubting an opposing position.

Also, statements like "statistically insignificant" regarding the existence of the supernatural are inapplicable. Since supernatural things by definition exist outside the observable laws of nature, there is no way to meaningfully evaluate their existence or non-existence through observance of naturally occuring phenomena, which is the magisterium of science. It may be tempting to "round off to zero" when faced with seemingly absurd beliefs, but it is doesn't constitute proof.

I just finished reading Stephen J. Gould's Rock of Ages, which explores these ideas in some depth. One of his central points more or less boils down to the equivalent of the Dalai Lama quote above, which is that if a religion makes a specific claim which is disproven by factual evidence then it is the religion and not the facts which needs to be changed.

But he also points out that the idea that religion and science must necessarily be in opposition is a sacred cow of many scientists as well as religious demagogues. Since at least the nineteenth century it has frequently functioned as a fashionable pretext for scientists who wish to lay some claim to some moral or ethical authority equivalent to that of religious leaders. Historically this has provided justifications for some fairly unconscionable behavior. For instance, elevating Darwin's observance of natural selection to the status of a moral imperative (i.e. "Nature dictates that the strong must eliminate the weak!") provided the justification for eugenics.

Posted by flamingbanjo | September 19, 2007 11:41 AM
56

flamingbanjo, I felt that way about the word "atheism" for a while too (isn't that saying I know there's no god? I guess I'm an agnostic). I have come around to subscribe to the definition as I understand it from Harris, Dawkins, et al.

Atheists are not saying they know 100% that there is no god, they're just saying that they are in the same state regarding god as they were when they were born, and as most people are are regarding Zeus or Zuul or The Flying Spaghetti Monster or what have you: they are so unlikely that they are assumed not to exist. The point has been made before, but all religious people are atheists with regards to any gods other than their own. We just go one further.

Posted by Levislade | September 19, 2007 11:56 AM
57

We each follow our little religions, often without knowning it, each and every day (yes, even atheists). Why do you think the earth is round? Have you seen it from outer space? We take our own consciousness for granted, the idea that we are who we take eachother to be, that others are what they present to us in a social setting. We think it matters that we get a job or a raise or that we prove a point on Slog. We live as though we were the center of the universe (admit it). Not to say that this is all bad, it is just how it is. Ironically, it is the true nature of spiritual traditions that seek to dissolve these "little religions".

Posted by Jude Fawley | September 19, 2007 12:01 PM
58

@49:

And your evidence for this assertion is - ?

Posted by COMTE | September 19, 2007 12:04 PM
59

Levislade: Yes, I get that, which is why I said "strict" atheism, such as the kind I am seeing in abundance here, which makes factual claims that no scientist or logician speaking in good faith would support.

To me, specifying that I don't know (or in some instances, can't know) is an important distinction because I'd like to have an open mind. And not all propositions put forth by every religion everywhere since the beginning of human history are as easily disproven as "the world was flooded and all the species survived by pairing up and crowding onto a boat together."

There is more to religious thought than Pat Robertson and Muqtada al-Sadr.

Posted by flamingbanjo | September 19, 2007 12:08 PM
60

Also, please bear in mind I did contemplate the possibility of "covert" (i.e. unobvious) evidence, citing ID as an example of one such attempt to introduce such "evidence".

But in any case, the concept of a "supernatural" being that can influence physicality without itself leaving any coherent trace of that influence defies not only logic and empiricism, but common sense as well. That's why other so-called supernatural manifestations such as ghosts and poltergeists aren't accepted as credible phenomena.

BZZZZZZZT! Thanks for playing. We'll send you the home-version of the game.

Posted by COMTE | September 19, 2007 12:14 PM
61

Comte - Nice try. You state that if there's a God, there must be evidence. This is false on the face of it; I'm not making an assertion, I'm stating a fact. While it's certainly possible to imagine a God who interacts in our lives and is manifested on Earth, it's also easy to imagine a God who created the universe and refrains from interacting with it. Your "requirement" is a false premise.

Posted by Gabriel | September 19, 2007 12:24 PM
62

And yes to flamingobanjo, who reiterates some of the same points I made earlier, especially regarding the important distinction of "agnostic" and "atheist."

Posted by Gabriel | September 19, 2007 12:25 PM
63

Have absolutely none of you heard of Bertrand Russell's teapot?

flamingbagofbanjo @59:
Wrong. Every scientist worth his or her salt would support the idea that if there's no evidence of something, it doesn't exist. Unless you want to qualify absolutely everything we know as belief, which is a pointless form of argument. (I.e., you can't "know" that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. You believe that it will because it's happened over and over and we have a good explanation for why it does.)

Posted by Superfurry Animal | September 19, 2007 12:27 PM
64

Superfurry: Please reread what I wrote. The sun rising in the East is easily proven by referring to observable facts. It is an apples and oranges comparison.

The admission to not knowing things about which no factual evidence is available is a pretty bedrock scientific principle. It just makes people uncomfortable not having a nice tidy answer (I believe it's called "cognitive dissonance"), so many people like to yell "Science!" while pretending to certainty where there can be none.

Whatever gets you through the night.

Posted by flamingbanjo | September 19, 2007 12:39 PM
65

flaming@64: Still wrong. If you're going to say "I don't know because there's no proof" about god, you have to say "I don't know because there's no proof" about Zeus, Russell's teapot, the invisible unicorn and an infinity of things that no rational person believes in.

My point regarding the sun is that fundamentally, all science is based on belief -- it doesn't deal in certainty, only in probability. We and science have simply decided that things that are very, very likely are true, and things that are very, very unlikely aren't. Nothing you know through science is actually certain, only very, very probable. So your hair-splitting about knowing is pointless and inane.

Posted by Superfurry Animal | September 19, 2007 12:53 PM
66

FB:

In matters of human behavior; morality, ethics, etc., I agree that religion has had some positive influences, albeit just as many negative ones as well, so it would be debatable as to which side of the scale weighs heavier.

However, it is not "unfactual" to state categorically that to-date there is no evidence whatsoever to support the contention that God exists. That is a completely factual statement.

Furthermore, it is not unfactual to assert that at some level any process that has an influence on physicality must itself manifest physical properties in order to do so; this is the theoretical basis for concepts such as Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which states in part that the reason why certain aspects of quantum observation can only be approximated is because the very act of observing phenomenon at the quantum level has a direct effect on what is being observed.

The idea that anything that may exist outside of the physical realm can interact on a physical level, and yet leave no trace of such interaction is absurd on its face, particularly since many believers claim to have had such interactions. It is in direct contradiction to the known laws of physics, and leads to one of two conclusions: either God doesn't in fact exist, or, he's a complete dick who just likes to fuck with us.

Part of the issue with the "God Question" is that, on the one hand, we are supposed to accept the concept of a supernatural being that operates completely outside of the known laws that govern how the universe operates; that is in short, "an exception to the rule", while on the other hand, we are simultaneously supposed to accept the notion that "God" is essentially human in form - according to Genesis, we were made "in his image", and the traditional, accepted depiction of Yahweh is that of a rather powerfully built, yet clearly geriatric human male. Some believers will of course find no cognitive disconnect between these two mutually contradictory states - arguing that God can be both supernatural and physical at the same time, although again as ever, they cannot provide any evidence to back this up, and insist their belief in its verity is sufficient in and of itself to make their belief a point of fact.

Now, if most religionists wanted to argue that "God" is so huge, so powerful that we cannot even begin to fathom its form, its scope its psychology, intentions or purpose, THEN they might have some basis for generating respectful contemplation from the other side. But, that's not what they do. They insist that they KNOW what God looks like, and they know his plans and intentions, because God has revealed them, either through scripture, or through physical manifestations operating in the real world, or even more implausibly, through direct address to certain "chosen" individuals. Yet, not only do they consistently fail to produce any evidence to back up their claims, but all the evidence that DOES exist actually refutes their assertions!

So, what conclusion are we to draw from this? That a supernatural being occasionally and selectively manifests itself only to a handful of individuals, never leaving a trace of its presence or passage, and furthermore this being purposefully and willfully bends the physical laws it has established in order to fool us into believing the universe is for example, 16 billion years old, despite the "fact" it also "told" some nomads wandering the Sinai Peninsula a few millenia back that the universe is only 6,000 years old? Oh, and our belief of the latter is supposed to prove our loyalty and devotion to its absolute sovereignty, while acceptance of the former is proof of our transigence?

This is what Judeo-christians (as well as Moslems) truly believe, despite the fact they cannot provide even a single shred of credible evidence to support their position. And yet, those of us with the temerity to challenge them are wrong, simply because we don't accept their faith in their correctness with the same unquestioning credulity they do.

Given the choice between the positions that "God exists because because we believe in him", or, "we believe in God because he exists", I would argue the former is a more accurate description of religious "faith".

Posted by COMTE | September 19, 2007 1:12 PM
67

Geez, READ the Bible before you try to QUOTE the Bible, lady. Jesus was not hanging out in Genesis (if I am correct in assuming the son god created "a earth" with was Jesus). Why are they even arguing this? For some reason, a "believer" has to, what, negate ALL known science? Or she's a Darwinist traitor?

Posted by SFLAG | September 19, 2007 1:13 PM
68

Strike Two, Gabriel:

Let's break this down into a simple logical syllogism:

A. All things in the physical realm that interact with other things in the physical realm leave a trace of such interaction. (Refute this, if you can - without using God as an example.)

B. God purports to interact with other things on the physical realm.

C. Ergo, God must leave a trace of such interaction on the physical plane.

You can argue all you want that God gets some sort of special pass on this, because, well, he's God, right? But that would simply be arguing against all of those believers who claim to know God's will. Either he interacted with them or he didn't. If he did, they should be able to show some evidence of this interaction, since they themselves are physical beings and are NOT exempt from the physical laws that govern the universe. Claiming that God interacted with them, but left no trace of that interaction (aside from what they believe they "heard" him say), calls the very authenticity of their interaction into question.

Without proof, we have no more reason to believe in the veracity of any statements they attribute to God than we would to the ravings of a lunatic or a small child with an over-active imagination. Taking them at their word is both foolhardy and naive, because in order to do so, we must first disallow all the other more prosaic, more human motivations they might have for making such a claim in the first place; greed, ambition, venality, etc., etc. And time and time again, those who have purported to "know the word of God" have been shown out to be at best deluded, and at worst charlatans and huckters preying on the gullibility of those who lack the ability to question their authority.

And you can include Yeshua Ben Miriam, well-meaning as he may have been, in that list, SFAIC.

Posted by COMTE | September 19, 2007 1:30 PM
69

Look, it's real simple: If I say "due to a complete lack of evidence in the existence of a man with a beard who runs the universe from on high, I choose to act as though this proposition is not true" that's one thing. (This roughly corresponds to my actual beliefs, btw.)

If I say "there's no god of any kind and I can prove it I might then be expected to present some facts to support that statement. Which puts me right back into the position the believers are in -- having to offer up hard evidence that is simply not available. I'm sure you've heard before how difficult it is to prove a negative.

Smarter minds than mine and yours have attempted to offer proofs to this question for millenia and never come up with it.

Posted by flamingbanjo | September 19, 2007 1:31 PM
70

Then I guess the only place where we disagree, fb, concerns your assertion that there are atheists, either out there or on this board, who would claim to be able to prove the nonexistence of god. I've never heard of or met a one of them, and any such person would be indescribably foolish. For me, atheism is simply the proposition that no evidence = no existence.

I get uppity when people falsely assert that atheism requires belief or faith.

Posted by Superfurry Animal | September 19, 2007 1:42 PM
71

Comte, your syllogism proves nothing on this point. I am not trying to justify people's claims that they have interacted with God or their claims to have knowledge of such interaction. The argument I correctly disputed, which I will reiterate yet again, is that God's existence must be detectable to us, that there should be evidence. It's not true, and I'm not clear why you fail to acknowledge that, other than mere stubbornness. God could be a prime mover who set in motion the big bang, and the big bang and our resulting universe could be a small speck inside something much larger. The point is that there needn't be proof of God interacting here for there to be a possibility of God's existence. No matter what science discovers about our place in the multiverse, you could always posit an additional layer above that where God operates. That's the rub, and why we keep reiterating that science cannot disprove God.

Posted by Gabriel | September 19, 2007 1:46 PM
72

For me, atheism is simply the proposition that no evidence = no existence.

But that's the flaw. The lack of evidence does not equal lack of existence. That's why the term "agnostic" should be used unless you believe you can actually prove God doesn't exist.

Posted by Gabriel | September 19, 2007 1:52 PM
73

No, Gabriel you haven't proven anything, nor presented any statement of fact. You presented an OPINION, one for which you cannot provide any evidence, AS fact.

I believe the traditional anecdotal conclusion you are attempting to draw is: "Sorry. It's turtles all the way down."

If, as you claim, God does not require any evidence of his existence, then on what basis do you make the claim he does in fact exist? I can claim the "possibility" that the universe rests on the back of a stack of giant turtles; according to your reasoning, MY supposition is equally as valid as is yours, since, as you assert, there is no empirical way to prove or disprove either. So, why do you believe in God, but NOT in the turtles?

Posted by COMTE | September 19, 2007 1:57 PM
74

Gabriel, the fact that you don't understand the meaning of the word "atheist" is not our problem.

Posted by Levislade | September 19, 2007 1:58 PM
75

Yes, Gabriel, are you an aturtlist, or an agnostic with regard to the turtleverse?

Posted by Levislade | September 19, 2007 2:01 PM
76

@66 - We're talking about the existence or non-existence of God here. Don't bring religion into it. That just confuses everything (and, God knows, religions have got it all wrong).

On that note, let's forget about the image of a bearded guy in the sky and any other preconceived hoo-ha from the Bible. Instead, I'd like to pose some questions about prayer (or, if you prefer, meditation). Can it work? I'm not talking about asking God to tell you next week's winning lotto numbers. But, what about asking for strength or guidance regarding a moral question or overcoming fear? Many people, from pro-athletes to recovering addicts, talk about a higher power and how it's a source of inner strength. Regardless of whether God actually exists, it does seem to be a source of power for many people. Are these people deluded?

For the skeptics, I concede that it's likely that this inner strength actually lies within everyone, and it's up to the individual to tap into it. So maybe God is just a crutch to overcome self-esteem issues. Regardless, it does seem to have tangible benefits for believers.

Posted by Mahtli69 | September 19, 2007 2:06 PM
77

Turtle! Turtle!

Am I not turtle enough for you?

Posted by Turtle Man | September 19, 2007 2:08 PM
78

Meditation can be a very effective mental tool, and if your version of meditation involves asking imaginary beings for things that are already within you, then so be it. You don't need god to meditate, though.

Posted by Levislade | September 19, 2007 2:08 PM
79

Exactly, it's turtles all the way down.

Posted by Gabriel | September 19, 2007 2:08 PM
80

I am devoutly agnostic. It is all about definition. You can prove or disprove a particular conception of god. There is a lot of refuting of particular conceptions of god. That god exists outside of nature and physics is a very common conjecture, but not inherent. That god must be this or would be that or any other conception is just your, or somebody else who seems authoritative's, conception. A god could be nonexistent, dead, completely unaware of our existence, just not care, or even locked out of affecting anything by the physics it created. It is all just speculation. And, pretty much always, bullshit.

Posted by ubermaus | September 19, 2007 2:09 PM
81

"Gabriel, the fact that you don't understand the meaning of the word 'atheist' is not our problem."

QFT

Posted by Superfurry Animal | September 19, 2007 2:10 PM
82

Levislade, you might want to check your dictionary.

Posted by Gabriel | September 19, 2007 2:10 PM
83

I have a PhD in herpetology, and I'm telling you too, it's turtles.

Posted by Jude Fawley | September 19, 2007 2:16 PM
84

I'm glad you brought up the turtles example, because that's a classic example of not being able to prove such a thing is untrue. Stephen Hawking (among many others) used the example and admitted that he can't prove that the stack of turtles theory is untrue. That's exactly my point, that you can't prove such theories even if they seem ridiculous or there is no evidence to support them. The fact that you still don't recognize this point suggests you're either a bit thick or just don't take honest debate seriously.

Posted by Gabriel | September 19, 2007 2:16 PM
85

Comte, you also ask how I make the claim that God does in fact exist. Have I done such a thing? Have you read anything I've posted? I have not claimed anywhere here that God exists. You're barking up the wrong tree all along, apparently. I am agnostic.

Posted by Gabriel | September 19, 2007 2:18 PM
86

@82 - I did.

How's the OED for ya?:

1. One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God.

Or Merriam-Webster, if you're not into the whole anglo thing:

one who believes that there is no deity

Posted by Levislade | September 19, 2007 2:23 PM
87

Levislade and SFA, if you want a longer response about "atheist" versus "agnostic" you can re-read the above posts by flamingobanjo and me, but in short: an atheist is saddled with the same problems that a God-believing person is, just the flip side of the coin. If you believe there is not evidence for God but recognize that it cannot be proved or disproved, "agnostic" is more appropriate.

Posted by Gabriel | September 19, 2007 2:24 PM
88

Gabriel -- define "proved" or "disproved"

Posted by Superfurry Animal | September 19, 2007 2:30 PM
89

@87 - I understand that that's what you think, but you're wrong. Religious people know there is a god. Agnostics are uncertain, but think there's a good chance that there's a god (you can't prove it, so that makes it 50/50 or something somehow?).

I'm absolutely willing to admit that I don't know with 100% certainty that there is no god, but I am an atheist. I believe there is no god, and I believe that the likelihood of there being a god is so unlikely as to be pretty much impossible.

Posted by Levislade | September 19, 2007 2:30 PM
90

Mahti69,

Sounds like what you are talking about is simply deep introspection, which, as a form of self-examination and self-awareness would certainly seem to have clear and demonstrable benefits to the individual who practices it.

But, "prayer" is by definition an appeal to a higher power; whereas "meditation", in my mind at least, denotes more of a conversation with ones self, so I think your conclusion with regards to elevating ones sense of self-empowerment makes perfect sense.

Posted by COMTE | September 19, 2007 2:33 PM
91

That we lack evidence of something does not disprove it. That would mean that nothing exists until we can detect it. So the scientists are gods, willing things into existence as they find them? Other solar systems didn't exist before we had the instruments to detect them? No quarks, DNA, quasars before the past century. Can you prove the existence of that loud, obnoxious stranger you saw across the street on your way to work?

Posted by ubermaus | September 19, 2007 2:39 PM
92

Thank you, Levislade. Well put.

The difference between an atheist and a theist isn't a matter of belief; it's a matter of certainty of belief. Atheists are 99.9% certain God doesn't exist, because 100% of the evidence (or lack thereof) points in that direction.

Theists on the other hand are 100% certain that God does exist, despite the fact that 100% of the evidence points to the contrary.

Posted by COMTE | September 19, 2007 2:41 PM
93

SFA: Oh yeah, I've definitely met (and, virtually, "met") many atheists who claim definitive proof. None of them are ever found, on further examination, to be using the definition of "proof" that scientists use.

Beyond that, any number of the comments on this very thread regarding how anybody who believes anything must be mentally ill certainly speak to level of smug certainty in the (non) belief system of many Atheists!™ that from here looks unwarranted.

While I certainly understand the impulse to go from "the idea of a man in red pajamas poking me with a pitchfork for all of eternity seems implausible" to "... and besides everybody knows that anybody who's not an atheist is a gap-toothed hillbilly who is obviously just fantasizing about some cosmic father figure because he's weak-minded and not smart like me," to me tacking that last clause to the end (however satisfying it may feel) edges over the line into assholery.

There is no surer red-flag that screams "Caution, weak argument approaching" than statements like "surely anybody who isn't an idiot would have to agree that..."

Reasonable people can disagree.

Posted by flamingbanjo | September 19, 2007 2:45 PM
94

What a dumb cunt.

Posted by AMB | September 19, 2007 2:51 PM
95

fb@94: I presume your comments beyond the first graf aren't directed at me? B/c I've not made those claims of gap-toothedness. Though I will say that while reasonable people can disagree, many, if not most, atheists would find belief in god unreasonable.

Posted by Superfurry Animal | September 19, 2007 3:01 PM
96

Gabriel -- define "proved" or "disproved"

Wow, you're grasping at straws.

Posted by Gabriel | September 19, 2007 3:07 PM
97

Levislade, your definition of agnostic is wrong. It's not the case that they necessarily "think there's a good chance" that there's a God. They just don't know, that's it. Individual agnostics are varied as to what they believe beyond that.

And your definition of atheist as somebody who believes in the absence of God with a high probability is sort of a compromise between the two actual definitions. It admits that it can't be proved, as agnostics acknowledge, and yet the believe persists.

Posted by Gabriel | September 19, 2007 3:11 PM
98

With nearly 100 comments lining up on this entry, I'm afraid I don't have sufficient time currently to go back and scan through them all to find an example to back me up, but I've read at least a few comments where, in essence, the following point is made:
"If scientists don't find evidence of something, then that thing doesn't exist."

Of course, I'm paraphrasing (badly, to boot). But, I find that notion unsettling since, in my own experience, the opposite is true. Specifically, many scientists stick to the following creed in their research:
"The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

I'm sure that point has been stated as well. But, the former notion disturbed me so much that I wanted to reiterate that, as far as I know, science proceeds along the idea that "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

We don't have evidence of God's existence, but I don't think that absence of evidence proves that God does not exist.

But, then again, I'm not comfortable with the assertion that science can (or should even try) to find evidence of a supernatural being.

Posted by James | September 19, 2007 3:12 PM
99

Yes, ubermaus "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" argumentum ad ignorantiam, we get that.

But, many theists claim to have had direct interaction with God, which would presuppose some physical manifestation of said interaction; i.e. evidence that it actually occured. Yet, when asked to produce similarly irrefutable evidence of their encounter, they cannot. All they have is some words, mysteriously whispered to them and to them alone, and they insist the rest of us just accempt their contention that, "it's true because I say it's true" as a satisfactory response on their part.

This is all very strange to me, since the Scriptures purport to describe all manner of God-created manifestations having actual physical attributes as having occured in the past: burning bushes, pillars of salt, stone tablets, endless loaves of bread and jugs of wine, manna from the heavens, seas rent asunder, etc., etc. If such manifestations were supposedly so commonplace in those days, why do we not see similarly unambiguous signs of God's presence today? Certainly it cannot be because God feels no need to declare his presence, otherwise why would he have done so in pervious eras with such alacrity?

So, Gabriel's argument that God does not require evidence of his existence is refuted by the fact that theists have historically claimed all manner of unexplained phenomenon AS evidence for his existence. But when pressed for similar tangeable proof today, they balk at the very notion that evidence is a necessary requirement for proof, even as they continue to point an evidentiary finger at all the "miracles" in the Bible to support their belief.

In short, they want to have it both ways, and then they get cranky when atheists and strong agnostics won't let them.

Posted by COMTE | September 19, 2007 3:15 PM
100

@90 - If you consider God as a concept, rather than a tangible thing, then is it possible that prayer and meditation, as you define them, are really the same thing? That is, God exists only in our minds.

That could also explain why Science has difficulty dealing with the question of God's existence. Science, undeniably, deals in the physical realm. In this context, asking "Does God exist?" has as much meaning as asking "Do you like pizza?"

Posted by Mahtli69 | September 19, 2007 3:15 PM
101

Thanks, James. That point has been made in slightly different wording, in the exchanges between Comte and me. The creed "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" sums it up well, but Comte remained unconvinced.

Posted by Gabriel | September 19, 2007 3:20 PM
102

To those who've met atheists who claim that they can definitively prove that God doesn't exist: Those people are likely restricting their definition of god to either the currently popular gods, or simply to the idea of an omnipotent god. Science can't prove a god doesn't exist, but Logic basically does. The omnipotence paradox, despite protests from religious tools and apologists, proves with certainty the absence of all of those types of gods. To admit the possibility of any god is to admit the possibility of a significantly weakened god, none of which are currently popular, and none of which have the sort of power to frighten any reasonable person into believing in them or else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

Posted by Chris in Tampa | September 19, 2007 3:24 PM
103

Comte at 99, I think you're mixing up the possibility of proving or disproving God's existence with religious claims about interacting with God. I've made no claims about the latter and do not profess that God exists or interacts with people, yet you keep coming back to the same points. My claim about the logical possibility of God's existence not relying on evidence is certainly not refuted by whatever claims people have made about religious experiences and interactions with God. If you still don't get that after 100 posts, I'm not going to continue trying to help you.

Thanks for the discussion, though.

Posted by Gabriel | September 19, 2007 3:25 PM
104

Gabriel@96: Hardly. You're using the terms "proved" and "disproved" as though they were absolutes. If, as I suspect, you're talking about the scientific method, then you should go back and re-read my post above about science not dealing in certainties, only probabilities.

By your argument, you would have to be agnostic regarding an infinity of un-disprovable beliefs (Thor, Russell's teapot, the turtles, etc.). However, I suspect that you consider nearly every one of those un-disprovable beliefs so patently unlikely as to be not worth believing in. Or are you agnostic to the belief that there's a cardboard cutout of Jabba the Hutt hidden in a cave on the dark side of the moon?

If not, your argument is logically inconsistent.

James @98: While it's absolutely true that the absence of evidence for a deity does not mean that no evidence will ever be found, the current probability of god existing is so infinitesimally small as to not be worth taking seriously. If evidence is later found, that probability can be revised, and the idea can be taken seriously.

Posted by Superfurry Animal | September 19, 2007 3:29 PM
105

Gabriel, how are you coming on your list of things to believe might exist? Are you up to Rodents of Unusual Size, yet? How many teapots might do you think might be orbiting the earth right now? Am I reading your mind right now, from an incredible distance? I bet your thinking about pancakes, but if you're not, I hope you don't count that as evidence against my psychic ability.

Posted by Chris in Tampa | September 19, 2007 3:32 PM
106

And I would guess most, if not all, of the people claiming to have had personal chats with their particular god are liars and/or idiots. All those "miracles" are probably complete fictions that a friend of a friend's cousin's mistress heard from her BFF who swears she knew a guy who was totally there.

Why does the concept of something else out there, personal or impersonal, have to have anything to do with any personal god that has yet been dreamed up for purposes of power and fear of the dark.

Posted by ubermaus | September 19, 2007 3:33 PM
107

Personally, I'm a member of the Church of the Militant Agnostic. We Don't Know, and You Don't Either!

Posted by Geni | September 19, 2007 3:33 PM
108

@97 - OK, I was fudging the agnostic definition, but the point being the agnostic's lack of knowledge is enough for the question to be perpetually unsettled.

For "my" definition of atheist, I am using the dictionary which, again, calls an atheist someone who believes there is no deity. I believe there is no deity in the same way I believe the earth is a round sphere floating in space and was not created in seven (or 10 or 1000) days and the universe is not actually a boil on the ass of a retired fireman in an alternate-universe-New Jersey. Why is that such a problem?

No wonder the religionists get to frame the debate; at least they can agree on their basic principles and terms.

Posted by Levislade | September 19, 2007 3:36 PM
109

@105 and @104 There are plenty of things I do not believe in yet recognize they might exist. The possibility does not mean that I believe in them. When Stephen Hawking said that "turtles all the way down" is ridiculous but possible, it didn't mean that he added that to the list of things he sort of believes.

All along I've been arguing about logical possibility, while Comte and others talk about the evidence and reliability of religious experience and so on. It's really besides the point.

Alas, goodnight. It's 8 hours ahead of PST here, so that's it for me. Honestly, though, thanks for the discussion.

Posted by Gabriel | September 19, 2007 3:37 PM
110

You're right that all of this is beside the point. The point is that you don't accept the philosophy of Skepticism, which is something that all scientists should adhere strictly to. The original debate here was not whether god could or could not exist, but whether it was compatible with science, which it most certainly cannot. QED.

And believing plenty of possible things is not the same as believing in an infinite amount of probable things. Don't slack off, you've got a lot of work to do.

Posted by Chris in Tampa | September 19, 2007 3:47 PM
111

"Why does the concept of something else out there, personal or impersonal, have to have anything to do with any personal god that has yet been dreamed up for purposes of power and fear of the dark."

Basically, because this is exactly how theists frame their argument for his existence. Their God is not only omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, but personal and particular to each believer at the same time. "Have you accepted Jesus (yet another supposed manifestaton of God in physical form) as your PERSONAL SAVIOR?" is generally the first question to pass the lips of any theist in a conversation with a potential convert.

Their belief system is predicated on the supposition that God is simultaneously unknowable AND personal, that the power of their belief opens a direct, individual channel of two-way communication with a diety whose existence is defined solely by the fact that they believe he exists, which itself is an insoluble logical conundrum.

Posted by COMTE | September 19, 2007 3:59 PM
112

@12 - I agree. I was required to take evolutionary biology in order to receive my BS...at a Catholic school. Several PhDs in the science dept were nuns.

Posted by Mariana | September 19, 2007 4:32 PM
113

Sorry if this was posted earlier (I didn't read all 100+ replies) - I wiki'd Sherri Sheppard (curious about her education level) but she's not in it. I googled the story and in AOL's blog someone posted this -

http://www.bible.org/qa.php?qa_id=141&topic_id=8

See #2, 2nd paragraph.


Seriously Sherri, it's not that hard.

Not to stereotype all stand-up comedians - but is she an HS drop out? Anyone know?

Posted by Mariana | September 19, 2007 5:03 PM
114

Um, that religious people are so often annoying pricks and use some form of god to justify trying to inject their particular assholery into other's life and laws is, as far as I am aware of, not the debate. That point has been very well covered in the past, present, and future.

The discussion was about if there could be a "god" in the absolute broadest definition. God as the alternate universe retired New Jersey firefighter that our entire universe is the boil on the ass of. God as the turtle in the middle of the stack of turtles dreaming all that we know. God as a petulant 5th grader playing a sim game. Not necessarily anything that you, religious people, or many other people, would necessarily worship or call GOD, but, in way, could be applicable to the term.

Posted by ubermaus | September 19, 2007 5:05 PM
115

Great debate.

Gabriel and Compte are both right within the contexts of their own arguments. However, I think Compte's argument is more relevant. My problem with Gabriel's argument is in the terminology.

The dictionary definitions of “atheist” and “agnostic” are problematic – the definition of “agnostic” does leave the question of the existence of god “perpetually unsettled,” as Levislade wisely pointed out. My dictionary defines an agnostic as a “person who believes that the existence of God is not provable,” which does seem to take “the existence of God” as a given, proven or not.

Atheism is the “belief that there is no God,” which suggests that it is based on the same kind of belief as religion. But there is a huge difference between believing in a supernatural being and believing a reasonable argument. The second kind of “belief” does not require a huge leap of faith.

These definitions show a religious bias (understandably, since the people who wrote them come from a Christianized culture) and are therefore unsatisfactory to my understanding of the issue. Nonetheless, they are the words I am stuck with, along with their multiple and misleading significations.

I choose to refer to myself as an atheist, and by that I hope to communicate the following message: I don't accept the existence of “God” because the arguments for “Him” are insufficient to me. Sorry Gabriel, but the word “agnostic” just doesn't cut it for me. Nor does that capital G.

This whole thing supports Nietzsche's statement that "we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar."

Posted by Irena | September 19, 2007 5:19 PM
116

Sorry, that's COMTE -- tout compte fait, a small mistake.

Posted by Irena | September 19, 2007 5:31 PM
117

i'm going to throw up.

Posted by adrian! | September 19, 2007 7:00 PM
118

The discussion was about if there could be a "god" in the absolute broadest definition. God as the alternate universe retired New Jersey firefighter that our entire universe is the boil on the ass of. God as the turtle in the middle of the stack of turtles dreaming all that we know. God as a petulant 5th grader playing a sim game. Not necessarily anything that you, religious people, or many other people, would necessarily worship or call GOD, but, in way, could be applicable to the term.

The mistake that Gabriel made is that there's no point even discussing this. It has no bearing at all on anything practical, and it's just a bunch of horseshit anyway. Whether we're talking about the destructiveness of religion, the relation between science and religion, or any other thing at all under the category of theology, the possibility of gods unknown and lacking in power simply don't affect the debate in the slightest. All that matters is the Gods that more than two people believe in, and there are none that are not demonstrably non-existent.

Posted by Chris in Tampa | September 19, 2007 11:27 PM
119

Wow!

Posted by Kristin Bell | September 19, 2007 11:37 PM
120

Irena,

You are forgiven.

COMTE

Posted by COMTE | September 20, 2007 12:04 AM
121

I agree. I find god to be irrelevant. No real point in discussing it. But discuss it humanity has for centuries on end.

The universe acts as it does. If there is any form of god, it acts through and is indistinguishable from nature. But irrelevance is not the same as nonexistence. It is completely meaningless philosophical wankery. If you get off the question of god and onto the question of religion, that's when it gets dangerous.

Posted by ubermaus | September 20, 2007 4:39 AM
122

It's kind of late in the game to ask another question, but what are scientists current theories on where the laws of the physics come from? Like, "who" made them? All those constants out there... just curious.

Posted by Jude Fawley | September 20, 2007 6:04 AM
123

Jude,

Wikipedia actually has a very good entry on The Big Bang Theory, along with links to several newer modified theories, so that would be a good place to start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Posted by COMTE | September 20, 2007 9:30 AM
124

never been a big barbara walters fan,
and this does not help

barbara will not choose someone smarter than her (she underestimated whoopee goldberg)

barbara has to remain the star at any cost
elizabeth Hasselbeck is just as dumb as Sherri.

barbara show is a big gossip fest that show women at their worst.

how does this show make money? must be a lot of dumb americans watching television during the day.

the courtroom shows are as bad. the judges are mean, unprofessional jerks, with judge judy being the biggest and dumbest as she appear to read peoples mind and has no sense of fairness OR the law.

Posted by jhette | September 22, 2007 10:17 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).