The Raving Theist

Dedicated to Jesus Christ, Now and Forever

Atheist Blogger Demolished by “Duh, It’s Faith” Comment

September 19, 2005 | 60 Comments

New York, New York, September 19, 2005
Special to The Raving Atheist

The worldview of an atheist blogger crumbled into dust today after a savvy reader posted a compelling justification for religious belief: “duh, it’s faith.”

How did I ever miss that?” cried The Raving Atheist, slapping his forehead in disbelief. “I can’t believe that after more than a thousand posts analyzing and refuting every conceivable theological theory, it never occurred to me that some people might simply believe without any logic or evidence.”

The Raving Atheist said he originally thought he could overcome the commenter’s objection with logic and evidence, but then realized it was just faith. “Plus, the reader described herself as

Comments

60 Responses to “Atheist Blogger Demolished by “Duh, It’s Faith” Comment”

  1. Stephen
    September 19th, 2005 @ 4:52 pm

    That is just too hilarious.

  2. Anonymous
    September 19th, 2005 @ 5:08 pm

    “Duh, It’s Faith”

    This reminds me of a comment made a while ago, I wish I could remember by whom. It was a pithy refutation of all religion distilled into four words:

    “It’s clearly made up.”

  3. Dada Saves
    September 19th, 2005 @ 5:40 pm

    Slow news day?

    I suppose that means no altar boys got buggered recently, but that’s probably just wishful thinking.

  4. borgia
    September 19th, 2005 @ 5:42 pm

    There are two types of people in this world. Those who react to the impermanence and insignificance of human existence with a leap of faith and those who refuse the anaesthetic of religion. And never the twain shall meet

  5. Mookie
    September 19th, 2005 @ 5:58 pm

    I enjoy your verbal spanking of willful ignorance. Such a resounding *thwack!* too.

  6. DP
    September 19th, 2005 @ 9:17 pm

    1) Isn’t the real gripe of most everyone on this site with organized religion, rather than with God per se?

    2) Towards that end, why not stop mocking people who profess belief in God and save your bullets for the pernicious effects of religions on civil law and society? I mean, if somebody thinks they look attractive in horizontal stripes that actually make them appear to be a cow, isn’t it just plain good manners not to blurt out, “You look like a big fat stupid pig in that outfit!”? That is, who is a dumb belief in a simple “faith” in a Creator hurting in this case?

    3) And anyway, what is so goddamned hilarious about people professing faith in something they can’t prove? If someone had told you 50 or 100 years ago that you could have a box on your desk that would allow you to look at libraries on the other side of the world or read daily real-time updates by an anonymous atheist attacking on “godidiots”, many people would have scoffed and said you were crazy.

    Why can’t the readers here concede that just maybe there might be a “creator” or “higher power” that extends beyond their own material world? There are lots of things we can’t prove absolutely.

    And even if you can’t concede that, what harm is done by someone having faith, as long as they’re not trying to force it down your throat?

  7. real vernichten
    September 19th, 2005 @ 9:30 pm

    DP why can’t I buy a case of beer on sunday? Because of godidiots that’s why, so don’t tell me that religious fools don’t affect me because they do. Bush is a faith based president for fucks sake! You are talking crap mate so it wouldbe best for you to shut the fuck up and try reading a god damn newspaper once in a while

  8. Colleen
    September 19th, 2005 @ 9:55 pm

    RA, come on over to Dawn’s and play with the nice people for awhile. This is a swamp. There are crocs here. And crocks.

  9. Tainted Bill
    September 19th, 2005 @ 9:56 pm

    Why are we always the ones asked to concede that “there just might be a ‘creator'”? Were I to insist that Unicorns existed, most people would see that the burden of proof is on me.

  10. Graham
    September 19th, 2005 @ 10:02 pm

    DP is right. We should just accept that people have faith. And when their faith dicates that my kids are taught in Science class that the world is just 6000 years old, then we need to just go with the flow and accept that this is just the president’s personal faith in action. And when they ask our girlfriends/wives to wear veils in public so as not to entice men on the street, then we need to stop being so mean and just accept their belief system. I’m mean, they’re not really hurting anyone with their beliefs, right?

  11. LucyMuff
    September 19th, 2005 @ 11:09 pm

    DP is filthy beast. We’s all know what DP stands for. It is a disgusting sin and so DP and all DP’ers are goign to burn in hell

  12. skinnydwarf
    September 20th, 2005 @ 12:09 am

    Great job, RA. One of your best ever. That’s the kind of laugh I needed after a too long day of studying law…

  13. Sportin' Life
    September 20th, 2005 @ 3:03 am

    Isn’t the real gripe of most everyone on this site with organized religion, rather than with God per se?

    For me it’s the opposite. Many organized religions are authoritarian cults and/or pyramid schemes, yes, but a few have actually made the world a better place. Seems to me they should be judged on a case by case basis. I have respect for the UU’s for instance, and for some of the other ones that put the focus on ethics in the real world rather than on a godbeing. Irrational superstition is what I don’t like.

  14. hermesten
    September 20th, 2005 @ 10:40 am

    Yes we do know what DP stands for Lucy, and though it may be disgusting, it’s only 66.6% as disgusting as “airtight.”

  15. jahrta
    September 20th, 2005 @ 10:56 am

    Herm

    wouldn’t one really one to plug one’s nostrils to be truly considered “airtight?”

  16. jahrta
    September 20th, 2005 @ 10:57 am

    frick

    i meant wouldn’t one NEED to plug one’s nostrils, yadda yadda yadda…

  17. hermesten
    September 20th, 2005 @ 11:00 am

    Sportin’, I’m curious, which few religions do you think have made the world a better place? And it seems any such claim begs the question of “better” than what?

    DP: “Isn’t the real gripe of most everyone on this site with organized religion, rather than with God per se?”

    In the context of your reply this question would seem to make more sense if it asked: “Isn’t the real gripe of most everyone on this site with the people who believe in God as part of an organized religion, rather than with God per se?”

    For me, the answer to this rephrased question is yes, absolutely. There would be no problem with organized religion if it had no followers and no one believed in it, just as there is no problem with the Easter Bunny. And I have about as much problem with God, per se, as I do with Santa Claus. But for many many religious people who believe in God, my disbelief undermines their belief, and it is therefore something to be eliminated.

    This is a society that goes to great lengths to perpetuate the young child’s belief in Santa Claus. How do you think other adults would treat you if you attempted to tell some trusting five year old the “truth” about Santa? The Santa story is trivial in comparison with the process of self-identification integral to religion and belief in God. People ARE the problem. So, “what harm is done by someone having faith, as long as they’re not trying to force it down your throat?” None. The problem is that religion can’t exist without a large number of people who are compelled to force it down the throat of anyone who doesn’t believe as they do.

  18. hermesten
    September 20th, 2005 @ 11:07 am

    And their ears, and perhaps even seal their eye sockets, somehow. However, we not really talking about being “truly” airtight, just figuratively airtight, given the equipment involved, and in the context of what is physically possible and plausibly satisfying for the participants.

  19. anonymous
    September 20th, 2005 @ 12:18 pm

    As a Christian who is remaining anonymous, because I don’t want to ask for more of the same directed at myself, I would invite everyone here to visit some of the major God-blogs and compare the tone to what you see here. There’s so much sarcasm here, so much invective, so much outright hate directed at those who disagree with the atheists. I just don’t see the believers in God treating others that way. It’s not very attractive.

    I won’t be back here to see your responses, they’re too predictable, so don’t feel like you have to bother with any.

  20. Cheeto
    September 20th, 2005 @ 12:51 pm

    As an atheist who is also remaining anonymous, I will not invide anyone to go to god-blogs. If you do go, you will be inundated with a lack of skeptical thinking, absoloute belief in an authority figure, and hostility to anyone who believes differently from themselves.

    P.S. if anonymous wasn’t going to come back, why did this person leave the same message on several threads?

  21. Anonymous
    September 20th, 2005 @ 12:51 pm

    Anonymous makes a good point. Theists rarely treat others badly. Except radical Muslims. Abusive Fundamentalists. People who demand that sinners are going to Hell. Catholicism throughout history. Irish Fanatics. Anti-Abortionists.

    Other than those few bad apples, Theists are full of love.

  22. Anonymous
    September 20th, 2005 @ 12:54 pm

    Cheeto
    “…if anonymous wasn’t going to come back, why did this person leave the same message on several threads?”

    Because all men are liars.

  23. Nigel Pond
    September 20th, 2005 @ 1:31 pm

    Dohhhh, I must have missed the RE course at the Univerity of the Blindingly Obvious.

  24. a different tim
    September 20th, 2005 @ 1:50 pm

    DP said: “Isn’t the real gripe of most everyone on this site with organized religion, rather than with God per se?”

    No.

  25. hermesten
    September 20th, 2005 @ 3:14 pm

    “I just don’t see the believers in God treating others that way.”

    I was going to say BULLSHIT! but then I realized that this remark just about sums up the dominant Christian mentality: “I just don’t see.” Who among us is suprised to hear a self-righteous Christian inadvertantly admit to being clueless?

  26. Andy
    September 20th, 2005 @ 3:21 pm

    Well, I’m an atheist, but I do think that belief no God is still, well, faith. Sure, there isn’t any real evidence of a God, but there isn’t any real evidence of there not being a God either.

    Now, there isn’t any evidence of there being undetectable pink aardvarks buzzing round the skies (to use a particularly appealing image I read) either, but that doesn’t mean they’re not there. Instead, we only have Occams Razor to fall back upon. The simpler hypothesis is that they’re not there – but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it is correct.

    I guess my point is that if you believe that logic and science can explain the Universe, well, you have to have faith that the Universe is explainable by physics. It certainly seems to be (just as the stratosphere seems to be aarvark free), but I don’t see how you can _prove_ that it is.

    Just a thought.

  27. Sportin' Life
    September 20th, 2005 @ 3:40 pm

    hi herm,

    Well, the social aspects of religion are very powerful. Often in a tremendously negative (e.g. Talibanesque way), but not always.

    I’m pretty much a leftie on most issues, and looking at history, I see that religious liberalism has gone hand in hand with political liberalism since the Protestant Reformation. What I like about this tradition doesn’t have anything to do with “theology” or belief in a higher power–that’s all a distraction from reality as far as I’m concerned–it has to do with being engaged in a community that makes ethical responsibilities a major concern.

    The religions that have a strong focus on social justice also tend to be the ones that believe most strongly in individual freedom of conscience. I read an estimate recently that about 25% of the members of Unitarian-Universalist congregations around where I’m from are atheist or agnostic, for example. “God” is not the focus of what they believe in. (I’m not a UU, by the way. They just happen to be a group I know a bit about.) This is true to a lesser degree with some of the non-evangelical christian churches, too. They’re a world away from the hideous bloodthirsty bible-belt radicals.

    The more humanistically-oriented a religion is–the more it’s about the real world and how to live together in justice and peace–the more I like it. The more it’s about about power and authority and obedience–the less I like it.

    “God,” as I see it, is exclusively about the latter, which is why I think it’s a terrible idea that should be gotten rid of.

  28. brent
    September 20th, 2005 @ 8:35 pm

    It always comes from “rebellion” of power, authority and obedience, the getting “rid of”
    the idea of God. You are an Athiest “because” of rebellion, not unbelief in God. The
    unbelief is after the rebellion. That is a fact.

  29. brent
    September 20th, 2005 @ 8:37 pm

    Excuse the mispelling of “Atheist”.
    No harm intended.

  30. brent
    September 20th, 2005 @ 10:46 pm

    I was writing and reflecting on the “torment” one must be under trying to “prove”
    away God through vain arguments and cursing and attacking anyone that isn’t
    under the same torment. I came to a quick understanding of the “mindset” that
    brings about such a unhappy “condition”. The Atheist (Godless) looked around the
    created universe and because the “Godless” didn’t “want” to acknowledge (rebellion) the universe
    as being from God, the “Godless” has had to shrink his mind and now runs around inside
    his skull ever trying, but never being able to disprove God from himself and “proving”
    that there is “nothing”. You will, at the end of your struggle, be forced to acknowledge
    God, and your attempts would have always been in vain, like an ant walking in circles around
    a rim of a dish looking for a way out.
    Repent (turn away from) and turn to God, and God will set you free from your “tormented
    mindset condition”.
    You know now if you do not repent, you will always be ever increasing in your anger and unhappiness.
    The circle will always come back to your rebellion…endless…anger…wandering…proving nothing…
    proof of nothing, never being found…

  31. Oliver
    September 20th, 2005 @ 11:16 pm

    I was born an atheist, one of the only that i know, and i have none of these beliefs in needing a purpose. When i enjoy a rollercoaster ride, laughing with friends, and eating food i easily recognize these things as reactions in my brain. Obviously people need to believe in something if a productive society is your goal (which it doesn’t have to be), but i just believe in having a good life, not being stressed, having sex, eating food and hopefully enjoying my job. I am growing up now in a privileged home with basically my decision to be whatever i wan’t, and frankly i’d rather protect pangolins from extinction than be a lawyer/doctor/politician or “raver” as this site puts it, even though i might not be tapping into some greater truth. I believe in human emotion, its real and its as real (probably more) as any heaven or enlightenment some may wish to attain. Have fun with what u know u can and leave the rest to modern medication.

  32. Sportin' Life
    September 21st, 2005 @ 4:39 am

    brent, well you caught me saying things in a way that makes it seem as if you have a point, but I stopped believing in god long, long before I started thinking about what effects the idea of god might have on society. Before my political convictions were formed as well.

    So nice try, but no dice.
    Since you brought it up, though, I have to admit that if I did believe in god, I’d probably want to tip the authoritarian old bastard right off his throne. ;-)

  33. Anonymous
    September 21st, 2005 @ 7:16 am

    Really Brent? What am I thinking now?
    What did I have for breakfast?
    You sure do seem to know a lot about me.
    It’s like you’re Karnak.

  34. brent
    September 21st, 2005 @ 9:16 am

    “I stopped believing in God…”

    This is what I am talking about. First you “believe”, then you “form” an idea that
    you are not happy with something God is either “doing” or “isn’t doing”, or something
    you don’t understand about God, or your perception of God. Then someone comes along
    and does something on “behalf” of God claiming to Know God and represent God. They are
    imperfect like you are, but you hold them to a standard that is impossible to keep, so you
    place GOD on them and say, “If they all represent God, I don’t believe anymore.”
    This all comes from “rebellion” of knowing God is greator than all that, but you want an excuse to
    not have to answer to God.

    Can you picture an ant wondering around the ant mound and explaining away that there is “no man”
    even though other ants have seen his image, and all around them they can see his handiwork?
    But…to no avail…the ant just wonders around enjoying his made “away” idea. What do you think
    the other ants who know, are thinking as they run into the “unbelieving” ant. Don’t you think the other
    ants are saying, just look around…and “believe”, because it is up to you to “believe” the evidence!
    Just “accept”.

  35. The Skwib -- an irregular and explosive weblog
    September 21st, 2005 @ 9:39 am

    Carnival of the Vanities #157

    Welcome to The Skwib, your host for the 157th edition of the Carnival of the Vanities. Before we get on to the posts, a quick (shameless) plug for a new Carnival we’ve started here at The Skwib — The Carnival of Satire. If you’ve got satirical pos…

  36. hermesten
    September 21st, 2005 @ 10:22 am

    Brent, if you really believe the bullshit you wrote, you’re not only self-delusional, you’re probably dangerous. It’s a very short step from believing that you “understand the mindset” of atheists, the arrogance of believing that you know the why and what of another person’s thoughts, deeming them to be pathetic tormented creatures hiding from your personal reality, to believing that your obvious superiority entitles you to superior rights, a superior claim to life, and finally, to destroy an enemy that threatens all you hold sacred. Get help before it’s too late.

  37. Jahrta
    September 21st, 2005 @ 10:45 am

    Brent

    There are some serious problems with your “atheist ant” analogy:

    There are 6 billion plus actual tangible people flitting around the planet these days. They are detectable through any number of senses and, as you said, have left an undeniable mark on the land through their works, both great and terrible. In fact, many religious fundamentalists and capitalist opportunists (the distinction is often blurred) made their mark on the land back in the 19th century by utilizing their concept of “manifest destiny,” which basically says “god has smiled his providence down upon me because you’re not as righteous as I am so you won’t mind if I just move on into your neighborhood, slaughter your people en masse and take all that you have for myself, will you?” The point is that we can prove without a doubt that mankind exists. you assertion that all we have to do to prove god’s existence is to “simply look around” is ludicrous. I bet you think the world is flat too because that’s what it looks like to you. You are the ant, my friend. you, and all those who buy into the god myth, bumbling around from day to day, living in fear of some great sky god who will direct a magnifying glass onto you or step on you if you displease him. Your problem is you lack the correct perspective to properly see your world for what it is. Everything around you, from the trees to the mountains and all the creatures that fill nature, have developed over billions of years through a complicated and often misunderstood process of trial and errror. Science has proven evolution as fact. it sickens me that there are morons out there who actually question this. We’d all be better served if you took it upon yourself to champion the fight that gravity is also “just a theory” and prove it to the faithful by walking off a steep cliff. Let’s see if your god helps you out.

  38. hermesten
    September 21st, 2005 @ 10:53 am

    Sportin’, I read the tradition you speak of as anti-religious –a reaction to and against religion, especially Chrstianity– not a product of religion. I think this is especially true in relation to UU, since it is non-dogmatic. The Bible keeps getting reinterpreted to accomodate secular social changes and advances in science. Religious change lags secular change, it doesn’t lead it. The relilgionists always have to be dragged into the circle of humanity kicking and screaming.

    From Mark Twain’s “The Fly”:

    “The texts remain: it is the practice that has changed. Why? Because the world has corrected the Bible. The Church never corrects it; and also never fails to drop in at the tail of the procession–and take the credit of the correction.”

    “But at last in England, an illegitimate Christian rose against slavery. It is curious that when a Christian rises against a rooted wrong at all, he is usually an illegitimate Christian, member of some despised and bastard sect. There was a bitter struggle, but in the end the slave trade had to go–and went. The Biblical authorization remained, but the practice changed.”

  39. brent
    September 21st, 2005 @ 12:10 pm

    Cursing..accusing…name calling…prove God with gravity. Satan (a created being) tried that with Jesus also.

    Prove “nothing” to me again, I didn’t quite get it in my open mind.

    Why is it that you (rebel) refuse to just simply place a capital “G” in front of “od”.
    Are you afraid of that, that you would be acknowledging God.
    Come on just try that, is it hard to overcome your choice of rebellion?

    Why is it the Godless always say, “Emperical” when describing the “evidence” of proof of
    “nothing”. Did you need a large sounding word to prop up your proof of “nothing”. Was this word
    created to “sound big” as to add to the EMPERICAL evidence, but it is just a word.
    No different than, the word “nothing”.

    What word would proove God isn’t? What “EMPERICAL” evidence?

    I can see the man in OZ behind the curtain saying “Emperical”,
    and all the people repeating shaking and saying, “You know they keep saying EMPERICAL,
    it MUST BE TRUE TOTO!”

  40. Rob
    September 21st, 2005 @ 12:30 pm

    “Cursing..accusing…name calling…prove God with gravity. Satan (a created being) tried that with Jesus also.”

    Why is it that the goidiots always seem to confuse the idea of god with god itself? If I said “oh my tooth fairy!” does that make the tooth fairy exist?

  41. jahrta
    September 21st, 2005 @ 12:46 pm

    hey brentykins

    I’ve seen more articulate posts from the likes of LucyMuff.

    there is absolutely no meaning behind why I type god instead of God. If anything, it’s out of a lack of respect for the concept of god beings that I don’t hit the shift key when I hit the g.

    have you ever typed the word “I” without capitalizing it? Would that mean you’re afraid you really existed but just didn’t want to acknowledge it?

    If anything, typing the “o” in the word god is more a defiant act for me, having been raised a jew, than anything you’re thinking of. I’m sure you have no idea what I’m talking about, seeing as you’re an evangelical assmunch, but I’ll do a mitzvah and clue you in: in the jewish faith it’s considered blasphemy to spell out the vowel in god’s name. They traditionally use a dash like so: g-d. But since I gave that up years ago and haven’t looked back since, none of it carries any meaning for me. It’s all just gobblety-gook people like to shout at me when they want to get a point across but it invariably reminds me of a cage full of howler monkeys trying to nail me with a lump of their scat. kindly keep it to yourself. you seem to enjoy its nutty goodness anyway.

  42. Kate B.
    September 21st, 2005 @ 1:13 pm

    Andy–

    “pink aardvarks buzzing round the skies”

    Must…control…urge…to rent…Pink Floyd…videos!

  43. brent
    September 21st, 2005 @ 1:28 pm

    always cussing…names…always once belief and then turning from it.

    Unbelief always comes from rebellion, always.

    You must “repent” (turn away from) rebellion, and ask G-d to forgive
    you and ask G-d to help you with the unbelief that came from rebellion.

    I don’t come to argue, No Atheist ever proved there is no G-d,
    and No “believer” ever proved there was G-d.

    You can’t and I can’t. It is based on Faith and G-d’s creation around us.

    Love

  44. Oliver
    September 21st, 2005 @ 4:59 pm

    Proving that there is a god is impossible because god exists outside the realm of what is scientifically provable. Its like trying to prove that giant invisible chickens walk around the earth, you might be right but theres no argument to back you up. so saying that atheists can’t prove that there is no god means that we’re wrong is fairly childish, because proof doesnt seem to be anything important in the religious world. I believe thats the definition of faith.

  45. brent
    September 21st, 2005 @ 7:36 pm

    What the truth/fact is…Atheist “believe” there is no God, but you cannot with any volume of evidence prove
    there isn’t, so you have faith in your belief based on your observations, understandings, science
    but there is no absolute “emperical” evidence to proove “nothing”.

    Oliver, didn’t name call and cuss and get angry.

    I really never understood that angry thing, in science do people with different
    outcomes during formulations get angry and cuss out the other until the science lines up?

    You cannot (and please there is no point in trying) offend me with names and talk and shock value
    towards me, God, Jesus, etc. It doesn’t offend me at all and it’s just typed words on a screen
    and it serves no point. Let us just realize we are on two ends of the spectrum and there is no middle ground
    to fight over. I can always go away and so can you. We are here to discuss.

  46. Antigone
    September 21st, 2005 @ 8:18 pm

    Disprove that the Flying Spagetti Monster doesn’t exsist.

    And then I’ll disprove that god exsists.

  47. Ethan
    September 21st, 2005 @ 8:35 pm

    To Brent,
    Atheists do not “believe” there is no God. Atheists do “not believe” there is a God. There is a big difference in those two statements. Atheist translates literally to “without belief”. The atheist has nothing to prove or disprove. We are just merely without belief in any gods. When I capitalize “God” I am referring to the Christian God. When I do not capitalize I am referring to gods in general.

  48. brent
    September 21st, 2005 @ 10:34 pm

    Atheist say:

    “There is no God.”

    (and usually they ridicule or ignore and verbally fight with anyone who says there is.)

    This is impossible to conclude because all men came after the known first moment in
    matter existing (even with the “theory” of evolution).

    So if we cannot go backwards ALL THE WAY with perfection and no error,(impossible)
    then man CAN NOT prove what was before or the cause of the matter (creation)
    that man can see and etc.

    So SMART man (because to do so would be unscientific) can not say, “there is no God.”

    Man can say, I “believe” there is no God, But that doesn’t make it true that “there is no God”.

    I like the real discussion, even in disagreement.

  49. Erik
    September 22nd, 2005 @ 12:40 am

    Brent,

    What is “god”? If you cannot come up with a definition that is not internally inconsistent, then we atheists can readily say that there is no such thing.

  50. Mookie
    September 22nd, 2005 @ 1:38 am

    He just wants his asshole to be sore in the morning.

    Brent:

    God has not been proven to not exist, therefore, he must exist. I have used this line so many times in my posts its not even funny. Seriously, think about it for a moment: You think A exists. You have no positive proof that A exists. But, you have no proof that A does not exist. You want A to exist. There is no proof whatsoever that A has ever existed, exists, or will ever exist. None. Despite a total lack of evidence, you use your intense desire for A to exist to convince yourself that A does in fact exist. Your proof? “Well, I couldn’t find any evidence suggesting that A does not exist, so I concluded that it does exist.”

    This is sloppy, it means you could just as easily believe anything anybody told you. Aliens? Sure! You can’t prove they don’t exist, or have not visited the earth. Voodoo? Sure! Never seen proof that it’s all just a bunch of mumbo jumbo. The worst part is people like you – delusional, clueless, and righteous – are behind the wheels of cars, working in jobs that affect us all, and spreading this idiocy. Our society is full of ignorant folks like you, stuck in some warped tunnel-vision of reality. This scares me and several other folks on this blog.

    We require other people to be as aware of the nature of reality as we are. Why? So we can actually function together as individuals in a society.

    Oh, and you’re ignorance and denial of evolution does not mean evolution is false. It just means you don’t know what you’re talking about, that’s all. Millions of monkeys once believed the earth was flat and was the center of the universe. All their wishing and “knowing” did not alter the fact that it is not flat nor the center of the universe.

    Get a brain, son, and do it quick. Word is you need them these days.

  51. Anonymous
    September 22nd, 2005 @ 9:02 am

    Erik, perhaps your question is unfair. After all, even though it seems like Brent worships god, it doesn’t necessarily follow that he can define god. Where would the information come from?

  52. brent
    September 22nd, 2005 @ 12:49 pm

    God: The Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, which is, and which was, and
    which is, the Almighty,

    “The Existing One”

    We after God, cannot wrap our gray created matter around that.

    So “most” try to ignore and explain away “The Existing One”, with many different
    forms of denial, none of which are new or capable, except “in denial” which isn’t reality.

    I “accept” and live in TRUTH.

  53. Erik
    September 22nd, 2005 @ 12:53 pm

    Sorry, you guys, but the facts remain: if you cannot know of what it is you speak, then, quite literally, you don’t know what you’re talking about. It is not unreasonable for me to ask, if a theist says “God exists.” that I ask in return for them to define what it is. If they cannot, then I am justified in ignoring them.

  54. brent
    September 22nd, 2005 @ 1:48 pm

    Sorry, you guys, but the facts remain: if you cannot know of what it is you speak, then, quite literally, you don’t know what you’re talking about. It is not unreasonable for me to ask, if a “believer in SPACE” says “SPACE exists.” that I ask in return for them to define what it is. If they cannot, then I am justified in ignoring them.

    How big is Space, Erik?
    Where does it come from?
    When did it begin?
    How long will it be around?
    What matter is “SPACE”?
    Why do we call it SPACE?

    “That I ask in return for them to define what it is. If they cannot, then I am justified in ignoring them.”

    Why is it you guys always want to quit first?

  55. Erik
    September 22nd, 2005 @ 2:38 pm

    How delightful. We got a comparison between space and god. Both essentially nothing. Go back and look at your “definition”. It is essentially nothing because it does not actually describe anything. You in fact admit as much, that it is unknowable. Then how is it you actually think you know anything about it?

    But at least with space we can perceive it, test certain things about it, understand the ways in which mass may affect it. That way, we can posit something called “ether”, later test it, and toss it out when it’s wrong. To say that “god” is the beginning and the end, the almighty, is to say exactly nothing.

    I haven’t quit at all, because you haven’t even begun.

  56. Oliver
    September 22nd, 2005 @ 9:05 pm

    Matter as we know was created during the big bang, in which matter and anitmatter clashed causing a small sliver of matter that comprises our current universe. Time is a man mad invention, so before the big bang there was no one around to perceive time, and not motion to perpetuate it. Einstein proved that time progresses at differently at certain speeds of the motion of objects, if no objects exist to move then essentially there is no “time,” and consequently there was nothing. A rupture sprawled our existence, there is no before and after is what we make of it. Space is the absence of atoms, the building blocks of matter, and we call it space from Latin Spatium which means a room or area.

  57. jahrta
    September 23rd, 2005 @ 9:46 am

    Mookie:

    “Get a brain, son, and do it quick. Word is you need them these days.”

    -That isn’t necessarily so, actually. Just take a gander at dubya…he was born without a brain and managed not only to propogate his DNA to make brainless drunk slut twins who could give Paris Hilton a run for her money, but also managed to rise to the position of president of the united states (originally under the intervention of the supreme court, which completely ignored the popular vote, stripping “we the people” of any semblance of power that the democratic process ever afforded us in the first place).

    so you see? being an empty-headed evangelical fuck-knob who has no idea how to pronounce “nuclear,” give a public address, or act in ANY way “presidential” actually worked for this idiot. Apparently that’s what passes for leadership these days. I guess that makes sense, though – if all the brainless twats vote for someone, they will generally get a president who thinks as they do. And the brainless twats tend to breed at a far faster rate than the enlightened amongst us.

  58. bet
    September 27th, 2005 @ 1:10 am

    You can also visit the sites dedicated to win – Tons of interesdting stuff!!!

  59. bet
    September 28th, 2005 @ 8:50 am

    You can also visit some relevant pages about click here … Thanks!!!

  60. Reluctant Atheist
    September 30th, 2005 @ 4:47 am

    Brent:
    I find your commentary entirely vacuous. P.S, the word is ‘empirical’.
    Inability to prove a negative doesn’t assert that a positive MUST exist. To claim so is to ignore the fluid structure of the world around us, and also to ignore that the world is a dynamic interplay of equal opposites. As to this statement, “Sorry, you guys, but the facts remain: if you cannot know of what it is you speak, then, quite literally, you don’t know what you’re talking about,” can be equally applied to the flowery rhetoric you are spouting. Science is the gathering of empirical evidence. What other evidence do you bring to the table, outside your book of fables? The watchmaker theorum (which breaks down when applied to cells)?
    Until the positive is proved, the negative is given. ‘Absence of evidence doesn’t mean the evidence is absent’ is about as lopsided a sophistic argument as I can think of.
    And really! Ants? Are you a Disney child? Personification seems to be part and parcel of the religious.
    The only reason people believe (IMHO) in something larger than themselves, is that we have a herd instinct. The need to put faces to the sounds outside the circle of the fire.
    I think perhaps you need to take a course in Logic 101. But maybe that’s just me.

  • Basic Assumptions

    First, there is a God.

    Continue Reading...

  • Search

  • Quote of the Day

    • Fifty Random Links

      See them all on the links page.

      • No Blogroll Links