Paul,
Nonsense. Let me quote what you cannot:

"If you think that being Catholic means literally believing in a bearded man
in the sky, then you are naive and mistaken.
As I have said many many times, I am not trying to convince you to be
Catholic. My argument was that it is irrational to be atheist. Later a side
discussion arose over whether a moral framework with no recourse to external
axioms could ever be satisfactory. The 2nd law of thermodynamics point was
intended to demonstrate the limitations of science in explaining our
existence. I'm not the first one to use it that way (read Brief History of
Time or How to Build a Time Machine or The End of Time etc, etc). Obviously
the point is lost on you.

I said God was real because you wrongly asserted that I believed otherwise.
I've also stated that I believe Muslims, Jews and even Baha'ais believe in
the same God as me.

You're just ranting senselessly. You're not even trying to have a
conversation. Fodder for Dawkin's lit

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

J McD

Quoting you again:

"""Is your god the same god as every other faith believes in?"
If they conceive and believe in God, then it must be the same one. It's like asking if you are thinking of the same circle as me."

Well actually I think there is a great deal of difference between the rainbow serpent and a triune deity who sacrfifices himself in the form of his only begotten son. The bible and the catholic church think so too. The bible progresses from saying that such a god isn't as good a god as Eloi or YHWH, depending on which part of the bible you read (two gods, apparently, which transmute into one) to saying that other gods are false gods and that there is only one. The first vatican council endorsed the latter view.

Saying that all gods are one god flatly contradicts the bible and the vatican council.

You're not a good catholic, are you?

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

Let us remind ourselves whence some of this stemmed:

"Paul,

It isn't intellectual somersaults to say that God is not interventionist. If you have such a hard time dealing with the fact that the very essence of Faith is love and optimism, then you are free to follow your own course.

However it is strange that an atheist such as yourself feels the need to post on here and preach the nihilistic gospel.

The rest of us prefer to help and comfort those in need with love and sympathy."

It is intellectual somersaults when Job has been cited as the exemplar. This is one of the most "interventionist" tracts of the bible. If god is not interventionist, why does the bible state he is unequivocally. If the bible is wrong on this, how can anyone have faith in any of the content of the bible? The eucharist is manifestly interventionist and is fundamental to catholic ritual. People believing a wafer and wine are turned into the body and blood of a dead person by god disturbs me.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

Oh well, the whole bit about Job seems to have disappeared, you'll just have to interpolate.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

To quote you again:

"The anti-religious movement constantly chooses to target the worst ways in which man has practiced religion rather than address the real philisophical points."

If religion has aspects with which we do not take issue, why on earth would we take issue with them? That a few people have a disproportionately bad effect on those around them is often the way, whether it is because of their religious beliefs or a propensity for other forms of antisocial behaviour. If religion did have any real philosophical points I would be more than happy to engage, sadly philosophy itself has all too few real philosophical points. You yourself have been illuminating the vacuity behind the veneer of much of that which seems to pass for philosophy.

"You simply do not understand the consequence of your reactionary argument that we are the result of random happenchance."

It is not a reactionary argument, reactionaries seek to preserve the status quo. Oh yes - happenchance?

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

But then you appear to be the sort of person who uses a word for it's perceived pejorative effect rather than because it is the correct one and the negative connotations of reactionary make it Fit For Purpose in your opinion, never mind that it is diametrically opposed to the meaning which you would be expressing if you were accurate in you word choice.

Gotta go, clubbing beckons, the weekend starts here.

I hope not too many of my submissions bite the dust this time.... It wreaks havoc with the sense if there is no continuity.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

In fact it would seem to be more accurate, given the importance of the eucharist in catholic ritual, to say

"that the very essence of Faith"

is a form of ritual symbolic cannibalism. Rather different from the actual cannibalism of which the early church was accused. To say that the essence of the Faith "is love and optimism" is based on a very selective reading of the bible and an equally selective interpretation of christian practise.

The man-eating tendencies of religion are pretty widespread, whether it is symbolic, actual, or, as it appears to be in the bible belt, devouring by proxy financially, or, as other tendencies seem to, devouring the mind (intelligent design proponents etc).

The extent to which you become aggrieved argues against my somewhat tongue in cheek suggestion that you are an atheist agent provocateur, I can't see anyone pulling that off in the manner in which you have expressed yourself, the petty bitterness would be too difficult to portray.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

John

You are constantly accusing people of things, making specious claims and assertions and generally being arrogant and offensive. Everyone else can see what you are and so I feel no need to provide proof or quotes. Your opinion of me and my logic is of no concern to me whatsoever. I find it hugely amusing however that you still make such accusations about me and others given your predilection for casuistry, arrogance, obfuscation and bland assertions in the absence of real arguments. Oh and Chorlton too.

David asked you a series of simple questions a while ago. Have you got any answers or did you think that we'd forget if you disappeared for a while. No answers, no trousers.

You are trying to have it both ways. You claim to be a catholic yet reject catholic dogma when it is inconvenient to your argument. You claim to know god, to feel god and yet your best argument for his existence is that he might exist because we don't understand everything. Logic? Don't make me laugh.

Paul Owen, Birmingham, UK

How is it false John? You said you don't believe in the bearded man in the sky. You are remarkably reluctant to discuss what you do believe preferring to change the subject to thermodynamics, moral axioms etc.

If my claim about your catholicism is so false then why are you reluctant to talk about it? What do you actually believe? You tell us you can feel the presence of god. That doesn't make you a catholic, that just makes you any sort of deluded individual desperate for a bit of meaning in his life.

What do you believe? Why be so coy? Do you believe in papal infallibility? Transubstantiation? The virgin birth?

And why have you still failed to answer david's questions?
.
It's not me who is being insulting, it is you. You even had the cheek to call Kidd a blustering pretender. So come on John/ Chorlton/ Greg/ Pauline stop blustering and answer. Tell us what you believe. What is this faith of which you are so proud but cannot talk about? Stop changing the subject. Put up

Paul Owen, Birmingham, UK

"You claim to be a Catholic yet reject much of what catholicism is."

Paul....this is the same argument you made a while ago to which you failed to produce a quote.

It's simply false.

So forget the long-winded and appropriated insults and rhetoric...simply put up or shut up.

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

No quote no trousers? Have you now descended to playground taunts John? Certainly your arguments are of a similar quality. That's when you bother to engage at all rather than indulge in petty insults, casuistry and obfuscaction.

David asked you some simple questions a while back which over a month on you have still not answered. No answers, no trousers?

As I said before I do not feel the need to justify myself to someone who is so arrogant, insulting and intellectually bankrupt as yourself and feels the need to adopt alter egos to reinforce his argument. How many different people have you claimed to be now, living in how many different places?

Your faith is flimsy. It changes according to what your current line of argument is. You claim to be a Catholic yet reject much of what catholicism is. Then again you also claim to be a scientist living in California. You keep making your juvenile taunts. You keep believing that you are the rational one. The evidence proves otherwise

Paul Owen, Birmingham, UK

Paul,

No quote, no trousers.
You accused me of saying something very specific on this forum, yet are unable to substantiate it it. You don't have the intellectual honesty to put up or shut up.
You also don't understand the basis of what you think is your "rational" thought, and you're not prepared to invest in figuring it out....consequently your opinions on "faith" are of no value.


"Kidd"

Anyone with basic critical faculties reading this will spot that you are a pompous, blustering pretender. You know you are, I know you are, and you know that I know you are.

I know that you are not a young man, however it's never too late to adjust and start putting in the effort that real comprehension takes. The ersatz knowledge you have, the constant oblique references and quotes..will never bring you the credibility and acknowledgement you crave.

I'm serious...just be a little more honest and work a bit harder and the rewards will be more than you've ever known.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA.

Yes "Pauline" faith is indeed the key. Blind faith based on meaningless assertions and nothing else. And so this discussion goes full circle. Blind faith is all believers have despite their bluster and continual rewriting of history. Still, whatever gets you through the night.

Paul Owen, Birmingham, UK

Firstly, those children killed on that bus. They may have been saved, as in their asleep in the ground, but will awaken to Jesus upon His return, and live with Him forever in heaven. This world is not the important one, life everlasting is what we aim for. Faith is the key, without faith you can not please God. Now look back in time to the martys that were burnt at the stake. How on earth could they have sung while burning? Christ was there with them in spirit. God intervenes with somethings and not others. I have seen His intervention many times, why some and not others? Who are we to question HIm. Job was given a trial but the end result was that he was blessed more so than before.

Pauline, Gold Coast, Australia

Actually, I'm convinced. I have been irrational all this time. I can't believe it.

Now I think about it the only rational stance is belief in a cosmic Jewish zombie that can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat an apple of discernment from a magical tree.

It all makes perfect sense.

Barry, Newbury, Berks

J McD,

I am surprised at you still, I really am, and disappointed. I really do think that a religious upbringing should be made illegal if it forces someone to the sort of mental contortions which you seem driven to.

You contradict me, whilst including in your dictionary definitions something that mirrors my own point:

"1. agreeable to reason"

Where I wrote:

"rational can mean consistent with reason as well as meaning based on the use of rational thought."

There is no argument there, so why are you pretending that there is one?

More worryingly, given your pretensions to facility with logic, you have neglected to answer the questions which I have raised regarding your misuse of elementary logic.

Starting to invoke some of the more questionable aspects of Kant is hardly going to help your cause either, and saying that Goedel proves Kant is as plausible as saying a Klingon - English dictionary proves Klingons exist.

Still, what can we expect from a fabulist?

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

John, you're beyond parody. Now you're calling me lazy. In a few days time though you'll deny having ever said that and challenge me to quote you. You may have all day to post multiple entries on here and go back reading through 800 posts. You even have time to post from your various personalities. The rest of us have a life.

I don't have to prove anything to you. I am content that everyone else on here has the same opinion of your sophistry, rudeness, arrogance and pretences. If you have to stoop to these levels it really doesn't say much for this faith you keep telling us about.

Your belief changes according to the exigencies of the argument. It changes according to what your current argument is and who you're talking to. If someone comes up with a counter argument that you can't think of an answer to you ignore it or change the subject. Sometimes you recruit "Chorlton" to your cause.

Nobody takes you seriously any more. You've talked yourself into a corner. Grow up.

Paul Owen, Birmingham, UK

"You talk about 'good', but in the materialist/atheist world there should be no good or evil..merely rational and irrational."

Why?

"Without the external axiom then you can argue about single or mixed frameworks...whatever you want. The result is the same."

Why?

Possibly it's a lack of clarity about definitions of things like 'altruism' or 'external' but I'm really not seeing the validity of any of your reasoning here. It just looks to me like god-oriented idealism, against a Hobbesian view of human nature, taking no account of social constructs, or learned values, or any possible non-rational aspects of moral sense, or biological pre-dispositions.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Paul...

you're even too lazy, or perhaps unable, to provide a quote to support what you accused me of saying on this board about my belief.

If you can't discuss or debate then I'll leave you to keep bleating.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

There you go again John calling me childish. Now you're even setting me a test to see if I understand you. Your arrgoance is astounding.

I didn't admit to blindness about your second law point. There you go again seeing things you want to see instead of what is actually there. Your second law point is irrelevant so is more or less every argument you have put forward. They are the standard smoke and mirrors of those who know they have an illogical irrational belief and so attempt to hide behind concepts.

I'm not about to take a test for you, or explain myself to someone who keeps changing his name, insults and belittles fellow posters and makes dubious claims about his credentials, shifts his argument, contradicts himself and then denies it when we can easily go back and read it for ourselves.

Your "heuristic" argument requires the same huge leaps as all of your arguments, it's god of the gaps again dressed up in finery. That's all you've got however much you protest.

Paul Owen, Birmingham, UK

Paul,

What did you see in black and white? I gave the quote I thought you were referring to...if it wasn't that then what?

You haven't shown any evidence that you do appreciate the limitations of science, or that you appreciate the significance of the conceptual gaps we have. That is clear by your admitted blindness to the 2nd law point I was making. I wrote a thought out argument (the heuristic thing) about exactly why our consciousness was so significant in the potential for God. your response is to claim to understand it before asserting that it's nonsense. Well that's no good I'm afraid. Show us that you understand it and explain how exactly you think it is wrong.

As a principle, it seems pretty self evident that increased uncertainty over the nature of our existence has an effect on calculating the odds of it's cause. I called it the 'heuristic' argument because we have SOME knowledge to work off.

Your posts are really beginning to feel like a childish windup!

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

You see John, now you're accusing me of ranting senselessly and of not understanding what you are saying about scientific limitations explaining existence. You then claim that you are not belittling or insulting people. Not only do you make baseless assertions about science and morality you even make them about your own arguments claiming that you said something completely different to what we all saw in black and white. You should be in politics.

I understand perfectly what you're saying. I just happen to think you're talking nonsense.

The fact that our understanding of the universe and existence is incomplete is irrelevant It doesn't make a god any more likely. And it certainly doesn't make the god you claim to know at all likely. You believe in something you have been conditioned to believe in just as you once believed in santa claus and the tooth fairy. Your arguments are just smoke and mirrors designed to obfuscate because you can't or won't face reality. Demonstrable fact

Paul Owen, Birmingham, UK

David,

My point was that the external axiom gives us the necessary leverage to progress and have full cooperation for the betterment of mankind. Without it we regress and our rational capacity renders us much more dangerous than irrational, instinct driven animals. Without the external axiom then you can argue about single or mixed frameworks...whatever you want. The result is the same.

But as for the evolutionary stuff:

I've often thought that there's likely to be hard-wired "meta morals" that we develop upon. Just as we do with the "meta language" that Chomsky identified.

It would explain the visceral reactions we immediately feel on seeing an unjust act, that is quickly replaced with a more considered feeling.

Since there is a wide spectrum of what represents a "religious" person, tests would have to sub-categorise them carefully in order to be meaningful. Such tests have been done I think with liberals and conservatives in the US. Cons found it hard to handle change.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Before you launch into a Godel-based analysis, please remember that I've already highlighted the fundamental, and possibly erroneous, assumption people often make unconsciously about morality: that there's a single moral framework to find. It may not be something that can be described in first order logic. Personally, I doubt it is.

When people are presented with structured moral dilemmas to test moral intuition and reasoning, the results are surprisingly similar between people all across the world. I think that undermines the idea of specific religious motivations in favour of something more innate.

I also think that moral sense is not entirely rational anyway. It may have non-rational aspects to it. This is another area where neuroscience can probably help. Indeed, I'd take a bet that scans would tend to show more activity in certain areas of the brain for 'religious conservatives' given moral dilemmas about same-sex relationships than 'religious liberals'.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

David,

I'm not convinced that chimp cooperation is rational and not merely more sophisticated.

I don't buy that people are mostly religious out of fear (we're dealing with a broad spectrum). It's often a hard choice as far as I'm concerned because it consequently means you're supposed to work an awful lot harder to lead a good life. It might mean consciously sacrificing your life for a stranger.

You talk about 'good', but in the materialist/atheist world there should be no good or evil..merely rational and irrational.
Rational behaviour based only upon Earthly reward would appear to negate the ability of anyone to rationally sacrifice themselves for the benefit of a stranger. There would be no personal reward. In order to maintain his belief in equality, Kant was forced to rely upon the concept of an external, objective law, a heteronomos, which he eventually decided was Christianity ('sapere aude', as was the motto of my school).

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

And with his incompletness theorem, Kurt Godel mathematically proved Kant's conclusion. True and full cooperation for the betterment of mankind involves individuals being receptive to an external axiom, lest we defer to personal selfishness.

Going beyond claiming to be atheist and truly abandoning the idea of God, or any external axiom, will produce profoundly terrible results. The logical conclusion would be everybody acting according to the dreaded 'Game Theory', perhaps minimally alleviated by atavistic evolutionary traits. We'd behave worse than chimps because of our rootless rational capacity. So when you talk about 'good' what do you mean? If you refer to an external axiom, then why? and how is it different from the concept of God as love? Have you really abandoned the external axiom?

People say one thing yet do another.

When I have more time I will try to better explain the incompleteness theorem WRT moral frameworks. Beers after work today.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

David,

I'm not convinced that chimp cooperation is rational and not merely more sophisticated.

I don't buy that people are mostly religious out of fear (we're dealing with a broad spectrum). It's often a hard choice as far as I'm concerned because it consequently means you're supposed to work an awful lot harder to lead a good life. It might mean consciously sacrificing your life for a stranger.

You talk about 'good', but in the materialist/atheist world there should be no good or evil..merely rational and irrational.
Rational behaviour based only upon Earthly reward would appear to negate the ability of anyone to rationally sacrifice themselves for the benefit of a stranger. There would be no personal reward. In order to maintain his belief in equality, Kant was forced to rely upon the concept of an external, objective law, a heteronomos, which he eventually decided was Christianity ('sapere aude', as was the motto of my school).

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

And with his incompletness theorem, Godel mathematically proved Kant's conclusion. True and full cooperation for the betterment of mankind involves individuals being receptive to an external axiom, lest we defer to personal selfishness.

Going beyond claiming to be atheist and truly abandoning the idea of God, or any external axiom, will produce profoundly terrible results. The logical conclusion would be everybody acting according to the dreaded 'Game Theory', perhaps minimally alleviated by atavistic evolutionary traits. We'd behave worse than chimps because of our rootless rational capacity. So when you talk about 'good' what do you mean? If you refer to an external axiom, then why? and how is it different from the concept of God as love? Have you really abandoned the external axiom?

People say one thing and do another.

I will relate Godel's theorems to moral frameworks tomorrow if I get a chance.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

"Also, love is clearly a human emotion independent of god or gods"

Now that's an assertion.

"Chimps clearly reason and they demonstrably help and support each other without immediate payback. "

But the reason and the cooperation are not necessarily related. they might be, but maybe not. Either way it doesn't affect my argument. It's interesting though.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

I really not seeing the argument. How does defining a god rather than good make any difference to whether a moral framework is limited and unsatisfactory or not?

Moral frameworks define what is a moral good. For example, utilitarianism in its most basic form defines pleasure and pain as key indicators such that acts are good if they increase overall pleasure or reduce overall pain. Altruism is possible as it is the overall pleasure that's important, the moral agent may actually increase his own pain in the act.

As for worker bees, that's hardly a representative example. How about chimps, or dolphins, or other higher mammals? Chimps clearly reason and they demonstrably help and support each other without immediate payback.

Your assertion about instinctive belief in god or gods is just that. We're self-aware and afraid of death so I'm not convinced it's instinct at all. Also, love is clearly a human emotion independent of god or gods. That's just religious pollution.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Paul,

If you think that being Catholic means literally believing in a bearded man in the sky, then you are naive and mistaken.
As I have said many many times, I am not trying to convince you to be Catholic. My argument was that it is irrational to be atheist. Later a side discussion arose over whether a moral framework with no recourse to external axioms could ever be satisfactory. The 2nd law of thermodynamics point was intended to demonstrate the limitations of science in explaining our existence. I'm not the first one to use it that way (read Brief History of Time or How to Build a Time Machine or The End of Time etc, etc). Obviously the point is lost on you.

I said God was real because you wrongly asserted that I believed otherwise. I've also stated that I believe Muslims, Jews and even Ba'hais believe in the same God as me.

You're just ranting senselessly. You're not even trying to have a conversation. Fodder for Dawkin's little jihad.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA.

"Most religious people do not subscribe to the cartoon atheists like to draw of God."

is what I said Paul. Open your eyes and your ears.

So now, did you have a question?

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA.

Paul,

If you think that being Catholic means literally believing in a bearded man in the sky, then you are naive and mistaken.
As I have said many many times, I am not trying to convince you to be Catholic. My argument was that it is irrational to be atheist. Later a side discussion arose over whether a moral framework with no recourse to external axioms could ever be satisfactory. The 2nd law of thermodynamics point was intended to demonstrate the limitations of science in explaining our existence. I'm not the first one to use it that way (read Brief History of Time or How to Build a Time Machine or The End of Time etc, etc). Obviously the point is lost on you.

I said God was real because you wrongly asserted that I believed otherwise. I've also stated that I believe Muslims, Jews and even Ba'hais believe in the same God as me.
I wish you'd stop making false assertions about what I believe.

Rattle and pram, Paul.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA.

John, you keep contradicting yourself. You said, admittedly a long time ago now, that you do not believe in the bearded man in the sky claptrap as depicted by the Catholic Church. Yet you also claim to be a Catholic. You can come up with no proof for the existence of your god except in your absolute belief in his presence based on nothing but a feeling. You argued for an eternity about our lack of complete knowledge about the universe around us including the tiresome stuff about thermodynamics. What for?

Now, based on nothing you are somehow claiming that your god is real. Based on what? Based on this supposed knowledge and certainty that people like you have. But of course if you lived somewhere else in the world you would have certainty about some other god completely. Indeed if we did not have this stuff thrust at us from the moment we were born we would believe in nothing at all

But thanks for confirming what we've known all along. Your god exists purely in your imagination.

Paul Owen, Birmingham, UK

Paul - I never said that my God was a theoretical one.
That's something you have incorrectly inferred.
God is very real.

You may be confusing my personal belief with the argument I've been making that atheism is irrational.

If you have a sensible question about it then I can try to answer. Or more likely point you to a previous post that you've not read/digested.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

David,

Whether true altruism is possible or not really comes down to semantics. I'm talking about the fact that rules based entirely on internal motivations will inevitably lead to an unsatisfactory moral framework, and you are not addressing that argument.
This is mathematically/logically evident and again relates again directly to the incompletness theorem.

Yes altruistic behaviour can occur in species naturally, but as I argued with "Kidd Garrett", in the absence of external rules this is invariably irrational behaviour. Worker bees sacrificing themselves for the queen are not doing so because of a rational train of thought, they are doing so by instinct.

The only instinct that I believe will save humanity is that the knowledge of God and love is imparted on everyone of us at birth, which is why the majority of the planet instinctively go along with what I've been saying all along, whereas the atheist mindset has to be learnt.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Paul,

I don't think I ever called you 'inferior', although it's an idea that seems to have invaded your consciousness. I'm truly sorry that your feelings have been hurt.

However I am trying to have a real discussion and I don't think I should stop just because you say so. I think you would do better to calm down and stop challenging "Kidd Garrett" as chief embarrassor of your cause.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

p.s. David,

Using examples of where Christians don't act very Christian seems like a rather poor way of attacking my argument about why a self contained moral framework will always be satisfactory.

I think you're getting lazy and have ventured outside of your comfort zone.

jmcdsf. ya.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

"Kidd"
"The behaviour is rational in that many of the social insects have been around in a similar form for some 60 million years or more."
This is very confused.

What you've described with an ant is akin to the concept of cellular automata. It applies equally to geese flying in formation or the way cells pigment to form stripes on a zebra. Non-sentient elements reacting to external pressure to behave a particular way.

It's no more rational than a tree falling down in a storm, or the moon affecting the tide.

Conscious thought is indeed required for exhibited behaviour to be considered 'rational'.

Do you understand that Dawinism is not about rational development, but the natural filtering of random changes? It doesn't seem like you do.

I get deja vu trying to work out if you're being deliberately obtuse or if you're genuinely confused. At least you've stepped into the ring this time instead of throwing in smug asides and pompous references from the benches. You pretender.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

"Kidd" -
Rational:
1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development.
2. having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator.
3. being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid: The patient appeared perfectly rational.
4. endowed with the faculty of reason: rational beings.
5. of, pertaining to, or constituting reasoning powers


If you think that an ant, as a non-sentient being, an automaton, can act rationally, can you give me an example of how an ant could act irrationally? Do cars act rationally? When a car breaks down is it behaving irrationally?

An ant's behaviour can only be rational if it has been thought out, either by itself or by a creator..and I don't think that's what you meant.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

"do we accept the bible as gospel?"

aaaggghhhh........this is the kind of monged up witlessness we're up against.

Ask Dawkins if he's free to hold your hand through this.

Chorlton Hardy, Manchester, UK

"Kidd"

No events or behaviour are irrational according to your definition. Obviously "Rational behaviour" is dependent upon conscious decision making. Otherwise cause and effect makes all behaviour rational (as in explainable).

You're the one wittering...misdirection and obfuscation is your well known calling card.

Barry - I'm not suggesting we need to understand the universe. Ironically the atheist "God of the gaps" argument is attempting to by suggesting that science can potentially explain it all. It can't. Conceptual vs factual knowledge. Go back and read my heuristic argument (and think about it before responding).

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

"Kidd",

I've been far more patient and less insulting than you have.

Nothing that you've been saying actually represents an argument or meaningful engagement, does it?

Unless we go all the way back to your madcap definitions of the 2nd law or your weird ideas about science being divorced from philosophy and scientist not believing in the platonic realm. That wasn't very meaningful but at least you were TRYING to engage then. Now it's just more blather. Whatever gets you through the night.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA.

J McD:

You are still the best argument against religion on this thread, for which I thank you:

"I don't think I ever called you 'inferior', although it's an idea that seems to have invaded your consciousness. I'm truly sorry that it's playing on your mind so much.

However I am trying to have a real discussion and I don't think I should stop just because you say so. I think you would do better to calm down and stop throwing your rattle out of the pram."

What can I say? You are obviously more attuned to lex talionis than the one commandment. Even my greek orthodox friend finds you cringeworthy and can't understand how you can profess to be a christian with the lack of courtesy, empathy, compassion and understanding that you display.

If you were trying to have a real discussion, rather than just feed your vanity and throw up a smokescreen to hide your insecurity, I am sure that people would be far more interested in engaging with you meaningfully. Sadly, you can't.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

David,

Altruism in the purest sense may be a contradiction in terms.
The point is that by having an external axiom as motivation, acts which are apparently altruistic in the Earthly arena are possible.

The Thomas Hobbes thing about having a God that suits the people rather than vice versa is not contradictory with the above idea (although it's setting up false choice as far as my religion is concerned, where we are in his image and loving and looking after each other is precisely how we serve Him).

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

My counter argument John has been stated several times on here by me and others. It is perfectly true to say that we don't understand the way the universe works and that there could be an entity beyond our understanding who created it. Not many atheists would claim otherwise. But you are trying to have it both ways. You are arguing for the possible existence of this unknowable figure whilst at the same time arguing that you know it and that it dictates our moral compass.

Atheists do not believe in the many and various gods believed in by human beings throughout the ages, the interventionist gods, loving gods, wrathful gods of legend. We do so because simple logic and experience shows that they are a human invention designed to give succour to humans. They have also been used to control and repress humans by other humans as any historian can attest.

Your theoretical god is not the god believed in by the world's religions which they use to object to the way other people live.

Paul Owen, Birmingham , Uk

"Why? There are lots of uncomfortable truths. What is best is not always what's easiest."

Why - for similar reasons to Descartes running into difficulties with his arguments about substances. He was caught on the horns of a dilemma: he wanted substance dualism but the implications of his arguments lead to the uncomfortable 'truth' that non-human animals are mere automata rather than sentient creatures. That's what can happen when one asserts a premise, or moral principle in our argument, and argues from it - sometimes uncomfortable or unsatisfactory conclusions are inescapable.

Of course, most people dismiss Descartes' entire argument on the basis that considering animals as mere automata is not a comfortable or satisfactory position. I'm the same with the derivation of, say, sexual ethics from Christian principles as the implications are profoundly uncomfortable. It's not about ease of application, it's about right and wrong based on good things like respect and compassion.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

J McD,

You appear to be confused still:

"Yes altruistic behaviour can occur in species naturally, but as I argued with "Kidd Garrett", in the absence of external rules this is invariably irrational behaviour."

You didn't argue, you asserted, again you muddied the issue. The behaviour is rational in that many of the social insects have been around in a similar form for some 60 million years or more. The point that ants don't rationalise their own behaviour does not make it irrational, rational can mean consistent with reason as well as meaning based on the use of rational thought. It isn't necessary that the beast in question supplies the reasoning. In so far as organisms have a "reason" to persist, such behaviour is consistent with reason. In so far as people provide external "rules" by which we seek to understand the world around us, these animals are very successful and thus we can call the behaviour eminently reasonable.

Please don't witter.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

Why do we have a god given (?) right to expect to understand the universe? It is hugely complex. Could a cat ever understand calculus or a dog a jet-engine. No, but that doesn't make the existence of god any more likely.

We are limited in many ways, no matter how much one practices they cannot lift a mountain or leap on ocean. It could be that there are aspects of the universe that are so remarkably complex that with our current limitations we can never grasp them. This does not make god any more likely.

That does not mean we should not strive to understand and to address the ignorance. However by simply calling the gap in our knowledge 'god' is counterproductive to this. It makes many accept the ignorance and believe that because something has appeared in some old book it is true.

So we have to decide, do we strive for enlightenment and knowledge or do we accept the bible as gospel... ?

Barry, Newbury, Berks

David,

Altruism in the purest sense may be a contradiction in terms.
The point is that by having an external axiom as motivation, acts which are apparently altruistic in the Earthly arena are possible.

The Thomas Hobbes thing about having a God that suits the people rather than vice versa is not contradictory with the above idea (although it's setting up false choice as far as my religion is concerned, where we are in his image and loving and looking after each other is precisely how we serve Him).

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

David,

Whether true altruism is possible or not really comes down to semantics. I'm talking about the fact that rules based entirely on internal motivations will inevitably lead to an unsatisfactory moral framework, and you are not addressing that argument.
This is mathematically/logically evident and again relates again directly to the incompletness theorem.

Yes altruistic behaviour can occur in species naturally, but as I argued with "Kidd Garrett", in the absence of external rules this is invariably irrational behaviour. Worker bees sacrificing themselves for the queen are not doing so because of a rational train of thought, they are doing so by instinct.

The only instinct that I believe will save humanity is that the knowledge of God and love, which is why the majority of the planet instinctively go along with what I've been saying all along, whereas the atheist mindset has to be learnt and has a necessarily (and fatally) limited moral framework.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Paul,

I don't think I ever called you 'inferior', although it's an idea that seems to have invaded your consciousness. I'm truly sorry that it's playing on your mind so much.

However I am trying to have a real discussion and I don't think I should stop just because you say so. I think you would do better to calm down and stop throwing your rattle out of the pram.

Try reading and understanding what's been said so that you can develop your own opinions and arguments (as opposed to trying to hammer in Dawkin's points).

Through understanding you'll become less angry and more focused on the truth.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

You may not have specifically used the word inferior John but the implication was there for all to see. I'm by no means alone in forming an opinion that you are arrogant and patronising, despite having no real cause to be either.

And by all means continue your discussion. I was telling you to stop denying that you have been using other names. You were caught out. Face it.

And you are the one doing his cause no good. You argue that your god is a theoretical one who might live in some ill defined gap somewhere. Yet you then argue that this theoretical entity provides you with love and moral axioms and that you have knowledge of him. This is illogical drivel and I think you know it. You've backed yourself into a corner which is why you don't want to talk to anyone but David any more.

But of course as such you are typical of those who espouse your cause and ignore what you don't want to see.

Atheism is not based on materialist selfishness. That is a relgiious fiction

Paul Owen, Birmingham, UK

David,

Whether true altruism is possible or not really comes down to semantics. I'm talking about the fact that rules based entirely on internal motivations will inevitably lead to an unsatisfactory moral framework, and you are not addressing that argument.
This is mathematically/logically evident and again relates again directly to the incompletness theorem.

Yes altruistic behaviour can occur in species naturally, but as I argued with "Kidd Garrett", in the absence of external rules this is invariably irrational behaviour. Worker bees sacrificing themselves for the queen are not doing so because of a rational train of thought, they are doing so by instinct.

The only instinct that I believe will save humanity is that the knowledge of God and love, which is why the majority of the planet instinctively go along with what I've been saying all along, - the atheist mindset has to be learnt and makes a framework that can NEVER satisfy and will always be based on materialist selfishness

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

David-

I'm not arguing that the need for an external axiom means you should believe in God, by the way.

That's why I thought we were going off subject.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Paul,

I don't think I ever called you 'inferior', although it's an idea that seems to have invaded your consciousness. I'm truly sorry that your feelings have been hurt.

However I am trying to have a real discussion and I don't think I should stop just because you say so. I think you would do better to calm down and stop challenging "Kidd Garrett" as chief embarrassor of your cause.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

"Why? There are lots of uncomfortable truths. What is best is not always what's easiest."

Why - for similar reasons to Descartes running into difficulties with his arguments about substances. He was caught on the horns of a dilemma: he wanted substance dualism but the implications of his arguments lead to the uncomfortable 'truth' that non-human animals are mere automata rather than sentient creatures. That's what can happen when one asserts a premise, or moral principle in our argument, and argues from it - sometimes uncomfortable or unsatisfactory conclusions are inescapable.

Of course, most people dismiss Descartes' entire argument on the basis that considering animals as mere automata is not a comfortable or satisfactory position. I'm the same with the derivation of, say, sexual ethics from Christian principles as the implications are profoundly uncomfortable. It's not about ease of application, it's about right and wrong based on good things like respect and compassion.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Your reasons for a theistic moral framework appears to boil down to a desire for an authority. Asserting divine moral principles doesn't make them necessarily any less selfish than reasoning them from the human condition. It's the content that's important for that, not the source. You seem to want the moral choice to matter, not locally but universally, and for that you probably need reward and punishment from the authority.

Actually, one could argue reasoning a framework from the human condition results in something less limiting and more satisfactory than the assertion of a divine framework. Afterall, following a divine framework is not directly for the beneficiaries but for the deity, and a threat of punishment or a promise of a reward from the authority is hardly the ground for a selfless action. Appeals to authority for justice, whether earthly or divine, is essentially about power and control. Behaving justly without the prospect of reward is surely true moral good?

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

I really don't think you can separate altruism into real altruism and fake altruism with religious axioms as the differentiator. Apparent acts of altruism are observable across the religious and the non-religious alike. Which is hardly surprising if it's a biological and societal mix that generates it.

Asserting a religious axiom and claiming it as motivation for altruism is just sweeping stuff under the carpet as far as I'm concerned. One only needs to attend a few church committees (with all the self-righteousness and very human motivations usually on display there) to recognise that it's the same sort of motivation dressed differently.

Altruism usually makes people feel good and it often has benefits to gregarious species. The benefits might be indirect and uncertain for a specific act but life usually isn't as simple as a game in game theory might suggest. Making people feel good by asserting it's god's work is still making people feel good as a personal benefit.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Give it up John/Chorlton. It's just boring now and a little pathetic. You've been caught out. You look idiotic. Fortunately this is the internet and so you can remain anonymous. One thing is for certain though, your various assertions, claims and transparent arguments are never going to be taken seriously on here however inferior you consider us to be. But then our inferiority is just another of your baseless assertions. When you actually have to back them up with fact based arguments you conspicuously fail. Never mind, why not go off and argue with one of your multiple personalities? I'm sure Chorlton isn't the only one.

And no I don't feel left out by you having a discussion with David. I feel rather sorry for David to be so singled out. No doubt you think you're conferring some kind of honour. Still, I've been enjoying seeing him demolish your arguments. As for your pretences, well you've demolished those yourself.

Paul Owen, Birmingham , Uk

David,

Altruism in the purest sense may be a contradiction in terms.
The point is that by having an external axiom as motivation, acts which are apparently altruistic in the Earthly arena are possible.

The Thomas Hobbes thing about having a God that suits the people rather than vice versa is not contradictory with the above idea (although it's setting up false choice as far as my religion is concerned, where we are in his image and loving and looking after each other is precisely how we serve Him).

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Your reasons for a theistic moral framework appears to boil down to a desire for an authority. Asserting divine moral principles doesn't make them necessarily any less selfish than reasoning them from the human condition. It's the content that's important for that, not the source. You seem to want the moral choice to matter, not locally but universally, and for that you probably need reward and punishment from the authority.

Actually, one could argue reasoning a framework from the human condition results in something less limiting and more satisfactory than the assertion of a divine framework. Afterall, following a divine framework is not directly for the beneficiaries but for the deity, and a threat of punishment or a promise of a reward from the authority is hardly the ground for a selfless action. Appeals to authority for justice, whether earthly or divine, is essentially about power and control. Behaving justly without the prospect of reward is surely true moral good?

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Paul - so what is your counter argument?

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

John, your 'argument' such as it is has essentially been "we don't understand the universe and the way everything works and therefore there might be a god". Oh you've dressed it up in all kinds of ways, thrown in a few quotes you've picked up on the internet, muddied the waters and avoided questions but that has basically been your position throughout. It's the god of the gaps argument, though of course you deny this. Given that this is your sole argument it ill behoves you cast aspersions on those of others.

And the fact remains that, though you claim to be so confident in your assertions and arguments and arrogantly dismiss others, it is you who was reduced to inventing people in order to back yourself up. You've made up quite a few things actually haven't you? So don't try to take the moral high ground.

It is particularly amusing that you take so much exception to Kidd Garrett's name. Why? It's been okay to call yourself Chorlton among others.

Paul Owen, Birmingham , Uk

Jem,

Than I guess I'm lucky it's just you and "Kidd Garrett" on here.

I have consistently presented a direct argument, which with David has actually led places and increased some understanding.

Yours and Paul's comments clearly demonstrate the quality and intent of your own contributions. Why bother?

If you're not going to meaningfully engage then why bother?

So sad.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

This really is laughable. John McD now "insists" that he move off this forum. That's the same one to which you have been by far the most numerous contributor eh John, even if we don't include your alter egos.

I know you have this image of yourself as some kind of intellectual. But then you also claim that you are a scientist living in California. Sometimes you claim you are Chorlton living in Manchester. I think you've claimed to be other people too from time to time eh John? Why? To what end?

Anyway since this chat is now drawing to an end I feel it would be appropriate to sum up. I said from the start that believers would do intellectual somersaults rather than admit the flaws in their belief and so this discussion has proven. John has redefined words, refused to answer questions, insulted people and is now ignoring them. Never was anyone so arrogant who had so little to be arrogant about.

You protest too much John, you've done it from beginning to end and never very well

Paul Owen, Birmingham , Uk

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
-- Albert Einstein

Chorlton Hardy, Manchester, UK

Hello Chorlton,

rather sad that you are both, really.

Toodle pip.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

David,

That doesn't seem to answer my point. Atheist/materialist moral frameworks will always be limited and unsatisfactory because they will always be fundamentally based on Earthly selfishness.
"f the moral principles lead to uncomfortable conclusions then it may be that the principles are wrong rather than the argument. "
Why? There are lots of uncomfortable truths. What is best is not always what's easiest.
That's not to say that the way in which basic moral principles are interpreted/consumed cannot be subject to change. For instance whilst I am against capital punishment in the US today, I can see that there may have been places/times in the history of the world where it could possibly have been necessary to prevent greater evils. Same principles...different scenarios and hence different conclusions.
This may all be going off subject a bit.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Paul,

What is it you see? something fascinating , no doubt.
I can't wait to be enlightened by you very meaningful comment.

I'm having a conversation with David and I'm sorry if you felt left out. Perhaps you can have a discussion with "Kidd Garrett".

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

john, on another forum, where contributors really are jolly clever, you wouldn't even get a reply. your shooting yourself repeatedly in the foot probably wouldn't even raise a smile.

jem, london, uk

That's a great point well put, Paul.

Chorlton Hardy, Manchester, UK

I see that, though John has decided that we are all unworthy of his mighty intellect, he has left Chorlton behind to argue on his behalf. This is presumably to convince us that they are not the same person at all. It hasn't worked John and doesn't say much for that mighty intellect that you keep telling us about but fail to actually demonstrate.

Paul Owen, Birmingham , Uk

Having done a degree in philosophy (moral philosophy was my favourite), I've read all sorts of different attempts to create a cohesive and coherent moral theory.

Of all the hidden assumptions in these works, the one that truly stands out for me now is the most fundamental one: that there is a single moral theory for us to find. I honesty think that's a flawed assumption.

The religious can assert that certain moral principles exist, and even call them axioms amongst themselves, but I don't see the draw of them given the implications. There are some deep rooted values that are probably biological and therefore universal. The rest, I think are founded in society and therefore subject to change in character and intensity,

The test is really what we, right now, think of the implications of certain lines of thought. If the moral principles lead to uncomfortable conclusions then it may be that the principles are wrong rather than the argument.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Einstein

Chorlton Hardy, Manchester, UK

J McD, Somehow it seems that my post on Logic Gates has not appeared, again. Not that I am surprised, but I I'll try another. From what you say, the inputs and the outputs to your logic gate for an atheist would appear to be something like this: Atheist, Not: Input Output
There is a god Oh no there isn't
There isn't a god Oh yes there is That is a Punch and Judy explanation, it fails. The Agnostic one seemed trickier, the closest analogue (oops) would seem to be an OR gate with a tri-state line driver on the output which gives neither a yes nor a no whenever an input is presented:
Input Output
There is a god Maybe (high impedance)
There isn't a god Maybe (high impedance) Whatever, it seems singularly lacking in explanatory power for the issue at hand. Obviously you are a pro, please share your wisdom if you think I have erred in my interpretation of your example.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

...and you'll end up asking 'what are those axioms?'. Theoretical physics also leads to the same questions about consciousness and purpose. Dawkins, in his self enclosed world of evolutionary biology and egoism explains away these questions in a manner that only convinces those who don't look hard enough at the questions. I have to insist now that if you want to talk further, you email me and move off this forum.

I don't see any value in staying with this medium unless you really want this audience.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

David,

The poliical interests you talk of were not here yesterday and won't be here tomorrow. It's better to talk of the fundamental moral and ethical principles that persist.
You're rejection of many modern forms of religion is fine, because most deserve rejection.
But if you reject entirely the idea of anything external that can give us moral axioms to work around, then you are inherently limited and necessarily more selfish in action.

But if you do see such an external influence or meaning, then it changes everything. It has to be something around which you should be centering all your decisions and actions. Without this your actions are meaningless phenomena, with this your actions and difficulties become necessary events.
The amazing thing to me is that all roads seem to lead to the same point. A non-ignorant atheist such as yourself will find your search for a new moral framework leads to the same need for external axioms...and you'll end up asking 'what are those axioms?'

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

J McD,

""Kidd"

"To be honest, it didn't seem like an attempt to explain. Feel free to express it in formal boolean"

I did. That's what logic gates and truth tables are. True/False. 0/1."

If what you have presented thus far is what passes in your understanding as an explanation, then I suppose I can hardly be surprised that you are a christian.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

Gary, I think it's fantastic that you like to attack Catholicism/Islam etc by holding its adherents up to higher standards than your own, but no I did not invent alter egos, as I have stated in several earlier posts including the one you selectively quote from.

If you so love searching out this kind of clandestine finger-smelling, scrutinise Jem/Barry...or would that not serve your actual aim?

David is the only one left I'm interested in talking to here...and I think even he's had enough.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

I dunno where this is going: "you say it is irrational to be certain there is no god. why is it not, by the same logic, irrational to be certain there is a god" but Lorriman is claiming that his god has revealed himself privately in some (non-rational) way whereas atheists have no god to do this. Hence, his certainty is non-rational whereas an atheist's is irrational because there is a necessary element of belief without knowledge in that certainty.

Of course, it is not necessary to be certain of a god's non-existence to be an atheist, and rationality based on non-rational foundations is hardly a strong position for taking a stand. So it's of little use except as a means of slinging mud at practical atheism in the hope that some of it will stick in the uncritical mind. Whether Lorriman's non-rational base is the same as John's is not clear, and I'm not actually sure if John is claiming one anyway. Pearls before swine, I think Lorriman said. Bless him.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Perhaps the explanations of atheism in the faq at positive atheism in the org domain would help. I'm clearly an atheist. The faq explains how agnosticism straddles theism and atheism, and talks about non-cognitivism.

It's an explanation that'd make uncomfortable reading to Greg Lorriman from earlier comments if he was open-minded enough to read it. However, he seems not to have got past the Catholic Encyclopedia judging by his much repeated argument on this site and others.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

J McD,

To be meaningful, a truth table must be clearly defined, hence my request and my bemusement at your response.

"you say it is irrational to be certain there is no god. why is it not, by the same logic, irrational to be certain there is a god"

The first step would be to establish whether there is a logical implication within each of the parts of the question, then to determine whether there was an equivalence between the two parts of the question, these are two distinct parts of the process, both addressable by logic, both of which seem to have eluded you.

To offer an answer which does not address the question:

"If X is true, then it can be correct for person1 to be certain of x and person 2 to be uncertain of it. It will always be incorrect for person 3 to be certain of X's falseness."

is either obfuscation or error, given your protestations of competence, I have to assume it is the former.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

On inconsequential 'knowledge': It's a possibility that a vastly superior and overwhelmingly intelligent alien species came to our planet and specially engineered our species for some purpose known only to them. Perhaps we're a self-wareness experiment. Or something. Perhaps some people even have a biological receiver allowing them to be subtly directed by these aliens?

What's the supporting evidence? Well, we exist. The universe is vast and probably contains alien species. We may be the only species here that is sapient. There's huge gaps in our knowledge of how stuff works. Some people claim inside knowledge. Others that there are alien abductions?

So, what do we do given this possibility? Build buildings to spread the knowledge of it? Spend time and energy trying to work out what our purpose is? Limit the behaviour of others in case it is not what the aliens want? Hope for their eventual return? Or, well, ignore the possibility as a silly distraction from living for today

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

David Jones,

I did a couple of experiments with my old sheep dog which suggested that he recognised himself in the mirror. There may be some degree of consciousness in animals, but whether there is or there isn't, animals are regarded as being part of God's image to a lesser extent than man according to Catholicism. Not that it's something I've spent a lot of time thinking about. I'll have a look and see. But I think you're being presumptious in you implied assertions there.

Also I don't think you can classify Christian morality as purely deontological.

Send me an email and I'll give a fuller response. I'll be happier to expand the discussion then, also.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

"I'm all for discouraging ('limiting') people from committing evil acts".

Me, too. Discouraging the use of condoms where HIV incidence is high is an evil act. The principle of the sanctity of life based on an unfounded god hypothesis leads in some cases to evil acts. The deliberate guilt imposed on indoctrinated but homosexual teenagers is an evil act. And so on.

I can argue in a plural society over what it means for something to be an act of evil, the religious cannot as lots of us reject your founding premise.

The rest of what you write, which probably reduces down to arguments from game theory, I don't accept. I'd be inclined to argue the toss using a John Rawls approach but it's a tangent to my aliens point: your 'heuristic' analysis leads to any number of unfounded possibilities which atheists quite rationally ignore at this point.

As to external axioms, I really don't see you have any for us other than the aspirational ones you produced by smoke and mirrors.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

"Although why anyone would care is beyond me. I guess we have different reasons for being here."

John, i am at a loss to understand what you mean here. You do not think that people should care that a vocal participant in a debate such as this is actually an invented character? You seem to think this is okay behavior for a man who claims to be a practicing catholic, I just find it very strange that you felt the need to invent a friend but more so that you seem to claim that no-one should care that you did.

You never answered my question: do you not think inventing this person is dishonest? and therefore do you think it is a christian thing to do?

Gary , Brisbane, QLD

Well I disagree with a lot of your ideas about what religion fundamentally is.
It isn't politics, although politics can be informed by religion.
Of course all of this is important because it should fundametally affect how people act.

As I said, without recourse to an external axiom any form of altruism is inherently difficult and motivations lay rooted in Earthly reward. I'd say that adding that capacity for acts that would appear altruistic when viewed from our closed system would be a fairly big deal.

Arguments about abortion or anything else are pointless without having some agreed foundational moral framework. Agreed logic as well for that matter.

This isn't just an academic excercise.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

"David"

"Limit the behaviour of others in case it is not what the aliens want?"

Except that my religion is not about limiting anyone, it's about ultimately setting them free. I'm all for discouraging ('limiting') people from committing evil acts, but ultimately it has to be of our own free will otherwise we are just ants building a hill. You write a lot of loaded statements like this.

The point is that mankind's interests are at the fore here, and intrinsic to that are our moral responsibilities. As a believer I can rationally work for mankind at my own personal Earthly expense, whereas an atheist cannot. An atheist will rationally have to put his own Earthly well being at the fore.

I've indicated several times that without recourse to external axioms, our ability for rational selflessness is reduced.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

David - "On inconsequential 'knowledge': It's a possibility that a vastly superior and overwhelmingly intelligent alien species came to our planet and specially engineered our species for some purpose known only to them. Perhaps we're a self-wareness experiment. Or something. Perhaps some people even have a biological receiver allowing them to be subtly directed by these aliens"

A more serious idea is that the universe is an experiment by extra-universal aliens. This idea has a lot of traction.
Clearly you are not part of the class to which the vast majority of atheists belong, which is basically the 'ignorant' category that are blase and say we're just a cosmic accident (as if that explains anything).

So your definition of atheist seems a bit more specific than most. You seem pretty agnostic to me, at least enough to move the conversation on a bit. I'd be happy to, so you have the invitation. I'd just rather do it without "Kidd"'s buffoonery or Jem's malicious stupidity, etc..

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

On inconsequential 'knowledge': It's a possibility that a vastly superior and overwhelmingly intelligent alien species came to our planet and specially engineered our species for some purpose known only to them. Perhaps we're a self-wareness experiment. Or something. Perhaps some people even have a biological receiver allowing them to be subtly directed by these aliens?

What's the supporting evidence? Well, we exist. The universe is vast and probably contains alien species. We may be the only species here that is sapient. There's huge gaps in our knowledge of how stuff works. Some people claim inside knowledge. Others that there are alien abductions?

So, what do we do given this possibility? Build buildings to spread the knowledge of it? Spend time and energy trying to work out what our purpose is? Limit the behaviour of others in case it is not what the aliens want? Hope for their eventual return? Or, well, ignore the possibility as a silly distraction from living for today?

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

J McD,

You really are incorrigible:

"It's doesn't further debate when people are descending to the level of focusing on spelling mistakes and typos and then grossly misquoting me."

You are the one who became overtly conscious of your failings in this regard, as is blatantly obvious to anyone who reviews the posts, but, as in so many things, you transfer your failings to others.

I suppose that is the marvel of the confessional mindset at work, except here you don't even have to say sorry to shift the blame, you merely blame.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

If the attribute of consciousness is the basis of speculation about god then where do other animals fit into this? Mammals in particular appear to have subjective experience. Indeed, as one would expect with evolution, there's a rising complexity all the way up to, and possibly including, self-awareness.

If consciousness is how we relate to god then I'd expect Jainism and utilitarian morality to be more in tune with this speculation rather than Christianity and its deontological morality. Why would our reaching the evolutionary milestone of self-awareness make us metaphysically significant to god but not other animals? Or is evolution theory wrong because of this?

If atheists are fundamentally irrational for not giving this speculation significance then it seems to me that Christians lose far more in the likely unreliability of subjective revelation. Or do we write animals off as mere automata, like Descrates, to keep it consistent with the speculative goal?

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

"Kidd"

"To be honest, it didn't seem like an attempt to explain. Feel free to express it in formal boolean"

I did. That's what logic gates and truth tables are. True/False. 0/1.
"Kidd" = Obtuse. Pretender. Charlatan. Pseudo-intellectual. Liar. Inferiority complex. Craven. Bore.

Jem....
I can't begin to explain to you why we can know that God exists until we tackle a few more basic misunderstandings. I've repeatedly answered your questions and you've failed to reciprocate by putting in the effort required to understand logical lines of thought. Given your outstanding limitations this makes discourse with you a very uphill struggle. Arguing with crass dimwits is a lot harder than arguing with an intelligent self-aware adversary.
This is why I'd like to move to a more select forum.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

If the attribute of consciousness is the basis of speculation about god then where do other animals fit into this? Mammals in particular appear to have subjective experience. Indeed, as one would expect with evolution, there's a rising complexity all the way up to, and possibly including, self-awareness.

If consciousness is how we relate to god then I'd expect Jainism and utilitarian morality to be more in tune with this speculation rather than Christianity and its deontological morality. Why would our reaching the evolutionary milestone of self-awareness make us metaphysically significant to god but not other animals? Or is evolution theory wrong because of this?

If atheists are fundamentally irrational for not giving this speculation significance then it seems to me that Christians lose far more in the likely unreliability of subjective revelation. Or do we write animals off as mere automata, like Descrates, to keep it consistent with the speculative goal?

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

The consuming a lot of energy thing arguing for our being a cosmic accident is interesting. Lacking a belief is effortless and I don't imagine many atheists spend much time arguing for it. It's more productive to argue against the counter-intuitive demands of religions, as atheism as a definition suggests.

This is in juxtaposition to the daily energy investment the religious make for their faith, of course. Indeed, lots of religious people seem to have a crisis of faith when confronted with significant life knocks (unlike Job in the Book of Job, whose example is presented as unusual). The recent revelations about Mother Theresa suggest that even she didn't have an easy time maintaining her faith.

If I spend time and energy arguing about religion then it's usually for productive reasons, such as choice over abortion, stem cell research, aids prevention, freedom of expression, liberalism, and so on. They're much easier to argue for, and more relevant to daily lives.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

J McD:

"As I said earlier, atheists appear to be driven by a reactionary force. It consumes a lot of energy to argue that we are a cosmic accident against the tide of intuitive knowledge that most people have."

So, this old-fashioned atheism thing, which has been around for somewhat over 2000 years is conservative, opposed to the progressive nature of the newfangled judaeo-christian god thing which is a bright young 4000 years old huh?

Arguing consumes little more energy than watching TV, why it should be so much more arduous because you somehow think that your prejudices are shared as "intuitive knowledge" by most people eludes me.

Why do you think that there is some sort of definitive answer for life, the universe and everything? Why do you think that it would be granted to you? Your own faith holds god to be ineffable, defying expression or description. "We know there's something out there, but we don't know what to call it and we don't know what it is". Reality?

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

"It consumes a lot of energy to argue that we are a cosmic accident against the tide of intuitive knowledge that most people have."

For 'intuitive knowledge' I read 'being self-aware and afraid of death'. The majority of people I know are either default-agnostic or atheist and I find the agnostics end up being quite embarrassed talking about their hopes of something after death when asked. Afterall, it generally sounds quite silly when articulated in public.

As to having political reasons for not giving significance to the possibility of a god or gods, I mostly find the arguments unsubstantive, unconvincing, and strongly aspirational. I can see little benefit in entertaining such unfounded speculation in society (which is what I meant by political).

I freely admit to truly political reasons for challenging Christianity though. I find it very unappealing as an answer to "How should we live?"; It's socially conservative, unethical, and divisive. And, of course, irrational.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

"You should not precipitously reject knowledge on the basis that it might be inconsequential." It's not knowledge though, it's speculation. No-one is trying to stop people conceptualising if it takes us further. Godel changed the way maths is approached with his theorem but that was only really significant after the fact. Theism is about politics, which is why I point out the question we all face: "How should I live?", or more generally "How should I carry on?", and why I raise issues about practical theism, such as Christianity. I think you ought to ask yourself why you want atheism to appear to be fundamentally irrational. Afterall, you're actually trying to undermine materialism. The answer, I suspect, is political. There's a qualitative aspect to 'negligible' which is also political. Where does it takes us to give significance to the theoretical possibility of a god or gods? Does it help decide issues about abortion, or stem cell research , or same-sex relations?

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Jem:

"on hitler, I can't subscribe fully to his manifesto, but the quote you lifted seems reasonable."

That's a joke is it?

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

That's interesting....CA, USA and not ca, USA or ca, usa.

The only alter egos here are Jem/Barry.

Although why anyone would care is beyond me. I guess we have different reasons for being here.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

"Yes I do feel certain that there's a God, but I simply think that's a different argument from the one we've been having."

john, it's a different argument from the one *you've* been having. but only because you have failed to address the argument the rest of us are making.

I did smile at the irony of you wishing to get away from the pub bores, though. I wish you every success in this new venture.

jem, london, uk

David,

On the contrary you are the one being presumptuous. Clearly you are wanting to deny the non-negligible argument for political reasons.

As I said earlier, atheists appear to be driven by a reactionary force. It consumes a lot of energy to argue that we are a cosmic accident against the tide of intuitive knowledge that most people have.

That's a shame because it doesn't help productive discourse. Telling me you reject my heuristic argument, because it could somehow potentially lead down the road to banning gay marriage, suggests a lack of confidence somewhere in your own beliefs.

As a Catholic I'm still figuring out the balance and interaction between my political and religious beliefs. I'm reading Solovyov's 'Lectures on Divine Humanity' right now, which is pertinent to that. It also contains a strong philosophical argument for God as a first principle. You should check it out..chptrs 1 and 2. After all, it's good to be challenged, right?

john mcd, san francisco, ca, usa

you don't know my nature, john. you need to have a sense of humour to be able to appreciate one.

jem, london, uk

HeHe, i see John is still here, still trying to avoid the question.
I also notice Chorlton has been doing some more traveling, boy do you get around Chorlton, check this out...

Kidd - "I feel I don't need to add anything there." so why are you?
Chorlton Hardy, Manchester, CA, USA


but then a little bit later...

"Kidd Garret", everybody. I'm sure some gullible soul somewhere is impressed by this noise.
Chorlton Hardy, Manchester, UK

Of course, maybe is is not Chorlton but indeed Manchester itself that is moving around the globe? I am expecting a post soon from Chorlton Hardy in Tokyo.

John, i am sure it is exciting to have an alter-ego like Chorlton but could that not be classed as being dishonest, is that really a christian thing to be doing? But then again maybe it is, maybe the fact that you are capable of inventing a non existent person from Manchester highlights that you are disposed to believing in no existent entities such as your god?

Gary , Brisbane, QLD

David Jones,

I think what I meant was that you don't know the rational for arriving at my theistic belief.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

David Jones,

Actually I'm not sure it does come down to subjective revelation. But in any case you and others here have ascribed attributes to Catholicism which are simply incorrect (e.g. creationism, fundamental incompatibility with Islamic view of God etc).

Yes I do feel certain that there's a God, but I simply think that's a different argument from the one we've been having.

There's value in the challenge of talking to you and I'd like to discuss it with you further in a different forum, away from the pub bores and militant nuts. Plus a lot of posts are getting lost here.

Jmcdsf is my tag at the email named after the fellas in Gulliver's travels.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

"You're completely ignoring my heuristic argument of taking into account the huge conceptual gaps we have and simply applying what we do know (that our conciousness exists, that it is unexplainable by us and is partly extra physical in nature)."

No, that's not leading to a complex personal god without a lot of further leaps; at best it might lead to a 'something'. We each know 'we are', we assume our sense perception works, and we assume other people have a similar consciousness. I assume other mammals have consciousness, by observation, despite their different neural biology. That heuristic.

You're assuming that consciousness which by observation appears to be tied to brain biology is not emergent from brain-like things but something different altogether. I can be open to that, though I don't favour it. You're then leaping to something entirely unfounded. It's not like my leap from human to chimp, it's a leap from horse to unicorn.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

David,

Knowing the possibility of something is "knowledge".
It's speculation to say we're an accident.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

On heuristic analysis: Firstly, it's not clear what sort of approach is actually being proposed here so I'll cover several. If there's a 'problem' and we're looking for an answer then we might be happy enough with an unprovable answer if it's good enough. But how do we choose an answer? What's 'good enough' in this case? Zeus? Ba'al Hammon? Yahweh? An undefined god? No god? Perhaps the fact of our consciousness helps our understanding of god? Is, say, 'made in the image of' indicative of a related attribute of consciousness? With Godel, and perhaps Plato's Ideal Types, and your hope for a particular skyhook, I can see what you want to achieve. But is god a heuristic device to get to our nature here or is the heuristic device the goal? Or are you combining the two approaches so the heuristic device gives you a good enough answer and you want to assert its reality too for good measure so the answer contains the heuristic device? It's all way too contrived for me.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

"Is this what you meant by assertion over argument? You don't know what my theistic belief is based on because we haven't been discussing that." You're a self-identified Catholic so I know what your theistic beliefs are in considerable detail and I know that Catholicism is based on faith not evidence and evidence-based logical argument therefore I know that your beliefs are based on insufficent evidence. Moreover, you have a belief which is a different type of thing to a working hypothesis or a theory since it implies certainty. Perhaps you'll retort that the suggested evidence, and hypothetical possibilities, and subjective 'revelation' if you have had one of those, is sufficient for *you* to believe? But that's not what we mean by 'sufficient' in this context. Or perhaps you'll say that in principle I don't know what your particular evidence is even though you'd be the most famous person in the world if you revealed sufficient evidence? But that's pedantry on this medium.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

J McD,

There is a great difference between:

"I argued that atheist is irrational because even in your frame of reference there is a non-negligible chance of God."

And:

"If X is true" Where X is then posited as true, rather than having some arguably non-infinitesimal probability of being true and a concomitant probability of being false.

Particularly as you completely fail to consider the inverse.

As you appear to be a believer in the christian god, the god of the bible, as you are a church-goer and apparently a catholic, I would argue that in my frame of reference there isn't even a negligible chance of there being a god, if god is defined in those terms which anyone with a passing familiarity with the bible would recognise.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

As much as you wish to muddy the issue John - I can understand how embarrasing it is, Hitler was closely linked to the catholic church.
Furthermore, Hitler was NEVER excommunicated nor condemned by his church. In fact the Church felt he was JUST and “avenging for God” in attacking the Jews for they deemed the Semites the killers of Jesus.
Hitler, Franco and Mussolini were given VETO power over whom the pope could appoint as a bishop in Germany, Spain and Italy. In turn they surtaxed the Catholics and gave the money to the Vatican. Hitler wrote a speech in which he talks about this alliance, this is an excerpt: “The fact that the Vatican is concluding a treaty with the new Germany means the acknowledgement of the National Socialist state by the Catholic Church. This treaty shows the whole world clearly and unequivocally that the assertion that National Socialism [Nazism] is hostile to religion is a lie.” Adolf Hitler, 22 July 1933, writing to the Nazi Party

RJ, Jersey, CI,

"Is this what you meant by assertion over argument? You don't know what my theistic belief is based on
because we haven't been discussing that."

You're a self-identified Catholic so I know what your theistic beliefs are in considerable detail and I know that Catholicism is based on faith not evidence and evidence-based logical argument therefore I know that your beliefs are based on insufficent evidence. Moreover, you have a belief which is a different type of thing to a working hypothesis or a theory since it implies certainty.

Perhaps you'll retort that the suggested evidence, and hypothetical possibilities, and subjective 'revelation' if you have had one of those, is sufficient for *you* to believe? But that's not what we mean by 'sufficient' in this context. Or perhaps you'll say that in principle I don't know what your particular evidence is even though you'd be the most famous person in the world if you revealed sufficient evidence? But that's pedantry on this medium.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

"You should not precipitously reject knowledge on the basis that it might be inconsequential."

It's not knowledge though, it's speculation. No-one is trying to stop people conceptualising if it takes us further. Godel changed the way maths is approached with his theorem but that was only really significant after the fact.

Theism is about politics, which is why I point out the question we all face: "How should I live?", or more generally "How should I carry on?", and why I raise issues about practical theism, such as Christianity.

I think you ought to ask yourself why you want atheism to appear to be fundamentally irrational. Afterall, you're actually trying to undermine materialism. The answer, I suspect, is political. There's a qualitative aspect to 'negligible' which is also political.

Where does it takes us to give significance to the theoretical possibility of a god or gods? Does it help decide issues about abortion, or stem cell research , or same-sex relations?

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

David,
You're describing the chance of a complex, personal God in a similar way to a Boltzmann brain idea (where we know particles can randomly appear out of nothing in space..given a huge amount of time there is some small chance that particles could appear in a random configuration that happens to represent something intelligent).

This is wrong. You're completely ignoring my heuristic argument of taking into account the huge conceptual gaps we have and simply applying what we do know (that our conciousness exists, that it is unexplainable by us and is partly extra physical in nature).

You've simply reverted back to factual/physical analysis.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Looks like I'm not the only one to use the phrase "militant atheist"...http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2367028.ece

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

J McD,

You wrote:

"You should not precipitously reject knowledge on the basis that it might be inconsequential. That would not be rational."

I take it you have no objection to our precipitously rejecting your lack of knowledge on grounds of rationality?

Indeed, precipitous rejection of most of your outpourings on grounds of stupidity would seem most apposite, but we are concerned for you and would like it very much if you would consider the error of your ways.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

Jem: "on hitler, I can't subscribe fully to his manifesto, but the quote you lifted seems reasonable"

Hitler: "The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity ... if I ever have the slightest suspicion that they are getting dangerous, I will shoot the lot of them"

Since you've confirmed support for this statement twice now, I guess we know your nature, Jem.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

John, you have ignored numerous questions on here from various people. You prefer to shift the subject, muddy the waters, cast aspersions, redefine words, make assertions without evidence or supporting argument, misrepresent what other people say and then accuse others of doing the various things you do yourself. Oh and you invent alter egos for yourself for reasons I cannot comprehend. Who knows what else you have made up, although I think we can all guess. That's the joy of the internet I suppose. Whatever would you do without it? It makes you and your arguments and various assertions very difficult to take seriously however.

Paul Owen, Birmingham , Uk

J McD,

The rationality thing, please, be rigorous, define your terms:

"I've been doing discrete maths a long time, "Kidd"."

What can I say?

"This was also explained before (I used or and not gates to explain it to Russ)..... "

To be honest, it didn't seem like an attempt to explain. Feel free to express it in formal boolean, as I mentioned earlier, I am rusty, but hey, I have plenty of time. A more formal expression would make it easier to point out your errors.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

"Is this what you meant by assertion over argument? You don't know what my theistic belief is based on because we haven't been discussing that."

You're a self-identified Catholic so I know what your theistic beliefs are in considerable detail and I know that Catholicism is based on faith not evidence and evidence-based logical argument therefore I know that your beliefs are based on insufficent evidence. Moreover, you have a belief which is a different type of thing to a working hypothesis or a theory since it implies certainty.

Perhaps you'll retort that the suggested evidence, and hypothetical possibilities, and subjective 'revelation' if you have had one of those, is sufficient for *you* to believe? But that's not what we mean by 'sufficient' in this context. Or perhaps you'll say that in principle I don't know what your particular evidence is even though you'd be the most famous person in the world if you revealed sufficient evidence? But that's pedantry on this medium.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

David Jones,

"how do we determine dismissability anyway for an undefined thing".

I think I gave a specific enough definition, although it could probably be more specific. I basically said something that resembles or encapsulates our own form of consciousness. Something personal.

The "how should we live" thing is slightly moving the goal posts, when this argument is about accepting the real possibility of a God.

The consequences of seeing the possibility of the existence of God, would I imagine involve a renewed openness to the meaning and nature of our existence. Basically it involves the possibility that there indeed is meaning to existence. But you could disagree with that, it doesn't matter. You should not precipitously reject knowledge on the basis that it might be inconsequential. That would not be rational.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

"You see, I was paying attention, and although it is twenty years or so since I needed to bother about, for example t'=gamma(t-vx/csquared), I try to keep my ignorance unbounded.

Topoi, as I am sure you know, being the sort of person who likes sheaves, or fasces, as they will have it in Italy, do have variants which seem to resemble a form of intuitional thinking. "


"Kidd Garret", everybody. I'm sure some gullible soul somewhere is impressed by this noise.

Chorlton Hardy, Manchester, UK

Jem,
"the (Hitler) quote you lifted seems reasonable."

Do you support Hitler's views on Jews, or just those on Christians?

And you say it's reasonable to "shoot them all" as is mentioned in the quotation?

I'd like to know what everyone else's view on Jem's statement is?

David, I'd like to continue talking with you, but the Hitler apprectiation society and the "Kidd Garrett" pub bore are convincing me that I'm wasting my time here.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

and, of course, if god does exist, you can't possibly understand what that means.

jem, london, uk

"I argued that atheist is irrational because even in your frame of reference there is a non-negligible chance of God."

I presume now that you've had plenty of opportunity to take up the suggestions to look what atheist actually means. Atheism is an absence of a belief in a god or gods, and it starts from a critical approach to a posited god or gods.

What you're proposing (I think) is that something god-like might exist given that we have a necessarily incomplete view of our own universe and therefore it's 'non-negligible' (to which I take to mean not dismissable) possibility.

Firstly, atheists *may* take a stance on undefined gods or god-like (whatever that means) things but it's not an implicit part of atheism to do so, so you're casting your net too wide. Secondly, how do we determine dismissability anyway for an undefined thing? Thirdly, those things have no relevance to the immediate "How should we live?" question which theism is really about.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

and, surely, this is more like a blind person trying to explain the colour red to another blind person?

they should try listening to some music.

:0)

jem, london, uk

"How you relate this to the god issue is something else that puzzles me. "

Read the post again and think a bit harder. Ask questions on it if you don't understand something there.

Give "Brief history of time" another go.
Read any popular cosmology book. I mean PROPERLY read it, "Kidd"..don't just learn the key phrases to throw around.

Unless you just want to feel intellectual and appeal to the gullible.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

John McD, you say: "You don't know what my theistic belief is based on because we haven't been discussing that." - erm yes we do; you profess to be a Catholic and there is a well defined set of beliefs, rules, procedures etc. entailed in being a Catholic. Unless of course you were lying and you are not a Catholic.

Your statement that sums it up for me "I haven't discussed the evidence or rationality for my religion". No you haven't, understandably so, because you would not have a leg to stand on. It is because of this lack of evidence and rationality that athiests don't believe. Yes, one could argue that you cannot prove or disprove anything however in the real world we make decisions based on the evidence available. With no evidence to support a theory it is perfectly rational to not believe it.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Barry, Newbury, Berks

john/chorlton, darling(s)... you suggest that my (stupid) question has been answered many times. I'd say the chances that my question is (a) fundamental to the argument (indeed, it is the only question) and (b) hasn't actually been answered by your smug obfuscation is... um... non-negligible, at least. you seem to be making this rather more complicated than it needs to be. well, more complicated than it needs to be unless your aim is to make it complicated so that no one notices you are simply wrong. quote whomever you choose, but it's hard to escape the conclusion that it is at least possible that god doesn't exist, so to believe in him is irrational. you may think it's likely he exists. you may desperately want him to exist. but if you are certain he does, you are wrong (wrong to be certain, not necessarily wrong about his existence).

on hitler, I can't subscribe fully to his manifesto, but the quote you lifted seems reasonable. more reasonable than your belief anyway.

jem, london, uk

"Kidd Garrett"

Obtuse again as ever.

Two predicates: it's wrong to be certain of X's falseness, and it is correct(as in not false) to be unsure of X. The conclusion that it must be wrong to be sure of X's trueness is illogicaland hence a non-sequitur.

I've been doing discrete maths a long time, "Kidd".

This was also explained before (I used or and not gates to explain it to Russ).....
you don't get it and that's not really my fault.

Since you lie so often it's hard to know when you're being deliberately misleading or just genuinely confused.

Either way...it spells out a clear picture of your relationship with the truth.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

On negligible chances: The Euro-millions lottery is based on selecting a number from 1-50 five times from a diminishing set, followed by a number from 1-9 twice from a diminishing set. The chance of being right is about 1 in 80 million, I think, or 'negligible' by any reasonable standard. So, is it rational to play? Well, I think it is because the cost of that 1 chance is insignificant to most people and the perceived benefits are huge.

Compare this to the chance of a complex, personal god. The range of dependent possibilities is huge even if the chance is theoretically greater than 0. Even if the proposition is simply a god or god-like thing with intention towards our universe then I imagine the odds start stacking up given the steps required to get to that. But it's greater than 0. So, is it rational to dismiss the chance? Well, I think so in the first case because the cost is too high, and in the second case the perceived benefits are too low.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

"Kidd -
"But then that does depend on how one interprets the word "value".
There is no utility in practical terms for such speculation in a complete absence of evidence"

Oh I see. So there's no practical reason to accept the possibilty of God? No reason for you to consider the fact that when you bash believers and proudly proclaim your atheism, that you might actually be completely wrong?

That's convenient.

"Kidd".....this is dishonest.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

John, would it be fair to say that you've bought Penrose hook, line, and sinker, and you're drip-feeding something like his chapter headings and sub-titles here? Plato, Godel, philosophy of the mind (although your response about algorithms has now got me wondering whether you're blagging), topoi; it's a bit of a theme! :)

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

J McD,

earlier you posted:

"If X is true, then it can be correct for person1 to be certain of x and person 2 to be uncertain of it. It will always be incorrect for person 3 to be certain of X's falseness."

To illustrate an alleged non sequitur.

Actually I probably do need to expand on that for you, so I will descend.

The question asked was, in essence, whether it was irrational to believe in god for the same reasons as it was irrational to believe in no god.

So we have two propositions which we can call X and X' and two conclusions, C1 and C2.

They can be inveigled into a logical examination, but not by anyone who starts off: "If X is true", apparently assuming it to be so with no evidence and completely ignoring X'.

To get to: "It will always be incorrect for person 3 to be certain of X's falseness", when what is in question is not the falseness of X, but whether conclusion C2 can be drawn from X' if C1 can be drawn from X, is downright embarrassing.

Ho hum.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

J McD,

You wrote:

"Perhaps you should have another stab at that book you found difficult "a Brief History of Time","

I never said it was difficult I said it was badly written, there is a difference. If you have read it I would have thought you would know what I was talking about, I certainly have no intention of reading it again, it is far from even-handed and in places would be better titled a short history of Professor Hawkings predilections.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

J McD,

earlier you posted:

"If X is true, then it can be correct for person1 to be certain of x and person 2 to be uncertain of it. It will always be incorrect for person 3 to be certain of X's falseness."

To illustrate an alleged non sequitur.

'Nuff said?

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

"The dominant theory is that the mind is entirely emergent from the brain and, personally, I'm expecting neuroscience will eventually show that"

That is certainly not the dominant theory, although atheists would love that simple answer. Atheist or not there is missing conceptual knowledge (see Roger Penrose's "The Emperor's New Mind"). This is more the domain of theoretical physicists than neuro-scientists. you're making the mistake Barry made earlier going on about cognitive scientists.

Consciousness is clearly based on the arrangement of neurons and synapses. Pull out a single neuron and it doesn't have a fraction of consciousness. So it's algorithm dependent, not just physical causality.

Godel's incompleteness theorem also applies here. Without recourse to external axioms we cannot explain our own consciousness with scientific method. So if there's no supernatural source giving us clues, then we'll never know.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

David,

"You have theistic beliefs from insufficient evidence. That much is fact. "

Is this what you meant by assertion over argument?

You don't know what my theistic belief is based on because we haven't been discussing that. I argued that atheist is irrational because even in your frame of reference there is a non-negligible chance of God.

I put the same argument many ways, most recently with the 'heuristic' wording. You said you were going to address that so why don't you?

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

Jem, As David pointed out, and as has been the theme of this ENTIRE discussion, science is not the only magisterium. Science is a branch of rational thought. Read the posts and try to spend a tiny bit of time thinking about what they actually mean before repeating the same previously answered questions ad nauseam. I'd be ever so grateful.

Chorlton Hardy, Manchester, UK

David, Didn't I mention that I'm not trying to convince you to be Muslim of Christian? Once or twice maybe. Merely that the chance of God is non-negligible from the frame of reference you have with regards to the observable evidence. "Kidd" - your praise of David is touching, but it might seem more sincere if there was any evidence that you understood wtf we were talking about. And if you weren't a shameless, pompous liar.

What you said: "Here we go. "intuition, mate"... says J McD"

What I actually said: "I often as a joke say 'intuition, mate'"

And instead of apologising you say it's not a misquote.
I'm slightly less offended than at you massacre of high-school science.
Go get a job or something.

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

"Didn't I mention that I'm not trying to convince you to be Muslim of Christian? Once or twice maybe." Yes. We've poured considerable doubt on the reliability of subjective revelation and I've poured scorn on the unfounded complexity of posited gods. I'm pretty happy with the results there. You're talking about the atheist frame of reference: evidence. You're also asserting the non-negligible possibly of an undefined god. However, I've not seen your evidence or anything substantive about possibilities. Also, it's not clear whether it is even meaningful to link atheism to statements about unspecified gods, or a god as an undefined thing. I've tried to entertain the thought and make positive statements in the hope of teasing something substantive out of you. I'm getting the feeling from other comments that there's a shared sense of will'o'the'wisp-ness about your position. I'm basically trying to tie you down so I can highlight your assumptions and possible errors.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

J McD, As regards paying attention and reading the posts you say: "Earlier you eulogised William of Ockham (in an implicitly mistaken application of his razor)." I didn't eulogise and I didn't apply, I mentioned. "My, Grandma, what a fervid imagination you have." "All the better to conceptualise the worthless, my dear."

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

J McD,

When I made the little quote about " intuition, mate", from:

""Yeh when people ask me how I know something, I often as a joke say "intuition, mate" and tap my nose sagely. It's daft"

I didn't mention that to be a joke something really needs to be funny, I didn't want to haul you over the coals for the solecisms, barbarisms and errors in judgements you committed, I was merely trying to engage with your predilection for abstruse mathematics.

You see, I was paying attention, and although it is twenty years or so since I needed to bother about, for example t'=gamma(t-vx/csquared), I try to keep my ignorance unbounded.

Topoi, as I am sure you know, being the sort of person who likes sheaves, or fasces, as they will have it in Italy, do have variants which seem to resemble a form of intuitional thinking.

I would have thought you would pick up on that, but no, you see everything as a personal attack. Oh well, serves me right for condescending to play in your sandpit.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

Hello J McD,

"Wait for "Kidd Garret" to argue that no one is "really" conscious."

Not no-one.....


Have fun.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

Paul Owen

What question have I refused to answer?

John McD, San Francisco, ca, US

I feel I must correct myself, before the god squad pounce, having hastily written my last post. Hitler was not born a christian. He was, like all of us, born without belief in a god but was, again like all of us, selectively and deliberately force-fed the religion of his parents. Whatever he later did was clearly not a christian, athiest nor pagan concept. Christians, did indeed adopt the dates of pagan festivals but went further than that and also adopted and converted certain festival themselves for instance the harvest festival, and the summer solstice where, in medieval times christians continued the pagan tradition of lighting bonfires to commemorate the feats of St John the Baptist. There are many more practices which were 'christianized' in an effort to convert the pagan folk. So John, the christians did not limit their pagan adoptions to 'days' only.

RJ, Channel Islands,

"I'm not asking anyone to believe anything without accepted evidence. I've said that over and over again."

"It seems that you are asking yourself to do that very thing."
You inferred that all on your own, Kidd.

I haven't discussed the evidence or rationality for my religion.

Again, you're being obtuse.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

You know, J McD, the more you employ invective and your emotionally loaded adjectives, the more reason you give me to persist in challenging your assertions, it gives the impression that you recognise that your only recourse is rudeness rather than argument and I am waiting for the other shoe. I wish you would be a little more creative with your insults, though. Perhaps developing a heuristic would help? That is the sort of endeavour for which even you should be able to employ the term and the device correctly.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

Kidd.........."Enlightened self interest" you mean sophisticated selfishness?

Chorlton Hardy, Manchester, UK

J McD, As you so rightly say: "Sorry if I'm being dense. I hope you have the patience to condescend to explain your ideas further to me." I have tried on several occassions, but many of my posts have not appeared, these seem to be the ones with a slightly higher level of semantic content. Funny that. The bulk of the simplistic ones seem to survive the censorship process. I feel that my posts are being dumbed down. Obviously the same thing is happening to you, so I am sure you can sympathise.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

No John, it is you who is engaged in a tirade. You are becoming more and more hysterical and insulting. You even object to Kidds name for some reason. What he calls himself is his affair. Why do you object? After all you keep calling yourself Chorlton. You are no more Catholic than I am because the god you've been arguing for is nothing like that believed in by catholics. You've said yourself you don't believe in the bearded man in the sky. You believe in some theoretical entity that might exist in the gaps in our knowledge not the interventionist god of the bible.

And why won't you talk about what you claim to believe in so fervently? Is it because you don't really believe it? You're protesting too much.

I refuse to believe in something for which there is no evidence and lots of counter evidence. Face facts. I and everyone else on here, even Kidd whom you keep insulting and ranting about are perfectly calm. The same cannot be said of you, oh and Chorlton of course.

Paul Owen, Birmingham , Uk

J McD:

"'"you say it is irrational to be certain there is no god. why is it not, by the same logic, irrational to be certain there is a god" You've supplied a non sequitur."

It's not a non sequitur, it's a question, which is asking for an answer, what one might call the triumph of optimism over experience in this context. To be a non sequitur it would have to have at least one premise and a conclusion that cannot be logically derived from that (those) premise(s).

And you were lecturing someone on logic earlier?

How much more basic can you get and still have scope to be wrong?

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

Jem, So you like Hitler's views on Christians and Jews. If it's a joke then the irony there is a little hard to see. This is a serious point..you guys are essentially a reactionary and polarising force. Apart from David, nobody here is even trying to have a serious discussion. "Kidd" thinks Science should be divorced from rational thought, a la Khmer Rouge/Taleban...and Jem is crassly and unself-consciously admiring Hitler. Have some sense of social responsibility and humanity. You claim to be founded on rationality, so rely on that for the force of your arguments.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

"David, Telling us how fantastic you are isn't really evidence."

I was reporting my inner experience next to your, erm, poetic expectation of it. You can take it or leave it although you might like to consider the outer phenomena of atheists and agnostics apparently enjoying life over time given their behaviour despite their living in "the dark, cold emptiness of a Universe without God and love". It's a bit like the reverse approach where I have observed the outer phenomena of, say, Christians behaving like godless people over time: that is, it is probably indicative of their inner condition.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

"Kidd Garrett"

Your Bush thing is confused.
Anyone can invoke anything as a stupid excuse to do a stupid act.

It does not inherently negate the entity they invoked.

Did you think I wouldn't know that Bush had made stupid references to God?


Think harder man.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

J McD,

Wow, what's going on? You actually tried to explain something.

"Sorry if you had high hopes for it. If X is true, then it can be correct for person1 to be certain of x and person 2 to be uncertain of it. It will always be incorrect for person 3 to be certain of X's falseness. I may have taken a horrible wrong turn here by expecting you to follow this."

The fact that you have treated a question as if it is an argument and called it a non sequitur and then misrepresented it so grossly (see above, in quotes) doesn't really detract from the fact that you have actually tried.

Well done.

By the way, a non sequitur is a statement or statements which present an argument, like: "I am right because I am a physicist". You see? it has a conclusion that does not necessarily follow from the premise. Easy really.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

David, Godel's incompleteness theorem also applies to consciousness. Just as a computer can't explain itself without us giving it som starting axioms,. We'll never be able to explain ourselves, not because the brain is too complicated but because we are missing essential knowledge. So without external help we'll never be able to understand our own consciousness. BTW "Kidd" is making this forum hard work. He's the type of wind-up-merchant that takes himself way too seriously to be funny. It's doesn't further debate when people are descending to the level of focusing on spelling mistakes and typos and then grossly misquoting me.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

But then that does depend on how one interprets the word "value".
There is no utility in practical terms for such speculation in a complete absence of evidence. Of course readers of science fiction will put a much higher "use value" on such heuristic approaches, as do scientologists.
How you relate this to the god issue is something else that puzzles me.
A heuristic approach to god?
A solution to a non-existent problem: there is no rational justification for pre-supposing a god, there is no evidence for one and there are no phenomena that the invocation of a god will explain that is not better explained by other means.
What has heuristics to do with it?
Unless of course it is that the current justifications for religious belief are recognised for the patent absurdity that they are and the apologists are desperately seeking to enhance the possibility of inventing concepts so abstruse that they cannot be assailed in order to prop up this bizarre set of superstitions.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

RJ -
"Militant athiests! I have never heard such drivel in my life Warn the President of the 'no-belief fundamentalist' threat immediately... "
Pol Pot. Stalin. Mao. Not that one has to be a mega-murderer to be a militant.

The debate concerns the existence of God, so you are talking about some 'Christians' that committed bad acts as, apparently, proof that God does not exist.

Since we've been over this before maybe you should go over the posts again.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

J McD,
What do you understand Heuristic to mean?
"David, If the "heuristic thing' came to nothing for you then that's because you fail to either understand it or to see its value."
If, in this context you see it as meaning anything other than providing a different approach to guesswork, whether well-informed guesswork or ill-informed guesswork, I think you are misinterpreting again.
It is a way of engaging the imagination in ways that may not otherwise be used.
Heuristics is usually applied to problem solving.
In the context of life elsewhere in the universe, any of the possible heuristic approaches, which are legion, will lead to guesses which may or may not differ from a guess based on the way in which one would normally think about the issue.
The probability of the existence or otherwise of life elsewhere in the universe can, I suppose, be presented as a "problem", unless one wants to write some popular science speculation tosh, I fail to see the value.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

Paul,
I'm not defending Catholic dogma because that's not what we're talking about.
I'm not trying to convert anyone.
I'm arguing that without further evidence, based purely on rationality and the frame of reference that atheists accept, that the idea of God is reasonable.
Your post does not engage in rational debate, it simply asserts a lot of points about what you think is correct and what you think I believe. I disagree with all of them.
If you cannot engage in meaningful communication then you are left appealing to virtual people to give you virtual support on a set of unsubstantiated beliefs.
Are you so insecure that you get a reward from doing that? Seriously, wisen up.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

p.s. As defined by that Batson fella: "intrinsic" religiosity - belief in God and a motivation to attend church as an end in itself - and "extrinsic" religiosity - where religion and churchgoing are seen primarily as social activities, often undertaken for personal gain.

Not that I put a lot of weight in that article...just thought it was interesting.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

"Kidd Garrett" "Do only christians have rational reasons to be nice?" Did I say that? No. "...makes "nice" behaviour rational in social insects" but the insects/animals are NOT behaving rationally. You are being misleading again. Stop it, please. The worker bee is not thinking rationally when he sacrifices himself. It could be argued that pure altruism does not exist in anyone, atheist or religious, but... An atheist who believes only in the material world around him can only make decisions based on that. A believer with external axioms can remove the limitations on his motivations from being entirely within his Earthly existence. There is an interesting article in this week's New Scientist about this titled "What's the point of Religion". Interesting but flawed. In it Daniel Batson, a social psychologist, found some correlation between intrinsic religious beliefs and compassion or reduced prejudice. By contrast, extrinsic religiosity is linked to increased prejudice.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

J McD,

To quote you again:
""Kidd Garrett" - did you actually read the post?
"intuition, mate" was the punchline to a joke, not a justification for anything."
And here is (nearly) the whole thing:
"Yeh when people ask me how I know something, I often as a joke say "intuition, mate" and tap my nose sagely. It's daft.
BUT sometimes intuition is real and valuable. There is inherited knowledge , both through evolution and through something else(I think). And when intuition allows you to conceive of something that works and is self evidently true, then you would be a fool to dismiss it.
Without further rational justification you can't force it upon others, but that doesn't negate its reality."
You are, apparently saying that your religion "works and is self evidently true" and that you would "force it upon others" with further rational justification.
I wasn't being nearly as harsh on you as you are yourself.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

J McD,

"I'm not asking anyone to believe anything without accepted evidence. I've said that over and over again."

It seems that you are asking yourself to do that very thing.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

J McD,

You asserted that:

"George Bush invaded Iraq in the name of "freedom and democracy"...does that (sic) belief in freedom and democracy are wrong?"

Here is George W in his own words:

"I am driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did." Sharm el-Sheikh August 2003

You'll find the quote on the Times online, if you are actually at all interested in truth.

Mind you ate least you did admit your failings:

"Sorry if I'm being dense. I hope you have the patience to condescend to explain your ideas further to me."

Oh, yes.... Does that mean belief in god is wrong? (This is a question, not an argument, does not have a conclusion and therefore cannot be a non sequitur).

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

"The dominant theory is that the mind is entirely emergent from the brain and, personally, I'm expecting neuroscience will eventually show that"

That is certainly not the dominant theory, although atheists would love that simple answer. Atheist or not there is missing conceptual knowledge (see Roger Penrose's "The Emperor's New Mind"). Also it is more the domain of theoretical physicists than neuro-scientists. you're making the mistake Barry made earlier going on about cognitive scientists.

Consciousness is clearly based on the arrangement of neurons and synapses. Pull out a single neuron and it doesn't have a fraction of consciousness. So it's algorithm dependent, not just physical causality.

Wait for "Kidd Garret" to argue that no one is "really" conscious.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

David,

Of course this is untestable. If it wasn't then mankind wouldn't have been wrestling with this question throughout history, as he will be throughout the future. God is not going away.
And who have I referenced? Kurt Godel, Albert Einstein, Paul Davies and Roger Penrose.
We know Einstein was agnostic, but I don't know if the others were theist or agnostic. They certainly are not atheist, but then it's difficult to find a theoretical physicist/cosmologist who is.
Because unlike most of the posters here, they understand science and its limits.

Anyway, thanks for engaging meaningfully.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, US

Paul Owen,

"Thus he is no more a catholic than I am"..because I won't discuss my personal religion then I don't have one?

I won't put my street address on here, it doesn't mean I don't have one.

There is no point in me talking about my religion while you zealously refuse to accept the possibility of a God. It's the irrationality of the atheist stance that I am arguing about.

Calm down and read the posts before launching into misdirected tirades.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

David,

Of course this is untestable. If it wasn't then mankind wouldn't have been wrestling with this question throughout history, as he will be throughout the future. God is not going away.

And who have I referenced? Kurt Godel, Albert Einstein, Paul Davies and Roger Penrose. We know Einstein was agnostic, but I don't know if the others are theist or agnostic. They certainly are not atheist, but then it's difficult to find a theoretical physicist/cosmologist who is.
Because unlike most of the posters here, they understand science and its limits.

Anyway, thanks for engaging meaningfully.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

J McD

Why is it irrational for an atheist to be nice?

""I prefer to spend my time being nice to people because it seems like the right thing to do" - that is irrational to an atheist, but I get you."

Do only christians have rational reasons to be nice?

Enlightened self interest and a whole host of evolutionary adaptations to commensal living in a number of species makes "nice" behaviour rational in social insects, wolves, elephants and several species of dolphin. Is there a particular reason that it doesn't work for atheists?

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

JMcD "I meant to say "why SCIENCE is not divorced from rational thought and philosophy, but actually a subset"

That was blatantly obvious, I quoted you without getting all mediaeval on your typos, sweat the big stuff.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

"David, Telling us how fantastic you are isn't really evidence." Neither are any of your assertions 'evidence' John

"Early on someone started suggesting Hitler was Christian. It's amazing how history gets rewritten" Whatever you think he became, Hitler was born and raised a christian; that is not re-written history but fact.. At what stage he left your faith I do not know.

"the defining doctrines of Christianity are not taken from paganism. Just dates". True to an extent but more importantly, look how the christians treated those who did not conform. They murdered them and tore down the symbols of their faith. Simliar tactics to Hitler - destroy what you don't understand. As for your accusation of cheap jibes. Having reviewed these posts it appears that you are the worst offender for belitting or insulting remarks. It seems that anyone who disagrees with you is somehow ignorant or not have such a high conceptual understanding. Or perhaps I am being 'obtuse' John?

RJ, Jersey, CI,

Kidd: "Thank you so much for the Rene bit, I feel I don't need to add anything there." To be fair, it's not clear that John is suggesting substance dualism or indeed any other sort. All we can be sure of is that whatever he puts forward will be speculative, conceptual, based on work by people with a theistic bent, and above all untestable. Given that it all apparently supports a non-negligible possibility, I'm inclined to wonder how one goes about putting numbers to the possibility to determine that.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Kidd - "I feel I don't need to add anything there." so why are you?

Chorlton Hardy, Manchester, CA, USA

The heuristic argument is the essence of the "non-negligible possibility" argument. There is a lot that we conceptually do not know. But we do know that we exist, and that consciousness is is central to my existence and very different in quality from the physical realm (and before anyone jumps in...consciousness has absolutely not been explained by biologists or physicists yet). So the heuristic approach would be to look at the conceptually unknown and accept the possibility that the external nature might me similar to, or connected to, that which affords us the non-physical aspect of consciousness in the internal world. eg: to say that the chance of alien life elsewhere in the universe is certain, ignores strong conceptual possibilities such as the observer-dependent universe. That's why we reduce the chance of their existence to more like 50:50.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, US

"Kidd" -

Missing out the first half of the sentence which reads "I sometimes say as a joke"...
that counts as a misquote. You are a liar.

Just another data point to show that you have zero credibility.

David,

Didn't I mention that I'm not trying to convince you to be Muslim of Christian? Once or twice maybe.

Merely that the chance of God is non-negligible from the frame of reference you have with regards to the observable evidence.

"Kidd" - your praise of David is touching, but it might seem more sincere if there was any evidence that you understood wtf we were talking about. And if you weren't a shameless, pompous liar.

What you said: "Here we go. "intuition, mate"... says J McD"

What I actually said: "I often as a joke say 'intuition, mate'"

And instead of apologising you say it's not a misquote.
I'm slightly less offended than at you massacre of high-school science.
Go get a job or something.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

"I have seldom encountered someone with so little to say who spent so much time saying it. "

Pure irony coming from you "Kidd".

Stop lying, misleading and misquoting me.
Engage in meaningful discussion or go away.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

'"you say it is irrational to be certain there is no god. why is it not, by the same logic, irrational to be certain there is a god" You've supplied a non sequitur. It's about evidence. I'm using the frame of reference that the atheists here can broadly understand and agree with. It's been said over again, many ways, many times. ' Jem...The answer above has already been posted...other than that I don't know what you're on about. The question doesn't make logical sense. Sorry if you had high hopes for it. If X is true, then it can be correct for person1 to be certain of x and person 2 to be uncertain of it. It will always be incorrect for person 3 to be certain of X's falseness. I may have taken a horrible wrong turn here by expecting you to follow this. I can't keep explaining the stark bleeding obvious to you and "Kidd Garrett"

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

"Kidd" -

Missing out the first half of the sentence which reads "I sometimes say as a joke"...
that counts as a misquote. You are a liar.

Just another data point to show that you have zero credibility.

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

"Kidd Garret" -

"Science had good reason for the divorce from philosophy"

You would like to divorce it, as would the Taleban, but it isn't and never has been. Read any popular book on cosmology or quantum mechs as evidence (or would that involve too much effort).

"most philosophy is obscurantist and arcane" like the references you pass off as arguments.

Stop wasting our time.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Well I've been away for a fortnight and I see you're all still at it. Not least John McD who is still using sophistry, desperately changing the subject and refusing to answer questions. He claims to be a Catholic but refuses to defend Catholic dogma. Thus he is no more a catholic than I am. By his own arguments he is actually agnostic really.

But I don't really think he believes a word of what he's saying. How can he? It's palpable nonsense. You're arguing for the god of the gaps John, you know it we all know it. I'm pretty certain that's a position not shared by the Catholic Church.

As I pointed out a long time ago, you are protesting too much for reasons best known to yourself. I said this before we realised you had invented an alter ego to argue with you. I note that 'Chorlton' according to one message has now flown out to join you in California.I hope you and your various imaginary friends are very happy together and look forward to the next time you lecture us on logic.

Paul Owen, Birmingham , Uk

but kidd... politicians aren't funny.

oh.... I see.

john is not making me believe in god, but he is definitely making me appreciate hitler. :0)

jem, london, uk

now come along, john. I haven't jumped on any of your mistakes or even run down all the little alleys with you as you frantically sort of quote lots of big books. I think you might be getting a little paranoid.

my question / point is very simple. but you seem to have an over-active imagination. you've got your imaginary friend, you've got the imaginary foes you with whom you are arguing here and some imaginary arguments you've given them for you to knock down. and, no doubt, you imagine you're doing very well at it. in the meantime, you haven't even attempted to answer the actual question.

I think we all know why that is. :0)

jem, london, uk

Jem,

"if science will never provide the answers to certain questions due to its innate limitations, maybe we'll never be able to ascertain or understand the answers due to our innate limitations"
We have the whole superset of rational thought at our disposal, but yes we probably never will understand it all. That's a good point, well put.

As for the rest of your questions/assertions...I dunno man, you might have to think about those on your own for a while. Might be more productive than anyone telling you what to think. Remember to take breaks.

Chorlton Hardy, Manchester, UK

J McD,

I have seldom encountered someone with so little to say who spent so much time saying it.

I think you have missed your vocation, you seem far better suited to politics, no-one expects a straight answer and every-one is expected to evince beliefs in the most unlikely eventualities.

Also your standard of witticism and badinage would help you fit right in.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

Greg, You can blame Dawkins for that, since that's where the atheists here borrow almost all their arguments from. Early on someone started suggesting Hitler was Christian. It's amazing how history gets rewritten, and Hitler/Nazism is something people like to throw around. I merely rebutted the stupid attack by quoting Hitler: "The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity ... The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.

I'll make these damned parsons feel the power of the state in a way they would have never believed possible. For the moment, I am just keeping my eye upon them: if I ever have the slightest suspicion that they are getting dangerous, I will shoot the lot of them. This filthy reptile raises its head whenever there is a sign of weakness in the State, and therefore it must be stamped on. We have no sort of use for a fairy story invented by the Jews."

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

David,
Telling us how fantastic you are isn't really evidence.
Jem:
"I prefer to spend my time being nice to people because it seems like the right thing to do" - that is irrational to an atheist, but I get you.
Barry,
"you say it is irrational to be certain there is no god. why is it not, by the same logic, irrational to be certain there is a god"
You've supplied a non sequitur. It's about evidence. I'm using the frame of reference that the atheists here can broadly understand and agree with. It's been said over again, many ways, many times.
Thomas,
These have been answered before, several times. Read my answers to RJ. Just read the posts generally. Most importantly, the defining doctrines of Christianity are not taken from paganism. Just dates. And shockingly, most Christians don't really believe that Jesus was born on 25th Dec.
You're being a child, hence your gauche attempt at wit in the last sentence.

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

"I'm self-aware, unencumbered, and free."

I'm glad you think so, David.

Chorlton Hardy, San Francisco, CA, USA

Barry,

I don't think I've been dropping in unwarranted amounts of odd references. Where I have they have been in context and explained.

I'm sorry you can't engage meaningfully.

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

um... john.... when you asked if I had a question for you, I (and perhaps other members of your audience) may have assumed it was because you had some intention to answer, rather than just out of general interest. :0)

and chorlton... if science will never provide the answers to certain questions due to its innate limitations, maybe we'll never be able to ascertain or understand the answers due to our innate limitations. concepts such as the void, infinity or eternity, pre-time, etc just make our heads hurt. and, if we have a purpose, what is god's purpose? it's asking a lot to appreciate that there was nothing and yet there was always god. or that there is something now. and what makes you so sure that life is a puzzle to solve? to a god, we'd be as insignificant as amoeba (even more so, given his infinite powers). even allowing for his infinite ability to care. maybe he sits wondering why we don't just get on with our lives.

jem, london, uk

Barry,

Well sorry but if you say "the universe is very big and complex so we might never understand it all", then you seem to be basing everything around scientific discovery and hence confusing factual with conceptual knowledge.

You do this over and over, writing posts almost identical to Jem talking about "God of the gaps" etc, when that is entirely inappropriate to the state of the discussion. That's why I think you don't understand what has been said, and if you can't engage meaningfully and without a litany of cheap jibes then I don't see why you keep posting.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Greg: "I'd just like to draw attention to the fact that the number of examples of Godwin's Law in action in this debate make it convulsion-inducingly funny"

I bet you're a computer programmer.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

"I've stated many times WHY 'negligible' is not something you should rate for this." John, I can't find a single argument of yours (other than the vague heuristic thing that came to nothing).

The truth is that no-one knows how or why the universe came into being. It is not clear that we can even speak coherently about the creation of the universe. Afterall, we have no frame of reference.

You have theistic beliefs from insufficient evidence. That much is fact. The more vague deist position still relies on the assumption of a deity and you no more know that the universe is the product of a deity than the chance product of a different level of universe.

In so far as your theist beliefs are concerned, there are so many unfounded assumptions involved that the chances of it being true are negligible. You know this which is why you won't defend your specific beliefs.

There are any number of possible beliefs from insufficient evidence. We atheists rationally ignore the lot.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

"We have an innate knowledge of a Platonic realm? Contentious? "

Contentious to you perhaps, not to cosmologists, theoretical-physicists etc.

The definition of insanity is repeating the same action over and over expecting different results, which is why I am going to stop explaining the same point to you over and over again in the vain hope that you'll understand.

If you don't believe me then go and read "brief history of time" or "the Goldilocks enigma"...you might still have problems understanding them, but it's all about names and references for you. I imagine you're the type of person that reserves special respect for "important people", like lawyers and architects. Perhaps you'll listen to Hawking. Little man, big pretender.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

J McD:

"BTW, you can't misquote someone like that and call it a joke. There was no humour in it, it was just a plain lie. Like I said you're always obtuse, deliberately or otherwise."

Actually what I have done is copy and paste the words you posted, how can that be a misquote?

If you didn't mean it, why did you post it? If it was a lie, you told it.

You said it was a joke, not me. I didn't think it was funny, I thought it was scary.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

Mr Jones,

Thank you so much for the Rene bit, I feel I don't need to add anything there.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

I can understand why a trinitarian theist and mathematician might like to think in terms of Plato, Ideal Types, and so on. It's de rigeur, I expect. However, I want to know how one gets from that particular philosophy to the idea of a specific god.

As an atheist (that is, someone without a belief in a god or gods), I want to know why I should be inclined to believe in Ba'al Hammon, or Yahweh, or Zeus, or god X with the attributes my fertile imagination conjures up today, given that philosophy.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

I meant "science", not religion as a subset of philosophy/rational thought.

Sorry for the obvious typo, thought I should point it out in case "Kidd" reads all kinds of weirdness into it.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

"The dominant theory is that the mind is entirely emergent from the brain and, personally, I'm expecting neuroscience will eventually show that"

That is certainly not the dominant theory, although atheists would love that simple answer. Atheist or not there is missing conceptual knowledge (see Roger Penrose's "The Emperor's New Mind"). Also it is more the domain of theoretical physicists than neuro-scientists. you're making the mistake Barry made earlier going on about cognitive scientists.

Consciousness is clearly based on the arrangement of neurons and synapses. Pull out a single neuron and it doesn't have a fraction of consciousness. So it's algorithm dependent, not just physical causality.

Wait for "Kidd Garret" to argue that no one is "really" conscious.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

I meant to say "why SCIENCE is not divorced from rational thought and philosophy, but actually a subset"

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

J McD
Wow, big assertions:
"And some choose to not see the conceptual knowledge they were born with,"
What are you saying here? We have an innate knowledge of a Platonic realm? Contentious? Toi?
"embracing the dark, cold emptiness of a Universe without God and love."
You again seem to be appropriating love as being co-existent with god and denying it to those who don't believe.
"Given the reactionary zeal and wileyness of naysayers (on this board), then it's evident that the cause of this blindness is something other than simple rationality."
What, are we possessed?
It would be nice if occassionally you gave something that approached an answer, rather than simply asserting that someone is wrong or that you are only talking about the disputed fact that atheists are irrational and then insisting on your own pet definitions of atheism and rationality.
Try wiliness, unless you are a roadrunner fan. As your arguments aren't the acme of good sense I doubt it.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

I meant to say "why SCIENCE is not divorced from rational thought and philosophy, but actually a subset"

No doubt "Kidd" or Jem will take it to heart and triumphantly jump all over that obvious mistake as a sign of something enormous.

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

"Kidd"

I'm not asking anyone to believe anything without accepted evidence. I've said that over and over again. Your arguments are confused hot air.

You still haven't answered the questions I posed for you, concerning all the bizarre claims and statements you've been making.

BTW, you can't misquote someone like that and call it a joke. There was no humour in it, it was just a plain lie. Like I said you're always obtuse, deliberately or otherwise.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Descartes ran into insurmountable problems with dualism, as I'm sure you know. The dominant theory is that the mind is entirely emergent from the brain and, personally, I'm expecting neuroscience will eventually show that. I also expect we'll get some new ways of looking at things.

Even if we jump onto a speculative stepping stone about the nature of consciousness, with all its might, perhaps, and could be, then why should we jump to the next, and the next, etc, just so you feel more socially comfortable manufacturing a complex personal god from speculation?

Atheists are without a belief in a god or gods. We have rejected the posited gods with all their unlikely detail. You're hung up on the 'non-negligible possibility' of an undefined diety instead of seeing the important point. We all have to answer the question: "How should we live?". Theism has no rational answer because it's based on belief from insufficient evidence.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

"David, If the "heuristic thing' came to nothing for you then that's because you fail to either understand it or to see its value."

Actually, it's because you didn't actually present an argument, you merely hinted at its use. In effect, you were asserting its value. Assertion is not argument, despite its ubiquity in religious thinking. (There's more to follow about the argument you've now put forward)

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Kidd,

"Conceptual" as in not derived from factual knowledge, as was stated in various posts.

Can you stop this thing of trying to confuse the issue and just let people have a discussion, please?

Shashank Virmani, Glasgow, Scotland

Barry -

Science will certainly never hold the answers. Not 'probably never'.

It can't because of its innate limitation, not because we don't have big enough telescopes.

"See how it works?" Do you?

Chorlton Hardy, Manchester, UK

J McD:

"Just as I explained why your quotation of Einstein "As far as religion is concerned I am agnostic"...meant he was agnostic, not atheist."

I picked that quote to prevent people portraying Einstein as a conventional christian, which many do. Duh.

"Just as I explained why religion is not divorced from rational thought and philosophy, but actually a subset."

Actually, no you haven't, you have asserted it.

"Just as I explained the 2nd law when you gave your bonkers, made-up definition."

I never tried to define it, you certainly haven't explained it.

"And just as I explained why Hitler's writing in Mein Kampf was negated by his private recorded conversations to prove that he was not Christian." What explanation? What proof? Hitler made so many contradictory assertions to different people to suit their predilections that if you are saying you have proved his meaning from this morass, the only explanation I can think of for that is more "revealed truth".

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

David, If the "heuristic thing' came to nothing for you then that's because you fail to either understand it or to see its value. It's really the essence of the "non-negligible possibility" argument. There is a lot that we conceptually do not know. But we do know that we (at least I) exist, and that consciousness is is central to my existence and very different in quality from the physical realm (and before anyone jumps in...consciousness has absolutely not been explained by biologists or physicists yet). So the heuristic approach would be to look at the conceptually unknown and accept the possibility that the external nature might me similar to, or connected to, that which affords us the non-physical aspect of consciousness in the internal world. eg: to say that the chance of alien life elsewhere in the universe is certain, ignores strong conceptual possibilities such as the observer-dependent universe. That's why we reduce the chance of their existence to more like 50:50.

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

Barry -
when did I ask you to believe in God? Tell me where.

YOU stop being lazy, read the posts and stop trying to make arguments you borrowed from Dawkins fit against what I've said. They don't.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

J McD
What are you talking about?
"Many conceptual principles were conceived before they could be tested and verified."
Any conceptual principle that has been tested and verified would need to be conceived before it could be tested and verified, unless you are in possession of a time machine.
Blimey mate, you haven't got one have you?
Oh yeah...
"BUT sometimes intuition is real...."
"Without further rational justification you can't force it upon others, but that doesn't negate its reality."
SO you were only joking huh?
And it is funny to think that with a little rational justification you can force your views on others, is it?
You seem to be asserting that your belief is rational, you seem to have no qualms about forcing you belief on others if you feel you can justify it.
That is the rationale of suicide bombers and fatwah-mongers, inquisitors and conquistadors.
How far is it from where you are to witch burning, I wonder?
And you try to mock me?

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

John,
You seem to think your high school grasp on philosophy and limited metaphysical reasoning are in some way profound and that what you are conveying is beyond the reach of the other posters. No. Your arguments have either been incorrect, pointless or irrelevant.
In my experience people who have to constantly wax lyrical about their own academic excellence whist insulting or trying to belittle others usually do so because of feelings of underlying inferiority. The sort of person who would make up an imaginary friend to back up your arguments perhaps...
We could go round and round for weeks more but to be honest I have better things to do. You seem unable to grasp or even engage in the most simple concepts, you brag, you insult and cast aspersions without anything to back it up and it's all rather pathetic.
To me it is not irrational to not believe in something that goes against all logic, all evidence and all current understanding. See my 1st post form all those days ago.

Barry, Newbury, Berks

John McD

accept it mate, there is no hard evidence that god is still around. i have reason to believe that he think he has made a bad job of creating "us" and thought "oops"!!!

put it this way....if i had created this world i wouldn't hang about to see the outcome!! needless to say am impressed on how he "made" the fjord in norway very impressive :)

Tad, Scotland, Scotland

J McD:
Your sense of humour is rusty, isn't it?
"The "neo" prefix is superfluous, as it implies a distinction between Platonists of old and those of now."
Shucks, really?
The Neoplatonists were an interesting bunch who believed in theurgy and metempsychosis, among other things, and whose work was a great influence on many of the "church fathers". I know you have your own superstition, but I don't think you quite share theirs, do cosmologists?
The neoplatonists also seem to have avoided some of the trickier bits of Plato, propagating the theory of forms, as being consistent with their somewhat pythagorean beliefs, and apparently avoiding Plato's criticisms of the theory and ignoring the fact that it does not occur at all in his later work.
Actually the "neo" prefix was because you give the impression that you think you are living in a deistic version of the matrix, a kind of techno-punk evocation of Platonism.
What's it to be J McD? The red pill or the blue pill?

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

"I've stated many times WHY 'negligible' is not something you should rate for this." John, I can't find a single argument of yours (other than vague heuristic thing that came to nothing).
The truth is that no-one knows how or why the universe came into being. It is not clear that we can even speak coherently about the creation of the universe. Afterall, we have no frame of reference.
You have theistic beliefs from insufficient evidence. That much is fact. The more vague deist position still relies on the assumption of a deity and you no more know that the universe is the product of a deity than the chance product of a different level of universe.
In so far as your theist beliefs are concerned, there are so many unfounded assumptions involved that the chances of it being true are negligible. You know this which is why you won't defend your specific beliefs.
There are any number of possible beliefs from insufficient evidence. We atheists rationally ignore the lot.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

"Kidd Garrett" - did you actually read the post?
"intuition, mate" was the punchline to a joke, not a justification for anything. I suppose it also worked as a mechanism for identifying those incapable of abstract thought.
If you had understood the points about our existence in limited contact with the dimensions of the universe (of which the 2nd law is a good example) then you would find it impossible to argue that the universe is only what we observe.
Perhaps you should have another stab at that book you found difficult "a Brief History of Time", it's explained in there.
The concept of the perfect circle is not derived from factual knowledge. I'm sorry you can't get your head around that.
This is rather like trying to explain the colour red to a blind person. There are limitations, "Kidd" exhibits many of them.
"Kidd" - why did you make up that weird definition of the 2nd law? Why did you think science was divorced from philosophy?

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

"Kidd Garrett"
Again you're not really saying anything, apart from your usual justifications of why you don't have to work through difficult issues. The conceptual world affects the physical.
If everyone avoided metaphysical issues and the purely conceptual world, we wouldn't have mathematics nor any scientific progress. You're a bit like the Taliban in that respect, you don't want to engage in anything to clever. Like Pol pot you distrust intellectuals (when it suits).
Earlier you eulogised William of Ockham (in an implicitly mistaken application of his razor). Was it in the playground of the idle that he performed his scientific, philosophical and theological work?
Did the same playground produce Einstein, Turing and Chomsky?
And what brilliant use do you provide the world, "Kidd"? Telling people what they should and shouldn't discuss? Prescribing people what to believe, backed up only by borrowed, misunderstood quotes? The word charlatan was invented for you

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

"Do you want to understand a reality based on love and light or a void of materialistic darkness?"

I don't recognise either description. I'll take an understanding of reality based on reason and current knowledge, and experience it with a sense of atheistic wonder. Like Dawkins, I'm often filled with emotion at how amazing the universe is, while at the same time understanding how utterly insignificant I am in the universe. It's very liberating, you know, being atheist.

When god asked Job: "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?", I'd be tempted to answer: "Not born then, as you know. However, now you're here, can you tell me why you have such an inordinate fondness for beetles? 300 thousand different species of beetles out of 1 million species of insects and we're still finding them! I just have to know!"

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

"And some choose to not see the conceptual knowledge they were born with, embracing the dark, cold emptiness of a Universe without God and love."

John, I really don't know where you get this idea from although I quite like the rhetoric nonetheless. Love is a natural emotion arising out of the universal human condition, not a supernatural attribute. As for dark, cold emptiness: yes most of the universe is like that physically but my experience of life as an atheist is nothing like that.

Here's some rhetoric back at you:. I've stood at the top of Kilimanjaro, I've lain quietly in the middle of English meadows in the summer, I've bounced around in the crowd at rock concerts, and I've filled up at the aesthetic beauty of a sky without light pollution. I'm often exhilarated by being alive and at other life in all it's glorious diversity. I don't need an anthropocentric god concept to be happy, or be fulfilled, or give myself meaning. I'm self-aware, unencumbered, and free.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

I'd just like to draw attention to the fact that the number of examples of Godwin's Law in action in this debate make it convulsion-inducingly funny, rather than incisive.
I propose that any poster who has mentioned the Nazis, concentration camps or Hitler be sent to Butlins.

Greg, Northampton, UK

john mcd, I do have a question for you. I have asked a few times, though, so there seems very little point in repeating it. still, given that I am an optimisitc agnostic, rather than a cynic, I'll give it a shot (though I should take my own advice).

you say it is irrational to be certain there is no god. why is it not, by the same logic, irrational to be certain there is a god? every criticism you make of the atheist is as valid directed against the believer.

I am not mocking your belief, I'd just like you to use the same logic when assessing your belief as you do that of the atheist.

you're right that I am not trying to find the truth. but I am not desperate - I accept that there are limits to my understanding (and even to my ability to understand). I prefer to spend my time being nice to people because it seems like the right thing to do, rather than trying to prove anything. I'll find out what happens when I die soon enough and I'll be happy to answer to any god.

jem, london, uk

John/Chorlton - the only christians in the village.

1. With so many religions available why did you pick Christianity and how do you know that you've made the right choice?

2. Are you the religion you are because most people accept the same religion as their parents?

3. Why doesn't prayer work when the Bible promises in John 14:14 for example, that it will? In fact, why pray at all? If it changes God's mind then he is not sovereign. If it does not change God's mind then it's superfluous and a waste of time.

4. Why were the defining doctrines of Christianity assimilated from pagan cults? Why is Christmas, Easter, Lent, rogation days, and others, derived from pagan holidays. Didn't Christianity have any legitimate calendar of commemorations of its own?

Please blow out the candle as you leave.

Thomas, Channel Islands,

Barry,

"Science does not hold all the answers and probably never will; the universe is a very complex place."

The first half is correct, the second gives away your (and especially "Kidd Garrett" etc) consistent confusion between factual knowledge and conceptual.

Unless you appreciate the differences then you will always have the sense that cosmologists, philosophers and theologians are a bit loopy and going for the "God of the gaps" as you keep on saying.

And sorry, until you convince me that you do understand the difference by engaging meaningfully in these discussions, then I will repeat the accusation that you are mocking what you do not understand.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

John,

It is not a case of mocking what we don't understand it is a case of not attributing what we don't understand to a sentient supernatural entity. This is the lazy way out: "I don't understand this therefore it must be god", it beggars belief that you would think this. Luckily for us there are scientists and philosophers who do not think like this and try to move our understanding on rather than accept the ignorant, short-sighted view of religion.

Science does not hold all the answers and probably never will; the universe is a very complex place. You have to accept this and address the ignorance not fill that void with some conveniently unprovable mystical being.

Not knowing something does not make any gods more likely. We used to not know what the sun was, therefore people called this a god, we now know what it is so we don't. People used to attribute species design to god until Darwin came along and disproved this... etc.

See how it works?

Barry, Newbury, Berks

David,
I wasn't trying to prove God in the Christian/Jewish/Muslim sense. I was showing that agnosticism was rational where atheism is not.
You've by and large come to acknowledge this now, which I'm glad of. I just wish that the quality of discussion had been better and more focused on finding the truth than finding apparent contradictions.
The only offbeat definitions here have come from "Kidd Garrett" and yourself. He with his quack science and you with your false descriptions of what Catholics and Muslims believe in.
Sometimes you've really engaged and shown integrity, but often you disappoint with clearly disingenuous interpretations of what it is to be religious and by imposing ridiculous standards on the religious that you would not on anyone else.
You are part of society and responsible for yourself. Do you want to understand a reality based on love and light or a void of materialistic darkness?
Why did you visit a board to attack an article of love and compassion?

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

"Of course, if he is a (neo) Platonist, that is going to be particularly difficult."

Why? Have you misunderstood that the the majority of physicists, cosmologists and other scientists believe in the Platonic realm, and do so not at the expense of the physical realm we live in?

The "neo" prefix is superfluous, as it implies a distinction between Platonists of old and those of now. Scientists today are just as platonic as the philosophers of old. I've said this before and given you references to check it out. Please do it before posting more confused misdirection.

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

"We're not certain about the lack of an undefined creating 'something' completely outside our reality"

"WE"? Are you speaking for "Kidd Garrett" there? Can you guarantee his understanding?

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

David,

I really think it's unfortunate that we've not been able to have a better discussion on here. I apologise for my part in that....it's easy to become reactionary and polarised oneself in such an environment.

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

"I often as a joke say 'intuition, mate'",

Why did you miss out the first half of that quote and misrepresent me, "Kidd"?

Sometimes deliberately, sometimes not, you are always obtuse.

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

"Kidd Garrett" since we're talking about the nature of our existence and rationality, then what exactly was your objection to me bringing up Topoi? If you don't understand what I've said about them, then ask and I'll be happy to explain.

Just as I explained why your quotation of Einstein "As far as religion is concerned I am agnostic"...meant he was agnostic, not atheist. Just as I explained why religion is not divorced from rational thought and philosophy, but actually a subset.
Just as I explained the 2nd law when you gave your bonkers, made-up definition.
And just as I explained why Hitler's writing in Mein Kampf was negated by his private recorded conversations to prove that he was not Christian.

You are consistently wrong and confused, and no amount of your pomposity will alter that.

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

Kidd,

When you quote "intuition mate", do you not realise it was a joke or are you trying to mislead everyone? It's always hard to tell with you.

shashank, glasgow, scotland

"What we were discussing was why it's wrong for atheists to be so certain and attack everyone else who maintains other private belief."

We're not certain about the lack of an undefined creating 'something' completely outside our reality, we just think that all the anthropocentric gods posited so far are so unlikely that we might as well dismiss them entirely. Hence, we are without belief in god or gods.

You and your various alter egos have put forward offbeat definitions, tried to extend the concept of reality beyond materialism, hinted at vague heuristic analyses, and tried to avoid the damning facts of religious practice in the real world. Yet, you still haven't shown practical atheism to be irrational so far, or anything close to it.

I think it's now fair to say in summary that atheism or 'agnosticism' that tends to atheism are demonstrably rational approaches to the divine and that anthropocentric theism is patently irrational.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Here we go. "intuition, mate"... says J McD. Is this going to be another excuse to invoke Topoi? It won't wash. Map and territory m'dear. "Oh look, if we model something on the way things work, it works the way things work. Of course we have to try really hard, and we have to discard lots of attempts, because sometimes when we try to model the way things work they don't work the way things work so we have to ditch them." It is all very clever, but it is not the real world, it is (possibly) a set of maps of aspects of the real world. Real things are what they are, there may not be perfect circles existing in this universe, shouldn't that be telling you something? We use pefect circles because they are well behaved, describing the behaviour of a myriad individual particles is way too messy, but that is reality. Someone suggested earlier that J McD get out among the real people more. Of course, if he is a (neo) Platonist, that is going to be particularly difficult.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

"A deity with a disproportionate interest in mankind in the vastness of the universe sounds very, very unlikely to me. "

"disproportionate" seems to indicate a rather limited and anthropomorphic perspective. It's meaningless in the context of what we're talking about. What difference does the does the size of the stage make?

And I presume by "very, very unlikely" you mean 'negligible'.

I've stated many times WHY 'negligible' is not something you should rate for this.

I'm not sure what your "time is less than zero" thing is supposed to mean. I was using the 2nd law to demonstrate that there is conceptually much more to our existence than is superficially apparent. People like "Kidd Garrett" have displayed problems truly appreciating that.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

"And yes, it's irrational to assign negligible probability to a divine creator as the source of what you see around you."

Why *divine* creator? A deity with a disproportionate interest in mankind in the vastness of the universe sounds very, very unlikely to me.

If that's what you mean then you need to explain all the assumptions you must surely have made to get to that idea. If not then why care about time t<0 (from our perspective) when we have no tools to investigate it?

Something might have created the universe but strictly speaking, a-theism is about theism (the clue is in the name) and there doesn't seem to be any reason to believe in an interactive god or gods.

Even deism contains an unfounded assumption that really ought to rationally lead someone to a-deism (which a broader definition of atheism covers).

So, exactly why are you asserting that atheism is irrational, over and over again? Fess up, man.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

""But this is the Lord of All Worlds we're talking about, and we're his potential worshippers and servants"

And some choose to not see the conceptual knowledge they were born with, embracing the dark, cold emptiness of a Universe without God and love. Given the reactionary zeal and wileyness of naysayers (on this board), then it's evident that the cause of this blindness is something other than simple rationality.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Gary -

calm down.

Smoking always affects your respiration system. Excercise, diet and smoking have a general affect on your physical health.
A doctor who smokes does so not because he/she has abandoned what was learnt at medical school, but simply because he/she is imperfect and vulnerable to temptation.

I don't spend my days wondering if I might or might not go to heaven, but I do concern myself with everyday spiritual health.

If you think that the fact that people who go to a mosque or a church are not superhuman means that their belief is wrong, then I would accuse you of being irrational.

"i thought god was great! Make up your mind John." Are you the fella that writes the letters for Viz comic?

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

David Jones,

"Why don't educated people in the West exercise more? Why do some people smoke? Why do doctors smoke? Do they secretly know that smoking is good for you?"


Your answer was:
"Habit, life distractions, poor risk perception, poor time management, etc. In short, things that influence people living for themselves."

That's a bit tortured. How about the simple answer that the reason a doctor might smoke is that despite the knowledge that it is damaging his health, he is weak and vulnerable to temptation.

To say that because someone who has been to church is imperfect, then God is disproved, is probably the most cynical and disingenuous thing I've read from you.

I know that you are smarter than to believe that.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Jem,

do you have a question for me or are you just ranting again? You're in good company with "Kidd Garrett".

So you think that because it's better to be agnostic than atheist then you can never be sure about anything? That does not follow at all.

You and "Kidd" - you have a problem with everyday logic. You're not even trying to find the truth, just desperately grasping at straws trying to find contradictions.

Madness.

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

Jem,

Creationism is not a tenet of the Catholic faith, which in any case I never asked you to believe in.

It's irrational to make science your religion and ignore its clearly defined limitations...as "Kidd Garrett" consistently does (insisting that science is divorced from the superset of rational thought).

And yes, it's irrational to assign negligible probability to a divine creator as the source of what you see around you. Irrational but easy, just as it's easy to ignore the big questions and to mock what you really don't understand.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

"haruspices"? Tossclump.

Chorlton Hardy, Manchester, UK

opps, meant Gary, not 'Greg'

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

David Jones,

Yeh when people ask me how I know something, I often as a joke say "intuition, mate" and tap my nose sagely. It's daft.

BUT sometimes intuition is real and valuable. There is inherited knowledge , both through evolution and through something else(I think). And when intuition allows you to conceive of something that works and is self evidently true, then you would be a fool to dismiss it.

Without further rational justification you can't force it upon others, but that doesn't negate its reality.

Many conceptual principles were conceived before they could be tested and verified.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

I've been away for a week now and it is good to catch up on the discussion. First of all congratulations to John for managing to string this out to what must surely be the most commented article on this web-site.

The feat is particularly impressive when you realise the totally untenable position he comes from. It is clear he doesn't want to introduce the absurd beliefs of today's religions as they are clearly falsifiable but instead focuses on the concept of "divine creator" that, by definition, is non-falsifiable.

To the statement that is "irrational" to not believe in this being there has been not one post that has demonstrated or given any indication to this being true.

It is irrational to believe in virgin births, saintly miracles or creationism as there is no evidence and they go against all current experience and knowledge. It is NOT irrational to hold no belief in an ill-defined, un-provable and hugely unlikely hypothesis such as your "devine creator".

Barry, Newbury, Berks

"Why don't educated people in the West exercise more? Why do some people smoke? Why do doctors smoke? Do they secretly know that smoking is good for you?"

Habit, life distractions, poor risk perception, poor time management, etc. In short, things that influence people living for themselves.

But this is the Lord of All Worlds we're talking about, and we're his potential worshippers and servants! And believers have access to the Holy Spirit for support and guidance! And Works should follow naturally from Faith over time if one attaches to the source of life! And it's omniscient so there's no hiding it! And all that.

Surely one could expect a priest, someone who lives and breathes this stuff daily, to avoid carnal relations with his congregation if the basis of subjective revelation was potent and true?

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

David Jones,
"religions with an absolute morality" - I distrust anyone that claims to be certain in everything they do. The best scientists are the ones who verify and check themselves all the time, moving forward tentatively. The confidence is in the core principle...not the far removed derivations.

"the reasons behind the ethics are very different and that's very important for moral reasoning. "..
I agree, but besides the fact that atheists seem to address this less than the religious, this isn't really the debate.

I'm not here to promote Catholicism. I'd be happy (and keen) to discuss where you're going with this elsewhere, but it's an unwieldly debate here.

What we were discussing was why it's wrong for atheists to be so certain and attack everyone else who maintains other private belief.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

"More unfounded blanket assertions, your comfort blanket is wearing a little thin."

Kidd, that seems to sum things up quite nicely.

John and Chorlton are not avoiding the questions at all, they are avoiding the answers. They know full well what the answers are but to admit them would see their blankets start to unravel and there would be no going back then. They would suddenly find their lives without meaning and be forced to start living life as if it were their last, and i am sure that would be a bit of a shock.

Gary , Brisbane, QLD

John/Chorlton, oh dear. "Why don't educated people in the West exercise more? Why do some people smoke? Why do doctors smoke? Do they secretly know that smoking is good for you? " Educated Westerners know that by not exercising they MIGHT die younger, Doctors know that by smoking they MIGHT get cancer and die younger. The risk seems worth taking to some people. Are you telling me that your religion believes that if you take god into your heart you MIGHT go to heaven? Because if that is what you do believe then it does not sound like the catholic church to me. I thought that this vision of god you saw, this spirit you know is real because "You just know" is real enough for you to believe in, real enough for you to live your life following gods teachings and wisdom. Are you really saying after a life spent worshipping you only might go to Heaven? Having seen god is he not so great as to be more than a risk worth taking? i thought god was great! Make up your mind John.

Gary , Brisbane, QLD

David,

I had the chance to see the 2nd episode of Dawkin's thing but chose to watch "War on Democracy" instead, as it seemed more enlightening and immediate.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Jem,

What can I say, you are bang on, as usual, but it is a forum on which dissent to the casuist may be displayed in public. I think it is important to show that those who try and assume a consensus on such matters are shown to be incorrect.

Those who believe are those who abrogate their intellectual responsibilities and defer to authority, whether it be Bush's advisors, the clergy, haruspices or whatever. J McD, for whatever his intellectual attainment in arithmetic, has abdicated his reason in this rather important matter, it would be nice if he realised that a lot of people were very concerned by such behaviour.

It really is a shame he is rather rude, though, and living away from Manchester seems to have eroded his sense of humour to invisibility. Maybe when he is older.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

gentlemen, if we're going to consider laws, perhaps you might like to think about the law of diminishing returns?

john mcd says atheists are irrational because they do not accept even the possibility that god exists (even if most atheists simply don't believe he exists). however, since those of profound faith (whether dealing out love and comfort or hectoring rebukes and lethal justice) do not accept even the possibility that their god does not exist, then their faith must be irrational, but the same logic. if tempered by doubt, they might restrain themselves from their more anti-social excesses.

all of the rest is just dancing around the issue. and the music stopped a long time ago.

let john mcd have the last word. he will only use it to damn himself (again) in the eyes of the agnostics (the only rational people here, by his definition). the real question is why those claiming john is avoiding and obfuscating are bothering to engage him. he has to forgive you; I don't!

jem, london, uk

J McD,
You can assert that Mathematics and logic are from some spooky place beyond our universe, but you have given no evidence for this at all. It probably wouldn't cross your mind to say such things unless you had other spooky stuff to justify. Plato invoked the "theory" of forms because he couldn't understand how good could exist in a world where everything changed.
Numbers work because they do, if they didn't we wouldn't use them. We model numbers on the world around us and make them adhere to the way real things behave. If numbers don't behave the way real things behave, we look for a different way of using them, we try and improve our understanding. They are what they are because we define them that way. Numbers do not exist outside of the mind.
You can assert that they do all you want, but you have offered no proof, no more than you have for your particular interpretation of god.
More unfounded blanket assertions, your comfort blanket is wearing a little thin.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

Gary,

Sorry, but no I don't get your point.
You think that if someone does something bad "in the name of God", then that means that God does not exist? Or that God must me a bad influence?

George Bush invaded Iraq in the name of "freedom and democracy"...does that belief in freedom and democracy are wrong?

Sorry if I'm being dense. I hope you have the patience to condescend to explain your ideas further to me.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Gary, Although you say you're not confusing what people say with what they do, you are.
"if religion really is valid then why are the people who practice religion and according to you have seen and been touched by god, why are they not all saints?"

Why don't educated people in the West exercise more? Why do some people smoke? Why do doctors smoke? Do they secretly know that smoking is good for you?

I hope you're not going to make me explain the metaphor further. I'm sorry for getting your name wrong.

Johnny McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

"I don't think you would get to Zeus from this approach. But you could get to the idea of a general divine creator"

Yes, one could conceive of something that set up the initial conditions for our universe and triggered the process. However, it's a leap to think of it as divine with respect to us at this point so we're on stepping stone two already.

I honestly don't think many atheists would care about the possibility existing. Essentially, it's meaningless if we can't substantiate the idea further. How many stepping stones do we have to skip over before we get to the idea that we are specifically intended let alone that all the religious metaphysics exist?

You know, I hope you get to see Dawkins' mini-series. He interviewed a woman who is convinced we're descended from genetically superior Atlanteans, and he asked her how she knew. Her answer: she intuitively knew deep deep down. She then smiled knowingly. I thought: hey, I've heard that sort of justification before!

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

"Why are we arguing about this? Unless we're trying to progress towards truth and not simply find trite, apparent contradictions then I'm not really interested."

Hey, I feel the same way about thermodynamics laws. I'm just showing that the irrational nature of religious belief (at it's base and within its socially-constructed framework) is a significant issue for our general well-being. It's hegemony really needs to be tackled.

As Gary says, religions with an absolute morality do not want to keep the ramifications of belief private. We share lots of ethics and so it appears we are mostly alike but tthe reasons behind the ethics are very different and that's very important for moral reasoning.

Here in the UK, we've had hundreds of years of religious control at the very top of government and some of us aren't too keen on seeing it trying to make a comeback given the trouble it caused. We prefer a rational approach to how we should live our lives.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

"If I'm responsible for Talebs or neo-con Evangelicals, are you responsible for Pol Pot and Stalin? The arsonist of my church? "

Do you really not get it John/Chorlton ??

There are some very evil, sadistic and heartless peope in the world and have been throughout history, it is really awfull part of our lives and one which we will all suffer in some way from at least once in our lives.

But i was talking about people who commit evil acts of hate in the name of god, i cannot believe that you seem to think that is fine just becasue you can name a whole bunch of other evils who do not believe in god as though they cancel each other out I cannot belive that is your answer I thought you were intelliget?

And to even suggest that somehow i was blaming you for these things is just silly, where have i even hinted that. You are impossible to debate with John/Chorlton, you hide, you deflect, you skirt and ignore vaid points and throw diversions all around you. This is my final post. Goodnight

Gary , Brisbane, QLD

"As I said earlier, you are first confusing religion with the way in which people practice religion"

John, firstly it is Gary not Greg.

I am not confusing religion with those who practice religion, that is a completely inane statement and one befitting a man who has spent this entire conversation clouding the issues.

My very valid point is if god really does exist like you say he does, if religion really is valid then why are the people who practice religion and according to you have seen and been touched by god, why are they not all saints?. You cannot answer that question because you are just like any religious person, you are too scared to answer the questions that you know you have no logical answer to, so you could the issue instead and hope people do not notice. This is a trick that religion has been using for many centuries and it is boring now, it is very boring now.

Magic tricks belong in the 19th century, people were far more more gullible and ignorant back then.

Gary , Brisbane, QLD

David Jones,

I don't think you would get to Zeus from this approach. But you could get to the idea of a general divine creator.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Greg,

"I have no problem with private, personal belief, we are entitled to our own thoughts and should be allowed to live our own lives as we each see fit. (does that sound like militant atheist stance to you..?)"

Well the problem is that you also say "the problem is that those who do believe are not willing to play by the same rules" hence negating the conciliatory meaning of the first statement.

As I said earlier, you are first confusing religion with the way in which people practice religion, and furthermore you are making blanket statements that are prejudiced and unfair. The result is that, yes, you do sound militant and unreasonable.

If I'm responsible for Talebs or neo-con Evangelicals, are you responsible for Pol Pot and Stalin? The arsonist of my church?

It was atheists who came on this message board insulting and decrying those of belief. They completely ignored the tone of love and compassion that the article held.

So don't just talk about tolerance, act on it

John McD, San Francisco,

David -

Well people don't always say and do the same thing do they. As has been consistently and ubiquitously pointed out here, people claiming to be Christian/Muslim can do bad things. Conversely a self-professed atheist is capable of good.
What people say they are and what they actually are might be at odds.

That's always been my experience of church teaching since I was a kid.

Why are we arguing about this? Unless we're trying to progress towards truth and not simply find trite, apparent contradictions then I'm not really interested.

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

"if you do not want to believe just do not believe. Is very simple."

I wish it were that simple B, the problem is that those who do believe are not willing to play by the same rules. We are not allowed to have our non-belief and live our own lives the way we see fit. Organised religious groups are always trying to inflict their own morals and standards on us all, be it through putting pressure on the media and the governments to stop us enjoying entertainment that they find sinful to trying to dictate what the children of non-believers are taught in school and in the very extreme cases flying planes into buildings in the belief that god will reward them.

I have no problem with private, personal belief, we are entitled to our own thoughts and should be allowed to live our own lives as we each see fit. (does that sound like militant atheist stance to you John McD?) But many, many religious organisations do not want to keep their religion private, it is very naive to think otherwise.

Gary , Brisbane, QLD

David,

Yes David, but that wasn't the predicate. Read the posts.

"If there exists a God, then agnostic is more correct than atheist because it at least accepts the possibility. "

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

"An atheist is not by definition "immoral" to a Christian. You can be wrong without being immoral." Perhaps you can supply an example whose wrongness doesn't follow from invalid moral reasoning?

Christian morality is ultimately deontological in character because god is the definition of good and mankind has a duty to god.

Atheists might accept that a given moral argument leading to a conclusion is valid and that the conclusion is a good action. However, if they dismiss the main premise then how can they be said to be morally good in Christian morality by performing the action?

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

"Kidd" I'm not sure where to start with such vacuous banality. The metaphysical nature of the platonic realm manifest themselves as maths and logic.
You want to merely accept that one plus one simply equals two without questioning why. You don't even think there is a 'why'...to you it just is. Because you're simple. Well there is a why, just like there was a why behind why things fall to Earth. By finding out why we can make more scientific progress. It's very possible that 1+1=2 is not a fundamental rule of the universe and that we have to dig deeper for those. We won't if we listen to people like you. Given the nonsense you've written such as your mentalist definition of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, it's clear that you have no interest in truth or accuracy but merely self-promotion and antagonism. You have no credibility.

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

Oh dear John McD, Busted!!

"You're attributing everything bad to the religious and that's not fair. You're also excluding all good acts of the religious, and all those religious people that do not seek to impose untoward standards on others. It's a polarised view. "

Thought that your last post to me is worth repeating in light of the fact you were so desperate to have someone back you up in these discussions that you invented someone to agree with you. Rather ironic i think when the core of this discussion revolves around your belief in an invented god.

Gary , Brisbane, QLD

When investigating the possibility of extra-terrestrial life, I imagine people might initially look for the evidence for planets, then planets a suitable distance from a star to support carbon-based life, then perhaps they might entertain the possibility that some life might not based on carbon, and so on.

I'm no expert on formal heuristic approaches but isn't there a point where the investigator takes one stepping stone too far and it gains her nothing more useful from her existing data and hypotheses?

In cosmogeny, there's space for a creator 'god' I expect. I'd entertain the idea if I was involved and I'd guess that most atheists would. However, I'd most likely replace 'god' with something less culturally loaded.

At this point, we've laid that stepping stone and we're looking around for supporting data and related hypotheses. So, how do we get to (say) Yahweh or Zeus or Ba'al Hammon from there in a rational or heuristic way? Or have I misunderstood the approach?

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

If atheism is a Not gate in logic then presumably a negative input (there being no god) produces a positive (there is a god). How does this help?

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

David-

An atheist is not by definition "immoral" to a Christian. You can be wrong without being immoral. "Blackmail" is another word you are inappropriately using here.

The argument was about whether it is irrational to be atheist and given the difficulty of arguing with 20+ people in a forum like this I'm loathe to expand the argument.

However I will say that having spent years arguing for more socialist based economic policies in the US using only secular arguments, I have realised that they have their limitations, just like science.

"Lectures on Divine Humanity" by Vladmir Solovyev is a good read on God creates the motivation for "altruism" and love that secular philosophy can find hard to justify.

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

"A Catholic trying to lecture with regards logic! Could the Catholic please answer the following using logic only. "

These are interesting sentiments. They are based on Russ's personal prejudice far more than any rational reason. "The Catholic" is an unsettling turn of phrase.
Is Russ really so deluded that he thinks he has better judgment than every one of the more than 1.1 billion Catholics alive today? Better command of discrete maths? Or is he merely attempting to put down a large swathe of humanity with blunt force?

He wrote this after I corrected him on a rather basic logical sequitur that he had failed to grasp after a couple of posts.
The standard of discourse is appalling.

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

Russ,

Yes I did lecture you on logic, and I was right.

It sounds like you're an agnostic now, and since I'm not trying to convert you to Catholic I'm not sure what else there is to talk about.

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

David,

I don't think you really thought about what I was saying in that post.

You had accused me of ignoring the subtle difference in the supplied definition of atheist. I explained that I hadn't but that the subtlety made no difference to my argument.

My position was that atheist is an irrational stance because the possibility of divinity is not negligible.

I likened the reasoning to this to a converse example: where superficial analysis makes people believe that life must exist elsewhere, but where a deeper heuristic approach reduces the chances to around 50:50 by taking into account the unknown external factors.

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

JM - you're wrong about this as well.
Have you got anything meaningful to say?

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

JM -

I don't think "scientific realism" has ever had a very big profile.
If you make a pertinent point then I can address it. I just don't see how what you're saying has anything to do with me. If you're suggesting that there's not much conceptual knowledge left to discover, then I think you're demonstrably wrong.
Some time ago people believed that the sun orbited the Earth, and it was held that that was substantially true. When decided that the inconvenient inconsistencies were worth explaining then the view of the universe changed utterly.
Today quantum discoveries offer the same sea-change. The topoi theory I mentioned earlier could radically change or very foundation of logic.
In any case, even if our physical and logical view of the universe were to remain the same, we'd still be left with unanswered conceptual questions. In fact, if you want to say that the universe can be explained without recourse to divinity then you should probably abandon "scientific realism".

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

JM,

Nice to see you back after your dramatic exit, stage left.

Kidd Garrett, never mind intellectual discipline, you don't have the intellectual bus-fare.

Chorlton Hardy, Manchester, UK

J McD,

I have to say I agree with Gary:

"I say until you are old enough to work it out for yourself you should not be taken into a church."

So next time they ask you, just say no.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

A Catholic trying to lecture with regards logic! Could the Catholic please answer the following using logic only.

Why believe in God? Why believe in a Catholic God?

Now I have no doubt that the first can be argued for but the second certainly cannot otherwise the Catholic believer would have to accept that all other monothiestic religions are just as valid, therfore their position is shown to be ridiculous.

For a religious monothiest to call an athiest irrational is the height of irrationality.

Do the Catholics here believe that the bible is the word of god? Why is the bible full of inconsistencies? What properties does your god have and how do you know about these?

Please I'd like some answers. I doubt I will get them simply because they are so easy to logically disprove.

I have no problem with those that believe in god so long as they do not attribute any properties to it or use a religion. That is the only logical theist position, the rest is pascal's wager.

Russ, Reading, UK

J McD,
You say:
"Without understanding and modeling the metaphysical universe we can't progress."
Metaphysics, beyond physics. "According to Kant, a systematic exposition of those notions and truths, the knowledge of which is altogether independent of experience, would constitute the science of metaphysics." (Websters).
What metaphysical universe? We can't know it, it is independent of experience, because metaphysics is in our imagination. Your assertion that logic and mathematics and topoi are evidence of a metaphysical universe is an assertion, merely that. They are a way of understanding the physical universe which we derive from and can collate with experience.
We exercise our imagination in order to understand the world we live in, in the bronze age we came up with YHWH, we have since come up with less dangerous concepts, such as evolution and cosmology, which exist in the imagination, but correlate with what we experience rather better than the bronze age myth.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

The hypothesis that there's life on other planets is based on something very solid: we know for a fact that the universe contains life and the universe is vast.

The hypothesis that one of Yahweh, Zeus, Allah, Wodin etc exists is based on nothing solid as far as I know. The hypothesis that these anthropocentric entities are merely products of the imagination of a sapient species and social conditioning is considerably more likely, I'd suggest.

Why would anyone be utterly convinced Allah exists rather than hold firmly to the idea that it doesn't? If the prophet's revelation is (say) found word for word in a place where it couldn't have been materially or socially passed on then I'd be much more tolerant of the idea. But, well, I really doubt that's going to happen.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Where's Chorlton gone? He' must be just like my imaginary friend Mr Jesus - one day he was there, the next I woke up and he was gone!

JM, London, UK

Russ -
"strong athiest"..that's the first time that phrase has come up in this discussion, so your incredulity and exasperation at people not getting it seems a little misplaced. I explained the very simple logic involved in the difference between atheist and agnostic..if you don't get that then I'm sorry and I hope you get the help you need.

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

"Kidd Garrett" - I talked about topoi earlier. They concern finding the most fundamental logical laws of the universe.

So maths and logic "just are"? Well that's where we differ.
The fact that you do not think there is an intersection between the physical world and the abstract, metaphysical truths of the universe is where you not only differ from me, but with every current cosmologist and with most of the great scientists and philosophers in the history of mankind.

You're view is completely anti-science. We'd still be living in the stone-age if everyone adopted your lazy (non) thinking.

I've backed up all my scientific claims and can talk in detail about them until the cows come home. All you've offered is quack definitions and the name dropping that you're throwing back at me.

Without understanding and modeling the metaphysical universe we can't progress. Your explanation for the double slit/wave particle duality experiment would no doubt be the same: "It just is".

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

David Jones-

I do see the difference. I talked about this a long time ago.

Discounting the possibility and saying the possibility is negligable is the same thing as far as my argument is concerned. I'm saying that the chance of divinity is not negligable.

This is similar to the argument about life on other planets. The superficial statistical model would say it's almost certain. The more considered heuristic position would put it at 50/50 at most. I'll explain further after my dinner.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

"An athiest is not some one who discounts the possibility, it is someone who does not have a belief in a god. Why is it so hard for thiests to actually get this?"

Russ, I don't doubt John understands this. However, like the Sistine chapel thing, he's over-extended himself and it's very difficult for him to concede the point now.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

John McD - I suggest you google the term "weak athiest". This will answer your question.

Russ, Reading , UK

John, i am not angry, just think that religion is very dangerous and is probably the one thing in this world that has the potential to get us all killed!

I Appreciate your views and acknowledge i do not speak of the great compassion that religious people are capable of, but you may also have noticed i have not mentioned the great compassion that atheists are capable off either. All people are capable of good and bad, being good is not something the religious have a monopoly on. And this is exactly my point which again you just gloss over as though it does not exist. How is it that religious people are equally as capable of bad as they are as good? It that respect they are no different from everyone else, what difference does god actually make to their lives??

Religion would not be anywhere as near as powerful as it is today without the brainwashing of children that goes on. I say until you are old enough to work it out for yourself you should not be taken into a church.

Gary , Brisbane, QLD

John McD, this is typical of your argument process. You're not answering my comments, you're attacking a well established and central theory in the philosophy of science as "common sense philosophy", "vague and disputed", and then making sweeping generalisations on a topic you know nothing about following 5 minutes of research on Wikipedia. This doesn't help you to prove that atheism is irrational, it just makes you look daft, and is just another example of a red herring you've deployed to mask your inability to debate sensibly. I'm not here to debate whether realism as a stance is rational vs constuctive empiricism or scepticism, the point is I am a realist with regards scientific theories (just like you are a theist in terms of religion). A realist maintains that the current theories are substantially correct in terms of observable and unobservable phenomena, based on their predictive power. Since there are no observable phenomena in relation to "god", it's a pointless hypothesis

JM, London, UK

J McD,

"The discovery of maths and logic and applications of Topoi." You suggest that these are evidence for a Platonic realm. These are what they are, they are not evidence of a Platonic realm. There is nothing to suggest that they are intrusions of the "real world" into the universe which we perceive and in which we live from some immanent realm beyond of which we can perceive only shadows.

You haven't given evidence, you've done the bragging and name-dropping thing again of which you are only to quick to accuse other people, otherwise why cite Topoi specifically? Is it because it sounds more impressive than say knot theory?

If something is evident, then it is evident, if you are telling me that numbers come from heaven, where they really belong - and we can glimpse their forms as shadows on our cave wall, explain why this is so. You seem to think that an assertion from yourself should carry the weight of holy writ. I give you as much credence as I give exodus or kings

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

Look up the terms "strong athiest" and "weak athiest". Then you will understand the athiest's position.

An athiest is not some one who discounts the possibility, it is someone who does not have a belief in a god. Why is it so hard for thiests to actually get this? There is plenty of reference material on the web that explains this.

Russ, Reading, UK

Look up the terms "strong athiest" and "weak athiest". Then you will understand the athiest's position.

An athiest is not some one who discounts the possibility, it is someone who does not have a belief in a god. Why is it so hard for thiests to actually get this? There is plenty of reference material on the web that explains this.

Russ, Reading, UK

Russ,

It's a poor statement if you don't get logic. Agnostic is an OR Gate and Atheist is a NOT gate. A positive input (there being a GOD) produces a positive through the OR and a negative through the NOT.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

"I even think that imposing laws which fit my beliefs but before there is a national general consensus may be a mistake."

That's encouraging. However, From an atheist point of view, Christians are immoral by definition just as atheists are immoral by definition to Christians. We may share many ethics but the source of Right and Wrong is different. Does that matter? Well, I think it does.

In the UK, we only have to to around at the recent attempt by the Catholic cardinal to blackmail the government over adoption, or the attempt by evangelicals to limit free speech about religion in a play, or the 'moral' opposition to same sex marriages, to recognise where this is likely to lead if (say) Christians get full temporal power. If Muslims get power then Sharia Law is a real possibility.

Compare this to the secular approach where multi-culturalism, social and cultural ethics, and private domain religion are endorsed. The religious have to argue rationally for laws.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

John McD ... I don't know, it just seems slightly unusual that not only is "Chorlton-cum-Hardy" a Manchester suburb, "Chorlton" has moved from Manchester to San Francisco and then back again in the last month (check the posts), not to mention you yourself have owned up from being from Manchester originally, and you've been using nigh on identical arguments and idiomatic expressions for both.

This is either an unbelieveable coincidence, a feat of unparalleled Christian solidarity, or you've been using a fictitious antagonist to back up your arguments. Call me a cynic but I'm going for the latter.

Doesn't really say much for you or your arguments if those are the sorts of tactics you have to resort to to get someone to agree with you. Pretty funny, but pretty pathetic, but whatever floats your boat mate.

Regards

JM, London, UK

"Kidd"

Evidence of the platonic realm? The discovery of maths and logic and applications of Topoi.

I can find lots of mendacious quotes from Hitler, expressing brotherhood with Stalin, kissing up to the Brits and Americans......but we now know what he really thought. The quote I provided is clearly a more accurate expression of his feelings, so why state otherwise?

Most physicists actually make a point of calling it a "so called law", as has Paul Davies in his "Cosmic Jackpot", "Goldilocks Enigma" in the UK.

You, "Kidd", are the only one here who is so consistently, smugly deceitful.

You want to "divorce science from philosophy" and have expressed anti-religion, anti-intellectual statements worthy of Pol Pot. You are the bully.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

JM -

This is interesting...after a looking a bit deeper into 'scientific realism', I've found a few things.

Firstly it is, as I guessed, closely related to 'common sense philosophy' (something I've always been averse to ever since a visiting speaker at my high school spoke on the subject. He pointed at the high curtains of the memorial hall and said how certain he was that windows were behind them. Of course there weren't).

Secondly, although it is a vague and disputed discipline, it appears to contain a lot of differing opinions as to whether or not a platonic realm and the empirical nature of science do indeed exist).

This isn't what you said. You said it's about scientific theories holding true until they are proved wrong....which applies to both non-believers and believers in realism.

That's the kind of mistake a lay visitor to the subject might make.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

John,

Where have I tried to define what you believe? You have stated that you are Catholic, this has a well defined set of beliefs already stated I assume you are following them.

It is incredulous that anyone would truly subscribe to the fact that belief in something so ill defined, with no proof and lots of evidence to the contrary is more logical than the position that the athiests take. I.e. "that sounds far fetched. Count me out". Do you honestly believe that the Catholic belief is logical?

The burden of proof lies with the claimant, for example, if I phone up and say I've won the lottery they will want to see some ticket or evidence I bought it in a certain place at a certain time. The would not pay out based on the fact they do not know or can not prove where every ticket in the world is at that time so they should assume it is true. To not believe my claim is not "irrational".

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Barry, Newbury, Berks

John McD, your hypocrisy knows no bounds. Unlike your own self-satisfied drivel about any number of topics (2nd law of thermodynamics, platonic realm etc), the purpose of my comment wasn't to brag about my own knowledge but to point out that your comment that scientific realism is an "ad hoc theory which I pulled from where the sun don't shine" is idiotic. The realist/sceptic debate seeks to answer whether we can "know" about things that we can't see - given that god (I hope you would agree) would fall into the category of an unobservable, and that we are seeking to answer whether it is rational to disbelieve in god based on a lack of empirical evidence, the parallel is perfectly appropriate. The question is, if you can't see something (e.g. electrons, god) then how can you prove it exists. In the case of electrons, the phenomena that electron theory explains make it likely that we are either right, or nearly right. In the case of god, there are no phenomena so its a null hypothesis

JM, London, UK

John,

Most atheists, including myself, do not say: “there is definitely no god”. Instead they say: “it is highly improbable that there is a god, therefore I do not believe in a god/gods”. While acknowledging that human beings do not (and possibly are unable to) fully understand the universe, it is only rational to concentrate on observable facts rather than fictional and highly improbable possibilities. To consider that there may be something other than that which we know or understand does show a higher level of thought, but an unyielding belief in something for which there is no evidence is irrational. (Please see dictionary definitions for rational/irrational.)
Virgin births and reincarnation (not to mention talking snakes) are not metaphysical concepts that are beyond human comprehension. They are explicit, earthly notions.
They are also not possible. Atheists may not be right, but we base our knowledge entirely on that which is rational.

Lewis, Abingdon, UK

Barry,

You seem to hit the nail by saying that people are giving different definitions of God (I have my own), but then your last statement "I suppose it is hard to define that which does not exist" is a dismissal of everything unknown. That 's irrational to me. You're dismissing that which you don't know.

I'm sincerely interested to know how atheists explain the disconnect.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Why can't people just accept that regligions (all of them) are based on blind faith in a dogma, no question , no why....if you do not want to believe just do not believe. Is very simple.

B, London,

Gary... I know you're angry, but this is the dangerous nature of reactionary and polarising situations. You're attributing everything bad to the religious and that's not fair. You're also excluding all good acts of the religious, and all those religious people that do not seek to impose untoward standards on others. It's a polarised view. I've consistently said that I'm not trying to convert anyone to Catholic. I even think that imposing laws which fit my beliefs but before there is a national general consensus may be a mistake. The article here is one of compassion and love, yet the atheist response was filled with anger, hate and reactionary zeal. You seem to be more against religion for political reasons, and you confuse that with the philosophical discussion of whether atheism is a rational position to take.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

My question to all those believers of religion is that you are all worshipping a God, but in essence only one God can exist if God does infact exist. This means that Billions of people worldwide are worshipping fake idols, because each religion believes themselves to be correct so which religion is infact the truth. Is it Christianity, the most popular, Islam, judaism, jehovah witness, Hinduism (dont let me mention like the Scientologists or Kabala). I mean the list is endless.

Cant people realise that they are infact just worshipping idols and false Gods like our ancestors did all those years ago when many were worshiping Sun, Rain Gods, Etc. Man wrote all religious books to control the mass populace seeing as in the oldern days people believed whatever they were told. Religion is in my opinion the biggest lie ever told.

I dont have the answers but neither does any religion, but they make you believe with the use of the world faith. Remember, someone created GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AKOLA, London, UK

"If there exists a God, then agnostic is more correct than atheist because it at least accepts the possibility."
An extremely poor statement, there is no "more correct about it!" It is either, or! Another person who does not understand athiesm. Atheism is a disbelief in a god or gods. All gods are posited by human beings. Athiests simply do not believe in these gods. There may well be a supernatural being but us athiests do not believe that until there is proof and no human can do that so far.

If there is, hypothetically, a god then it does not matter which position the individual holds. This is true for all religions and non believers alike simply because no human can know "the will/mind/intention" of such a (powerful) supernatural being. To do so would be the height of arrogance.

The position argued by athiests is, why believe in something not proven physically or logically. Only theists have something to prove.

another (amusing) statement to come, no space here.

Russ, Reading, UK

"The argument was actually about whether or not atheism is an irrational stance. If you don't want an argument then don't come on the attack."

John, I'm challenging beliefs and assrtions, not insulting people, and I'm all up for arguments about those. I've explained why I challenge this sort of stuff in an earlier comment about ethics. When religious people go public then they should expect a public response; they don't get special privileges for their beliefs.

I found Greg's argument about his beliefs not being irrational because they were founded on a non-rational, subjective experience and the rest was rational to be quite interesting (although ultimately rather suspect).

However, I see no point in your claiming atheism is irrational by defining atheism in such a way that even arch-atheists like Dawkins and Harris are not covered by it. That's all just smoke and mirrors, fooling nobody.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

"You quote John 3:5, which is a quote of what Jesus said. Why would what Jesus said not apply to Muslims? He is a muslim prophet"

John, muslims don't accept the new testament but accept that Jesus as an historical figure was a prophet (you may want to check out what muslims think happened on the cross, for example). You're making logical links that don't necessarily exist.

A person only has to sincerely state the shahada in front of two witnesses to be a muslim, contrary to John 3:5.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

John McD (Chorlton) - despite your patronising comments about people not following the discussion, missing the point, failing to keep up etc, you are the one who keeps avoiding the issue. You're the one who's actually invoking the God of the Gaps argument, myself and others are purely justifying the rationality of the atheist position. I have no evidence to support belief in the existence in an intelligent designer / god, and in fact can think of multiple arguments which makes it overwhelmingly unlikely that such a being should exist. This does not mean that I discount the possibility or that I wouldn't be prepared to accept that I am wrong, but for practical purpose this leads me to the belief that there is no god. This is quite different to being ambivalent which is what an agnostic believes.

It's very difficult to have a rational debate with you if you ignore my points and attribute random others I haven't made to me and then answer them. A bit of humility wouldn't go amiss.

JM, London, UK

RJ -

Agnostic might include those possibilities. yes.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

David,

You quote John 3:5, which is a quote of what Jesus said.

Why would what Jesus said not apply to Muslims? He is a muslim prophet.
I've never met a priest who says you have to be Catholic to go to heaven...always open opportunity.

People are allowed to hold personal beliefs without justifying them. Unless you live in 195 Cambodia or 1942 Germany, or Mao's China or Stalin's Russia. The atheists came on here to attack a benevolent article about compassion and love. Of course that gets my shackles up.

The argument was actually about whether or not atheism is an irrational stance. If you don't want an argument then don't come on the attack.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Thank you David Jones for your Sistine Chapel point, it felt a bit like shooting fish in a barrel on this one, so I forbore. (Also I thought it would set up a whole line of quibbling about walls and ceilings.....;-)

Apparently J McD celebrates Manchester as his home town, one would have thought he would be a little more aware of European art, no matter what the propensities are for decorating churches in the US of A.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

Militant athiests! I have never heard such drivel in my life. Warn the President of the 'no-belief fundamentalist' threat immediately...

Incidently John, as you and Chorlton appear to believe that there is only one god, presumably seen through different eyes, are you both open to the possibility that there maybe a number of gods or are you atheist/agnositc to the polytheist position; such as the ancient Viking religions?

Using your logic and rhetoric it would be foolish to rule out the possibility. If that is the case, surely you are then going against your bible?

As I see it, which ever answer you choose (other than the tired thermodynamics red herring) you will be a hypocrite.

RJ, Jersey, CI,

J McD,

I have problems with anyone who can write the following:

"It isn't intellectual somersaults to say that God is not interventionist. If you have such a hard time dealing with the fact that the very essence of Faith is love and optimism, then you are free to follow your own course.

However it is strange that an atheist such as yourself feels the need to post on here and preach the nihilistic gospel.

The rest of us prefer to help and comfort those in need with love and sympathy."

And appears to be unaware of the hypocrisy and cant of what they have written. If you are a believer, even if you could "prove" your god, I wouldn't join

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

ah, john mcd.... "I'm not trying to convince you to believe in god so I have no obligation to defend my belief in him."

the point of this argument (the one everyone else is having) is that belief in god is irrational. if you want to counter that argument, you do need to defend your belief. you don't have to make anyone else believe, but you could try addressing the argument and not your own straw man.

we all agree that the atheist, as defined by you, is irrational. the problem is that your belief appears no different to that of this mythical atheist. the same atheist who could argue that he wasn't trying to make you stop believing in god, just to admit that you're being irrational. although you'll have to tell me what he thinks, as you made him up for the sake of your argument.

if you're looking for a perfect circle, folks, look no further than the average believer's argument about the leap of faith required to accept this nonsense as gospel.

jem, london, uk

Kidd,

I imagine you went to some second or third rate private school.
am I right?

You put more emphasis on how you are saying something than you do on what you're saying. You like playing the (pseudo) intellectual, throwing around random references and quotes, but ultimately when it becomes too challenging for you then you make your excuses.

You say philosophy is superficial fodder for the idle. You have to do some farm-work or something. Very Stalinesque/Khmer Rouge. How principled of you.

Isn't it a pity that Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein didn't share your sensibility...the world could have been such a simpler place. Perhaps you could join the talebs.

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

What the 26 Poles may have done to offend the capricious, and wrathful Christian god must pale by comparison to the "offences" of the 200 plus Peruvians buried by his earthquake attack on the church in Pisco the other day.

What a friend we have in Jesus, eh?

With friends like that, who needs enemies.

Patrick Milne, Harrogate, UK

Barry, You're correct about defining what we're talking about.

What I don't get is that you seem to dismiss everything, which given the breadth of what could be covered seems at least rash.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

p.s. "Kidd"

I don't think that anyone that describes Godel's incompleteness theorem as "cute" can talk to me about hubris.

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

Jem,

As I said, dissent and disagreement are perfectly acceptable.

It's the polarising hate speech that has to be watched.

The language and vitriol being used right now isn't all that different from the anti-Semitic reaction Hitler was tapping into in the 30s.

"Kidd Garrett"'s post about working the soil and dismissing intellectual thought is worthy of the Khmer Rouge.

This was a compassionate, peaceful article that received a slew of nasty posts in response.

So let's keep a lid on the hyperbole and have a civilised discussion about the issues.

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

JM

Yeh..I'm ignorant of the eminent van Straaten.

It's not my fault your explanation of your specialist subject is so shallow and impertinent. Obviously I'm vested in scientific method as I've made it my career. However I'd already explained to you why a system can't explain what's outside of its own observable horizon. It can't even fully explain itself. You should know this if you wrote a thesis on it.

"Realists maintain that the current scientific theories substantially hold true..until evidence to the contrary" - Well what scientist doesn't???

BTW, what was thesis about exactly? What were you testing? Or was it a non-scientific literary survey?

Why do you resort so quickly to name dropping and bragging instead of explaining your position?

At least you've admitted to being a materialist.

John McD, san francisco , ca, usa

ah, john mcd.... "I'm not trying to convince you to believe in god so I have no obligation to defend my belief in him." the point of this argument (the one everyone else is having) is that belief in god is irrational. if you want to counter that argument, you do need to defend your belief. you don't have to make anyone else believe, but you could try addressing the argument and not your own straw man. we all agree that the atheist, as defined by you, is irrational. the problem is that your belief appears no different to that of this mythical atheist. the same atheist who could argue that he wasn't trying to make you stop believing in god, just to admit that you're being irrational. although you'll have to tell me what he thinks, as you made him up for the sake of your argument. if you're looking for a perfect circle, folks, look no further than the average believer's argument about the leap of faith required to accept this nonsense as gospel.

jem, london, uk

John McD: Please refrain from telling me what I said and what I meant, if you wish to quote me, please do so in context. (Sadly some of the context is lacking as posts have not appeared, even so, your efforts at misconstual and misrepresentation are quite impressive). I refer you to Richard Overy about Hitler seeking to construct a "positive christianity", but here are some of Hitler's words from 1922: "My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter" You appear to object to comments that are written in plain words, is this because your mystagoguic tendencies are offended? Where is this evidence of a Platonic realm lurking, by the way? Please, show and tell, and don't say that evidently means what you want it to mean if you don't actually have evidence. Most physicists seem happy with the second law being called a law, they don't get their knickers in a metaphysical twist. It seems that nit-picking is only acceptable when you do it. Ho hum.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

John, that is exactly what i am saying.

You are the one that says god has shown himself to you, your belief is based on the principle that god is great and anyone who gives their life to him will be greatly rewarded for it.

Right or Wrong?

So therefore anyone who god has shown himself too would not even consider sinning again let alone be responsible for sick crimes because the power of god is so great and the reward is much greater.

The fact that people have seen this wonderful god and seen the rewards but have decided to sin anyway must mean that god is not so great. Therefore if god is not that great then how can he be god????

To be honest that makes perfect sense to me!!

Yes non believers are equally capable of horrible crimes but they are not the ones pretending they have been touched by a higher being. The key however is "equall" by your reckoning religious countries should have less crime and sin, but the facts never seem to back that up. So no god cannot exist.

Gary , Brisbane, QLD

[On salvation] "not at all. At least not as far as the Vatican is concerned...you don't have to be Catholic to find heaven....just might be surprised to find Jesus waiting for you there."

John-Chorlton, I think it's clear in John 3:5 what's required although perhaps we could argue about our terms.

The Catholic church may acknowledge there could be exceptions for people who are not Catholics but those exceptions are exactly that. I doubt a significant number of the ~1.6 million muslims in the UK would qualify.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Jon McD

Sorry Jon but that’s makes no sense.

All believers hold that god as concept exists, but each religion then ascribes ‘features’ to that god. So much like circles can have size or colour, people’s gods have different incantations, which makes them remarkably different.

I think we need to take a step back, and again revisit the question (I underestimate your dogged refusal to answer it):
You say you believe in one god. And seeing as people in the world follow numerous different Gods, some of whom believe in more than one god (which is a different god ‘concept’ to your solus god), what proof do you have that who/what you are worshipping is the real one, and what proof do you have that someone else's god concept is wrong?

Rob F, London,

"Yes he was part of the trinity, but the celestial God is not painted on the walls of any church I know. You know this so how about maintaining your intellectual integrity...you've been doing ok so far"

John, historic Catholic churches in Europe more often than not contain pictures of the celestial god (as a bearded man on a throne), the holy spirit (as a dove), and Jesus together in the dome of the roof. The art usually represents the heavens and earth in a hierarchical relationship.

You may want to check out the world famous Sistine chapel (via google). The celestial god is depicted as a beared man giving life to Adam by touching his hand. This is a typical depiction of god in religious art.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Barry, you are indeed correct in what you say but this article talks of the all powerful and mighty god that we all got taught about when we were younger and before most of us developed independent and rational thought.

But this whole argument is a futile one, as many have pointed out the church keep moving the goal-posts whenever any new evidence is found that goes against the words of the bible. It is amazing how quickly people like John can steer the questions towards the belief in a non specific entity rather than argue his points based upon his own catholic religion and the god he prays to, he knows he would not last two minutes in that argument and yet though he still prays, he is deluding himself obviously.

Any half intelligent person must have an open mind to the existence of other life forms on other planets in the universe, the opposite does not make any scientific sense. There is no basis for the same belief in the existence of god however, none at all.

Gary , Brisbane, QLD

Sorry...did it again.

I addressed that last post to Gary when it was meant for Dave.

Apologies.

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

Brian the pink rhino is now doing a beautiful rendition of "Love me Tender" from his nest in the middle of Jupiter if anyone wants to go and watch. Don't believe me? Well you are being irrational, your closed minds aren't grasping the complexities of the universe. Your conditioned, sceintific upbringing is stopping you from appreciating that which is beyond your comprehension...

Interesting to see the post from "Chorlton Hardy, San Francisco, ca, USA". Are you and Chorlton the same person John? Surely you wouldn't sink so low as to make up someone to give some credence to your transparent, evasive and puerile arguments.

John, again, it is not that I don't understand your arguments. I just don't agree. It is getting tiresome, the arguments have not moved on from your inability to see this fact; you seem unable to offer anything new. Dishing out personal insults (more your peers than you) or restating the same position do not make it more true.

Barry, Newbury, Berks

Not that the numbers matter for this discussion (I wonder how many people still believe Saddam was behind 9/11), but since I keep being accused of being in a minority, and for the sake of argument here are the numbers:

The 2005 Eurobarometer poll found that 52% of the citizens of EU member state that they believe in God. 18% express positive atheism, while the remaining 30% fall under agnostic.

I didn't bother looking up the US...which is obviously much more God centric than the EU, as I'm constantly reminded.

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

Hello J McD,

I have just been looking at the debate with a mate of mine and his reaction was that you are a bully, it hadn't really struck me that way until he pointed it out, but I do think he has a point.

I wouldn't say you are a rank bad hat, but I do think you need to consider the concept of Hubris.

Enjoy.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

My question to all those believers of religion is that you are all worshipping a God. But in essence only one God can exist if God does infact exist. This means that Billions of people worldwide are worshipping fake idols, because each religion believes themselves to be correct so which religion is infact the truth. Is it Christianity, the most popular, Islam, judaism, jehovah witness, Hinduis

AKOLA, London, UK

I would find Religion a more comfortable notion if it was a non-profit making Organisation.

If the pope had 5th hand clothes and all clergymen were destitue then religions noble goals would ring a little less hollow.

I'm an IFA and my best clients are priests.

True belivers find it easy to belive in anything.

J.T Squid, Manchester, England

John McD:

(Exhausted sigh) You're trying too hard, and your continuing comments increasingly have the air of a man with too much time on his hands. Have you thought about trying to get outside with the three-dimensional people?

Dave C, Belfast,

"in most Western countries the religious are a small minority" -Interesting statement, it depends I suppose on how one defines religious. If it means "goes to church" or "actively participates in religious activities" then indeed it is a small minority (and still shrinking). If it means "belief in something that you can't really define or say what it does but kind of sounds god like and hey it's comforting to think something is out there" then yes probably the majority of people fall into this camp.

The argument here seems to be confused by these distinctions. I think we can all agree believing in the smiting interventionalist Christian "God" defined in the old testament is irrational bordering on insane. However without any definition to the contrary what else are we talking about? I suppose it is hard to define that which does not exist.

Barry, Newbury, Berks

Kidd Garrett,

The universe needs to be justified.

shashank, glasgow, scotland

John McD (Chorlton), Shashank. I'm pretty sure that when I wrote my final year university thesis on the merits of scientific realism versus, for example, scepticism and constructive empiricism it was a pretty well established position within the realm of the philosophy of science. I'm sure Richard Boyd, Stathis Psillos and Bas van Straaten would all be interested to hear that their life's works had been downgraded to "ad hoc ideas pulled from where the sun don't shine". Probably it was a bridge too far for your conflakes-box philosophy, so apologies for confusing you. However, if you would like to learn more please consult any good anthology of western philosphy - or they even have a section on it in your favourite reference tool, Wikipedia!! Congratulations for confirming your own ignorance. On a separate matter, myself and others have explained why atheism is perfectly rational many times, and each time you have thoroughly missed the point. I can't be bothered anymore. Best regards.

JM, London, UK

Q: "How could God allow 26 pilgrims to die in a crash?"
A: Because God only exists in peoples minds, not in reality. As this crash occurred in the real world I'm surprised anything other was expected.

Alisha, London, UK

sorry to hear your church was subjected to an arson attack, john. however, it barely registers compared to what those with religious certainty do every day. of course, you may be a caring and considerate person yourself , but your acceptance of certainty nevertheless creates an atmosphere where the certainty of others can take them off the rails. it's no use pointing the finger at the atheists when you are guilty of the same (and, in a broader sense, that is what everyone has spent the last many days trying to tell you. you are no more rational than the perfect atheist you describe).

jem, london, uk

John McD.

I do not accept the existence of God, the concept has no meaning, it has no value, it is only of use for those who have a superstition to justify. Why is it irrational to think that no-one in their right mind would come up with the concept of god unless it were inculcated by the credulous followers of an ancient myth?

To aver that metaphysics is important is a point of view, no more and no less. Metaphysics is fascinating, but it is, in my opinion, an intellectual luxury, a playground for the idle who don't need to scratch a living from a harsh soil. Metaphysics has aesthetic value as does poetry, music, sculpture, whatever, you appear to assume that it has some fundamental importance, but this is never explained or justified other than that you need it because you have a concept of god to prop up.

To think that we need to have some sort of explanation for our existence is hubris. The universe doesn't need to justify you, you need to do that by your actions.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

"Kidd" - Yes, unlike you I'm not a charlatan. I have used some of the recursive maths that Godel provided in developing machine translation. quot;Are you imputing that anything we can imagine must have a underlying reality" No. I saying (not "imputing") conceptual knowledge..not fact based. That's the crux of the principle. You might have to invest a modicum of effort to understand it. quot;Kidd" -You rejected the idea that Einstein was agnostic by providing a quote that began ""My position concerning God is that of an agnostic". You provided an incredibly bizarre defn of the 2nd law of thermodynamics before obfuscating what I had said with waffle about Newtonian physics. You decided that most physicists don't think that that law is a mere postulate (they do).

You insisted Hitler was a strong Christian despite his own words describing Christianity as "a fairytale..invented by jews"

"Kidd" - all your posts are random nonsense written in a haughty tone. You're a pompous buffoon

John McD, san francisco, ca, USA

John, I'm not really trying to convince anyone that a deity does not exist. I'm just showing that practical atheism is rational and practical theism is irrational, by using examples. Rational people who conceive of a specific, known, interventionist god should not truly believe, they should just have a working hypothesis. Like scientists, they should allow themselves at this point to be wrong in the future.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

If atheism is irrational as pointed out by some people, theism is also irrational by the same logic.

Madhu, Mumbai, India

Gary,

I don't think it's true when you say that "in most Western countries the religious are a small minority". It's simply not true.

In any case the truth is not determined by majority decision, as a wise man once said. No doubt you'll agree with that when the statistics go against you.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Steve,

I've been engaging in debate.
You just come on and say "you're lying/insane".

It's not like my position is that unusual. Not many cosmologists are atheist. It's not like the concepts I've been discussing aren't taken seriously in academia.

But you're not interested in any of that....you like to keep things very simple. Just hold your position and cast aspersions on anyone that disagrees. That's what's sad.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Rob F, London,

You're confusing factual (physical world-based) knowledge with conceptual. The concept of a circle remains the same. The concept of circle doesn't have size or colour.

I didn't duck the question, I answered it honestly, fully and accurately. I'm sorry the answer wasn't what you wanted.
You have to consider whether you're looking for truth or merely concerned with finding apparent contradictions to attack.

If you're talking about how people practice religion, or the individual rules and traditions of it, then that's in the realm of comparative religion. That's an entirely different question and it's irrelevant to what we're talking about:
whether or not God exists and whether it is irrational to be an atheist.

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

Gary,

You think that because somebody who claims to believe in God but then does something wrong, it then follows that there cannot be a God.

That's an honest statement of the reactionary atheist tone.

It's also irrational.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

John McD and his followers are taking a disengenous position. What they are doing is attacking atheism for it's supposed irrationality and continually banging that drum until everyone gets bored instead of answering the questions being put to them It's a standard and very poor tactic.

But then again when you have an indefensible position then this is the ONLY way to argue.

I find it very sad that a so called physisist is reduced to this argument. It doesn't bode well for his academic works.

Steve, Huddersfield, UK

Lucho - if you had the courage of your convictions then you would engage in rational debate. But you don't. You merely cast insults and say it's all obvious...that anyone who disagrees is insane and absurd.

You bypass all debate and vilify dissenters, much as a religious extremist would. What's the essential difference between you and a Talib or a neocon Christian evangelical? You're both militant zealots attempting to quash intelligent discourse and debate to enforce your own worldview on everyone else.

You add no value, just polarise opinion and encourage fear and anger.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

John,

The reason why this is such an emotive issues is the fact that while in most western countries the religious are a small minority they feel the need to inflict their own morals and standards on the rest of us non-belivers, this does not go down too well with many of us especially considering some of the most evil behaviour in the world is commited in the name of god or by people who consider themselves the messengers of god. If you cannot see this then i suggest you open your eyes wider.

As for your debate i can honestly say that in this day and age the believe in god is one of the most incredibly un-intelligent things that any person is capable of. It makes no logical sense whatsoever knowing what we know about the planet we live on. As many people have pointed out the thought of the Roman gods are now ridiculous but at the time i am sure there were people as commited to the idea as you are to your own god.

Gary , Brisbane, QLD

David,

I think we are now quite convergent. I agree that everyone should be open to the empirical evidence, and I really don't think that it's normal for Catholics or Jews to think God might be interventionist in everyday world events.

Where I think we diverge is on what it means to religious in the Catholic or Muslim sense. I think your expectations might have been corrupted on this matter, and this isn't the forum to discuss such things.

But on the pertinent points it seems we agree, which is nice after all the arguing. You don't have to be Catholic or Muslim to be thoughtful and spiritual.

I'd be interested in talking to you more about it all in a different channel...but maybe in the next world.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Gregor -
"Try reading this article again but replace the word 'God' with 'Flying Spaghetti Monster'"

Good grief can't you construct an argument on your own? Stop quoting Dawkins, read what's been posted here over and over again and then .....THINK. You know, FOR YOURSELF.

Confusing the absurd with the merely contentious is a playground tactic. Grow up.

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

"Clearly they're not the same *concept* of god and the proposed metaphysics are very different. I imagine the average muslim would be horrified at the thought of worshipping the trinity"

Actually Muslims are much more comfortable with the notion of us having the same God then Christians tend to be.

"he does not accept the metaphysical purpose of Jesus by definition so, in the lingo of Christians, she is not 'saved'" - not at all. At least not as far as the Vatican is concerned...you don't have to be Catholic to find heaven....just might be surprised to find Jesus waiting for you there.

Chorlton Hardy, Manchester, UK

John,

I feel my point is valid, you yourself have said that you know god exists because he has shown himself to you. I for one would have to say if there in fact a god then he would have to be an amazing entity and i am sure you would agree.

But my point is that many people claim to have been touched by god and yet still inflict pain and suffering on people. So the answer must be that A.) They are liars and have never been touched by god or B.) god is not that great. But the thing is, If god is not that great then he cannot be a god and if these priests are liars and lead a congregation anyway then religion is a sham.

You may believe that your god is the same as the muslim god (and all the other gods in the world) but that is more of a convenient belief, like most religious people franticly trying to justify their faith you seem willing to clutch at any old straws to keep in the game. If they are the same god why is the message so different? What about the Roman gods?

Gary , Brisbane, QLD

Look, I have defined words according to their literal meaning, which is helpful when having this kind of discussion.

Conversely Barry has tried to define what I believe in, and that's simply wrong. If I tell you I believe there is one God, it's really meaningless for you to tell me I believe in two.

If you want to say that you are atheist and that you are not sure whether there is a God or not, then I will say you are agnostic and that you are using the word 'atheist' incorrectly.

"Kidd Garrett" - You've been consistently wrong and consistently misunderstood the concepts put forward. Your posts generally make grammatical sense, but they seem to always be a melange of borrowed and poorly understood ideas. Are you a real person writing these, or a computer with access to a database of quotes, randomly composing annoying messages?

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

David Jones,

I think you are refering to Jesus, and since he walked the Earth it is likely he had a beard.

Yes he was part of the trinity, but the celestial God is not painted on the walls of any church I know.

You know this so how about maintaining your intellectual integrity...you've been doing ok so far.

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

Well Russ,

If there exists a God, then agnostic is more correct than atheist because it at least accepts the possibility.

Good grief.

Paul - as has been stated, most people intuitively see these truths, but since you are trying so hard to avoid them we have to break it down. Obviously you don't want to think too hard, do you?

JM - if you'd read the Black Swan (hmmm), then you wouldn't have said what you had about the 2nd law or about dimsmissing an idea that is unproven.

Chorlton Hardy, Manchester, uk

A beautiful article.

Benjamin, Fairford,

Barry, You don't have to be Christian to be religious.

Of course believe that there might be a God then you are agnostic.

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

Jon McD, you say:
"If [people] conceive and believe in God, then it must be the same one [as every other faith believes in]. It's like asking if you are thinking of the same circle as me."

This is not the same at all. Its possible to think of infinite different circles - you can have big ones, small ones, blue ones, red ones, solid ones like a coin, or 'empty' ones like a wheel, single ones like a zero, or multiple ones like the Olympic rings.
One aspect of any circle will always be the same (its shape), just like there is a constant between anyone who belives in god(belief/acceptance of the supernatural ), but for something to be the same as something else all aspects have to be the same.
Please answer the question again, and I've changed it slightly to make it harder to duck:
Seeing as people in the world follow numerous different Gods what proof do you have that you are worshipping the real one and what proof do you have that someone else's god does not exist?

Rob F, London,

John McD, you wrote:

"Barry wants to define it as something else and then ridicule it. Well it isn;t up to Barry to define what I believe in. It's a playground tactic."

Is it not a playground tactic when you do exactly the same thing?

Being reasonably adept with words, you really shouldn't have set this one up, unless you are, as I suspect, an atheist agent provocateur intent on showing up the position of the believer.

C'mon, 'fess up.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

A lot seems to have been made of my post of "Einstein was an atheist". This was in response to Chorloton's " Einstein was religious". Obviously you agree Chorlton was wrong from your postings. What I meant was that he was a non-believer when it came to the god of the bible. This is illustrated in his own words: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.". If you want to call this stance agnostic that's fine it doesn't really matter.

Barry, Newbury, Berks

Gary,

I disagree with your assertions about the church, but I'm simply not going to get into a political and historical debate with you about it. That's not what we're arguing about it.

Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot were all atheists and were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions of people. Does that mean that they must be wrong and there must be a God? Or are you arguing that the fact that anything bad ever happens shows that there cannot be a God?

I'm sorry that you are angry but that isn't really helpful in the context of what we are talking about.

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

Jem -

I'm not trying to convince you to believe in God so I have no obligation to defend my belief in Him. I'm merely arguing that atheism is irrational as they cam onto this board to attack.

"atheists do believe in free will" - some might, a lot don't.
Paul Owen clearly does not believe in free will, or else his mockery of it was deceitful. It was my reply to his post that I think you allude to.

Since you say you're agnostic then we don't have any truc. If you don't like my beliefs then fine. I don't really need them to justify my actions or politics, unless perhaps we get down to the deep philosophical motivations of treating each other well.

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

Gary,

"New age nonsense" to believe that Muslims and Christians worship the same God? And Jews also? Muslims have Jesus as a principal prophet. The entire Ba'hai faith is based on this idea.

You can argue comparative religion all you like..of course there are differences (the Trinity being a big one). But the idea that there is a singular concept of God remains.

It's silly to ask a question and then reject the answer as too clever. Perhaps you all should think harder about the questions (although that would involve having some real curiousty).

The Chorlton thing - I'm not sure what the benefit is of having an alter-ego in an anonymous forum, but whatever....it's an unanswerable accusation.

JM you've repeated the 'God of the gaps'attempt again. Even David has recognised that that is not true here. You just can't engage, can you?

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

"there's really no point in posting here if you're going to ignore all the posts already made". john mcd. irony.

atheism, as defined by you, is irrational. the problem is that there is no one who fits the description and we are arguing only about whether belief in your god is rational. atheists do believe in free will and are not trying to smother thought. they do not say there is nothing beyond what you see. science cannot answer why we are here (and does not try in a metaphysical sense). and nor can your mumbo-jumbo.

you seem to accept that we cannot understand our existence, so why not apply your own logic and accept that even if the truth were revealed to you, you couldn't understand it? you can't even be sure of the revelation itself as you can't rely on your own senses.

this does not mean there is no god. but you're a fool to believe in him. a dangerous fool. belief is dangerous for everyone. proven every day. be agnostic and be nice. embrace uncertainty.

jem, london, uk

Gary: "Is your god the same god as every other faith believes in" and Chorlton: "Islam and Christianity are very similar. It's quite easy for me to see that we worship the same God."

Clearly they're not the same *concept* of god and the proposed metaphysics are very different. I imagine the average muslim would be horrified at the thought of worshipping the trinity and she does not accept the metaphysical purpose of Jesus by definition so, in the lingo of Christians, she is not 'saved'. Also, the 'revelation' of the muslim prophet explicitly supercedes the teachings of Jesus. In short, they are fundamental contradictions of each other now even though they share an evolutionary ancestor.

The notion that muslims and Christians are essentially worshipping the same god is new-age nonsense put about for political reasons by liberal Christians in the upper echelons of the church.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

I am not aware of telling any vile lies John, as i said i was raised a catholic (I am irish) and spent my youth going to Mass and confessing my sins. My Priest was engaged in a sexual relationship with a married member of the congregation, That is not a lie. But it was a big turning point in my life, as a young boy with no father to find out that the person who i had looked up to and confided my most private of thoughts was actually lying to me and was a complete hypocrite was enough. The condom thing, was that a lie? Do the catholic church now approve condoms? Are they helping to cut the spread of AIDS in Africa? Can a 15 year victom of Rape get an abortion in Ireland now, has the catholic church released its grip on that thorny issue yet? How much money will the vatican be paying to victims of child abuse this year John? How many of the perpetrators will keep their jobs None of this are lies John, these are the real issues and this is why nobody can convince me there is a god.

Gary , Brisbane, QLD

Correction ... before I get any nit-picking comments from our friend in San Fran, I of course meant substitute "no humans are blue" with "god does not exist". The converse is obviously fallacious (to most people).

JM, London, UK

John, I'm not really trying to convince anyone that a deity does not exist. I'm just showing that practical atheism is rational and practical theism is irrational, by using examples. Rational people who conceive of a specific, known, interventionist god should not truly believe, they should just have a working hypothesis. Like scientists, they should allow themselves at this point to be wrong in the future.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

"Unless you think that because the inquisition did bad things then that precludes the existence God."

John-Chorlton, I wonder if any of the Inquiisition staff had an authentic 'revelation' at some point or were metaphysically 'born again' following a baptism? Presumably not if their behaviour on behalf of their god was indicative of their source of morality.

It doesn't necessarily mean their god doesn't exist, of course. It just makes atheists like me question whether concepts of 'revelation' or metaphysical changes to the 'spirit' are actually meaningful in the practical world.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

RJ - I answered several times. Not all were posted, but some were.

"Do you believe there is only one god or many?"
One

""Is your god the same god as every other faith believes in?"
If they conceive and believe in God, then it must be the same one. It's like asking if you are thinking of the same circle as me.

"If your answer to that is no then what proof do you have that you are actually worshipping the real one and what proof do you have that someone else's god does not exist?"
Null question, see my last answer.

"Is it just a coincidence that your god happens to be the god of choice in the country you were raised in? Would it have been the same god had you been raised in country that 99% of people followed a different god?"
Null question for the same reason.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

John McD

What on earth are you talking about the 2nd law of thermodynamics again for? I haven't mentioned anything about your favourite 2nd law of thermodynamics other than to point out that you seem to be more than happy to argue the toss about it, while less inclined to make any sensible arguments to justify your own religious position?

What's that? You're only asserting that atheism is irrational vis a vis agnosticism? Oh sorry, it's because we're not in a more mature forum where you can discuss things like adults (AKA bible group). Change the record mate, and tell your alter-ego Chorlton to do the same.

To borrow some advice from Chorlton (or was that you, I forget sometimes), "if you aren't going to engage in the debate then please do your shouting elsewhere" (perhaps a more mature forum). Your selective responses, arrogance and tediously repetitive and fatuous arguments are tiresome.

JM, London, UK

Gary,

I'm sick of all intolerance and bigotry, yours included. Militant atheists with their quest to smother philosophy and every vestige of rational, higher thought, however compassionate and humane (see article that his thread is reacting to).
You're refusal to address fundamental metaphysical questions precludes further progress. You are creating the mirror image of the religious bigotry and zealotry that you are part of the reaction against.

Dissent and disagreement is perfectly acceptable, but the vile lies and vitriol that people like you propagate have consequences. e.g, my local church, St Francis in North Beach, suffered an arson attack just over a week ago.

This article was preaching love and compassion, yet the zealous materialist nihilists like yourself have come on here to attack and mock. I've attempted to have a grown up discussion about the difference in beliefs, but with one or two notable exceptions have failed to get a grown up response.

You add no value.

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

JM - is there a question somwhere in your post? Or an argument defending atheism as rational? Some semblence of a reasonable, grown up discussion?

There isn't is there?

I thought your strange idea about "scientific realism" was alluding to all the posts going on about how a law is a law because something has been observed, rather than proved. I apologise if I was mistaken and it was part of some other meaningful insight that went under my head.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Correction - I'm not sure that the 2nd law being a tautology is universally accepted amongst physicists. Not sure why/how I wrote that.

It is generally accepted though.

John McD, san francisco, ca, USA

Gary,

No you're not addressing the question of whether God exists. Unless you think that because the inquisition did bad things then that precludes the existence God.

That's why we're discussing metaphysics, see...and not comparative religion.

Chorlton Hardy, Manchester, UK

John McD
What on earth are you talking about? I haven't mentioned anything about your favourite 2nd law of thermodynamics other than to point out that you seem to be more than happy to argue the toss about it, while less inclined to make any sensible arguments to justify your own religious position?
What's that? You're only asserting that atheism is irrational vis a vis agnosticism? Oh sorry, it's because we're not in a more mature forum where you can discuss things like adults (AKA bible group). Change the record mate, and tell your alter-ego Chorlton to do the same.
To borrow some advice from Chorlton (or was that you, I forget sometimes), "if you aren't going to engage in the debate then please do your shouting elsewhere" (perhaps a more mature forum). Your selective responses and tediously repetitive and fatuous arguments are tiresome.

JM, London, UK

Russ, Ryding, USA

That's not a classic argument, that's you being confused.

Atheism precludes Theism, Agnosticism does not.

Is it a full moon, or something?

shashank, Glasgow, Scotland

John you have taken the moral, philosophical and even scientific highground for nigh on a month now. How about now answering Gary's (Brisbane) straightforward and pertinent questions?

Rather than spin off on your usual sophistry, I would point out that Gary has only asked 6 easy questions, some of which are closed and so only require a yes or no answer.

If you want people to take you seriously please make your answers succinct and on point. You will lose marks for not evidencing your answers (where required) and credibility if you become offensive.

Please note, you will not be judged on your opinion - you are entitled to that - but on how you answer the actual questions.

RJ, Jersey,

John, I'm not really trying to convince anyone that a deity does not exist. I'm just showing that practical atheism is rational and practical theism is irrational, by using examples. Rational people who conceive of a specific, known, interventionist god should not truly believe, they should just have a working hypothesis. Like scientists, they should allow themselves at this point to be wrong in the future.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

I merely said it was badly written and I wouldn't be surprised if it caused more confusion than it resolved, if I am recommending popularisations of cosmology I tend to point at, for example, John Gribbin who has a lucid style and a good grasp of the subject. I'm a bit rusty on this, there's probably something more up to date, but hey, river, universe, step in....

Please don't demean the topic with glib dismissal or appeals to Plato. I honestly don't mind your attempts at barbed comments, but I would prefer something that has some meaning. Your concept of, for example, the Platonic ideal as related to the circle is puzzling me. Are you imputing that anything we can imagine must have a underlying reality, as in Plato's concept of an eidolon, of which this world is merely a shadow? I got the impression that Plato saw that argument off himself.

Godel is cute, not really my field, but he seems to plough his own furrow, do you follow his math?

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

"You accept the logical possibility, but think the idea is so absurd that it is negligable."

Fabian, the idea of the Christian god, or the Islamic god, or Zeus and Olympus, or any other really detailed theistic concept *is* absurd unless perhaps one has been socialised to regard it as normal, or indoctrinated, or one has had a 'road to damascus' conversion of some sort. Let's face it, do you ever entertain the idea that Zeus or Ba`al Hammon might be the true god? Aren't you inclined to snort, just a little, when druids dressed like a poor man's Merlin descend on Stonehenge every year at the summer solstice?

A metaphysical explanation of a creator is not, in principle, absurd but I think it would need to be a hypothesis rather than a worldview to avoid being so.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

JM, London, UK

Your ad-hoc idea about "scientific realism" is just that, an ad-hoc idea that you've pulled out from wher the sun don't shine.

It is anti-scientific method to remove investigation or discussion of something that is merely unlikely. If we did that then science would never go anywhere.

This is rather like the misuse of Occam's razor that's been used a couple of times in this discussion. When people invoke Occam's razor they're usually being lazy and don't want to tackle a difficult issue. If there is no conceivable experiment which could distinguish between competing explanations then you are out of the realm of science and into philosophy. And it's incorrect to apply Occam's razor in cases such as those.

In any case, the thrust of your argument was misplaced as I was talking about the idea of the 2nd law being a tautology, which is universally accepted amongst physicists.

Johnny McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Does anyone actually expect to "win" this argument? Anyone who believes in god does so because they have been conditioned to do so by their parents and / or society during their upbringing. God believers infuriate us atheists, because they will not and cannot listen to reason. Atheism is the true, correct state of mind for a rational, self aware, intelligent human being. By default, anyone who believes in god is has none of these qualities. Religion started back in the days when it was beyond human capacity to explain natural things like seasons, disease, weather, day and night, so we created a 'god' to explain these things. Religion now plagues the human race like a heriditary mental illness. People who have immaginary friends we call 'insane'. I use the same term for anyone who believes in god. If only everyone was atheist, we could get on with fixing the real problems in the world instead of wasting our time on this pointless argument, and the wars that go with it.

Lucho, Glasgow, uk

oh no, another charlaten.

JM - I use the 2nd law of thermodynamics everyday and know it holds true. Time has always appeared consistent to me. You've utterly missed my point.

You've got to listen to what is said instead of jumping to the wrong conclusions.

I was introducing the idea of the 2nd law is a tautology. The implications of this entail the perceived forward flow of time (the quiddity of our human existence), being merely a human perception. In fact ironically, by idly dismissing the chance of our ever percieving the flow of time to change, yourself and Barry have actually confirmed the tautology thesis.

Barry..please read through the previous posts so that you understand where I'm coming from because I really don't want to explain everything to you again. I will if I have to, though.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

David....I'm not trying to convince you that the kind of miracles that you are talking about occur. Nor that prayer will cause God's intervention outside of one's own communication with Him.

I'm simply not trying to convince anyone of that. I'm not even trying to convince you that there is a God, you know that. I won't proselytise my religion to you. In a better, more mature forum I might discuss my evidence for God, but since I'm not trying to convince anyone here then I have no obligation to enter into that argument.

I'm arguing that the position of atheist, as opposed to agnostic, is irrational. Atheists jumped into this discussion with they're message and I'm challenging it. They are the mirror of the religious militant and need to be challenged.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Such claptrap as I've ever heard. There is no God...Only people with a lust for power who try to use our own emotions and virtues against us to dominate our societies.
Those pilgrims, poor deluded fools, died because something went wrong and there really wasn't a supreme being there to care.

You might have guessed - I'm a passionate athiest.

Dave Eyley, Plymouth, UK

"The argument from the beginning has been about whether or not it is irrational to adopt atheism as a stance." Well, in a manner of speaking, as I imagine just about all the atheists here are not included in Greg's special definition which you also seem to be adopting.

You'll no doubt be pleased to know that you can remove Richard Dawkins from the list of 'atheists' after the first in his latest TV mini-series. He very clearly announced his lack of absoute certainty so you can add him to the list of 'agnostics' with the rest of the rational (at least in respect to atheism) atheists like me.

As far as lists go, I'm inclined to make two myself: one for non-rational believers who look quite irrational on the face of it when the phenomenon of subjective 'revelation' is assessed across sects and religions, and completely irrational believers who have had no subjective 'revelation'.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

JM -
I never said that because something cannot be disproved that you should believe it . I've told you that I'm not trying to convert you to Catholic, merely explaining why atheist as opposed to agnostic is irrational. I'm sorry you don't believe that, but it's true.
This doesn't mean you should believe in the spaghetti monster, but it does mean that you should remain open to something divine and/or a deliberate creator. It's lazy thinking otherwise. I know these concepts aren't easy, but science and philosophy rarely are.

Why is there order? Why can we conceive it? There is evidently a platonic realm where, for existence, mathematical concepts exist. Evidently we are seeing shadows of the full truth (the 2nd law tautology was an example). You define God as something ludicrous and then use it by association to condemn any divinity. That is irrational. You've fallen prey to the shallow demagoguery of Dawkins, from whom you seem to borrow your arguments

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Chorlton, actually, in most of my (numerous) posts I have made perfectly logical points, none of which (contrary to what the uber smug John McD seems to think) have been satisfactorily answered as yet. The fact that the only comment which has spurned a response was the one where I was having a bit of an exasperated rant just illustrates the selective nature of the theist's argument process. I'm all for having a rational debate about these things but it seems to me that the only rational arguments are coming from the one side, but I'd be happy to be proved wrong.

John McD, you obviously have a good grasp of science (as you have ceaselessly been trying to demonstrate) however this hasn't in any way helped you answer most of the questions posed to you. Your standpoint seems to be that since we don't fully understand everything, therefore there must be a god. It doesn't strike me that you are any more a Catholic than an agnostic ... but are too entrenched in your position to accept it

JM, London, UK

Barry, JM,

You are trying to make a square peg fit a round hole. John McD has explained his position many times but you persist in being obtuse about it and misrepresenting him.

He's not saying you should be Muslim, or Jewish or Christian, he's saying you should be agnostic. Kapiche?

You are desperately trying to apply Dawkin's God of the Gaps argument even though it is inappropriate. It's transparent.

However you really give the game away by talking about the idea of any divinity being absurd. This is what you really mean. You accept the logical possibility, but think the idea is so absurd that it is negligable. By introducing metaphysical questions John McD is asking you to think about what a divinity could be, as well as acknowledging the weird and fantastical nature of our universe.

By resisting this you are rather like the dumb bully in class mocking the smart kid who's telling you something you never considered. "There are other dimensions? - you're Insane!!"

Fabian, Cologne, Germany

No athiest has ever discounted the possibility. All we say is that we disbelieve the existence with regard to any god that a human being has posited (or can posit) and would like some firm evidence for such an existence. So far there is none. That is not irrational.

Theists constantly misunderstand athiesm. Athiesm is a disbelief in a god or gods and that's it. Nothing more nothing less. To be a-something in this regard means that someone has to posit something. If the reasoning for something has no logic or is contradictory then it is false and therefore one has no reason to beleive.

Most athiests have started off as theists or agnostics.

If god turned up tomorrow then every athiest on the planet would stop being an athiest.

Russ, Reading, UK

David, you have highlighted the use of anthropomorphism in art. These images of a 'magical, bearded man in the sky' do not necessarily represent what theists believe God to be.

Rather, this image of God in human terms might be better understood as a symbol or an analogy that points us towards better understanding of God.

Tessa, Oxford, England

John McD -

You might as well be explaining the stock market to a rhesus monkey. They aint gonna get it, mate. Take a break.

Chorlton Hardy, Manchester, uk

John McD,

Surely you don't expect them to be able to engage in anything that wasn't in "The God Delusion", do you?

You're not dealing with autonomous thinks here...

nor are they equipped or willing to make any intellectual effort to understand the universe. That's why they like Dawkins...simple soundbites and simple explanations so they no longer have to think.

Chorlton Hardy, San Francisco, ca, USA

It's apparent that the only book Barry, Paul and JM have read is the polemical "God Delusion". Worse, they have no curiousity to read anything else.

Chorlton Hardy, Manchester, UK

Paul,

Most cosmologists believe our future is non-deterministic. In fact a recent paper (I think it was by John Cramer) describes an experiment involving a split beam with feedback shows that quantum states in history are set whilst those in the future are non-deterministic. Look for it on the arxiv org website.

I'm not sure if you fail to grasp the notion of deterministic vs non-deterministic or if you do and find the latter absurd. Either way it's not me that is being arrogant and lacking imaginiation, or an appreciation of the complexitiy of the conceptual nature of our universe.

You've been consistently wrong on the science and the philosophy...you've been consistent only in your refusal to engage at a serious level the pertinent conceptual questions. If you did (and you have come close), you'd be forced to accept that atheism is an irrational stance.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

""The divinity" is immune because people have defined it outside of the physical realm"..it always has been.

Barry wants to define it as something else and then ridicule it. Well it isn;t up to Barry to define what I believe in. It's a playground tactic.

Johnny McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

JM: "The false conclusion you draw, however, is that if something can't be refuted by science then it must be true."

John really isn't saying that at all; he's saying some here are not recognising that science is just one magisterium, and that the god hypothesis* may* be true (or conversely, that it's not definitely false).

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Paul,

Apparently you do not believe in free will. Do you think that this world is completely deterministic? That from the moment of the big bang everything is laid out and cannot be changed?

Not many cosmologists feel that way, and I'm not sure if any would say they are certain of it. Once again you are mocking what you don't understand. Whatever is new or strange to you in your little world, you call 'absurd'. Just like your certainty in atheism, it is another manifestation of your irrationality.

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

Paul,

"as far as I'm concerned science does explain why I exist"

You fail to differentiate the physical from the metaphysical.
You also miss the intrinsic limitations of scientifc methodology (Godel's incompletness theorem, which you ignorantly dismiss).

Science by definition can't go further than our observable, testable world. We do however have recourse to knowledge external to our observable world......the concept of the perfect circle is an example. It is conceptual, non-factual knowledge that is granted from an external source.

However much you claim to accept metaphysical questions, you don't actually engage or discuss them meaningfully. If you did you would not be atheist but agnostic, if not Christian/Muslim.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

"Gary, you're addressing your own prejudices, not the points that I have made."

But i am addressing the question of whether god exists or not which is the basis for this discussion not whether Einstein was an atheist or not.

If faith was a private belief then we would not even be having this discussion but i like the majority of the people in the western world am getting pig sick of having the religious minority dictate to me how i live my life and how i entertain myself. This gives us non belivers the right to challenge your perceptions and faith and try our hardest to point out the utter hypocrysy in them.

The world will be a much better place as soon as religion dies a natural death, unfortunately that will not be in my lifetime but it will happen.

Gary, Brisbane,

"But since you mention it, the fact that Einstein did not believe in a bearded magician in the sky does not negate his religious feeling. Most religious people do not subscribe to the cartoon atheists like to draw of God."

John, you ought to travel around Europe, we have a staggering number of historic churches here and most of them contain images of a magical, bearded man in the sky. It wasn't atheists who did the paint job, you know. :)

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

I'd also point out that the classic argument in the recent posts has been to attack atheism as irrational without using the same attack against theism. I wonder why?

If

Atheism = irrational
Agnosticism = rational
Theism = ?

Those people that are theists that are saying that athiesm is irrational and agnosticsm is rational (and therefore the only way to go) please explain why they hold a theist position.

Russ, Ryding, USA

David Jones,

God's effects are all around for you to see. He gave us this world this universe and He gave us free will. The results are what you see before you.

Chorlton Hardy, Manchester, UK

David,

Good points but your one about the crime rates is really more sociological. I think there is a lot of evidence that traditional religious schooling has a beneficial effect, whether Jewish, Christian or Muslim. On a national scale then obviously there are lots of other factors.

Also we have to make a BIG distinction between the way people practice religion and the basic philosophical questions behind it.

I'm not trying to convince anyone here to be Catholic and I'm certainly not going to get into discussions about religious policy.

The argument from the beginning has been about whether or not it is irrational to adopt atheism as a stance.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Try reading this article again but replace the word 'God' with 'Flying Spaghetti Monster'.

You can put your faith in anything for which there is no evidence for existence. But will it protect you from such tragic events?

Gregor, Amsterdam,

John McD, I've read it thanks - it is indeed a good book. In fact, it's very much in the spirit of the atheist position in that one aberration can disprove a previously held maxim (which is what causes scientific theories to be recalibrated in the light of new evidence). Doesn't really help you with your assertion that because something can't be disproved then it must be true, and is irrational not to believe in it. Saying that "no humans are blue" is a reasonable statement to make in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. Given the sample size, this is overwhelmingly likely to be the case, so we call it a fact. Obviously, finding a blue person would give rise to a reassessment of the accuracy of the statement, but it hasn't happened yet so we're pretty happy with it. Saying I do not believe there are any blue people is not therefore irrational on the basis of evidence, but we'd be happy to retract if proved otherwise. Substitute "no humans are blue" with "God exists". Regards

JM, London, UK

Why does there have to be such a grand theological debate every time 'god' lets something happen? These questions could be answered by any Sunday-school attendee and perhaps they should; we have been given the gift of choice. We make our choices and these choices have consequences, both imperceptible and perceptible. Even in events that are apparently without human cause, the impact of these events is determined by subsequent choices of the sufferer and his peers. If one wants to understand then one should act and reflect, always inwardly but not necessarily in this order. Understanding should then be forthcoming...

Justin M Teixeira-Vaz, Tavira, Portugal

Paul,

"John McD what we observe is indeed limited. "
"How is it arrogant or irrational John McD to say that the universe is only what we can observe? That is the very essence of rationality surely?"

Well logically, if the universe is only what we can observe, then what we observe cannot be limited.

Maybe you didn't mean what you said.

Chorlton Hardy, San Francisco, ca, USA

"John, for the 50000th time, how is saying science is enough a misconception?"

Because it is a closed system, a subset of rational thought that does not encompass metaphysics or questions of our nature and existence. Because it won't tell you why you exist, and as proved by Godel, cannot explain your nature. This has been stated in various ways, multiple times throughout this discussion.

Keep up at the back.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

In my first post in this discussion I remarked upon how Theists were prepared to do extraordinary intellectual somersaults in order to justify their faith. Subsequent posts have nicely proven my point. They've tried all of their tired and cliched excuses from god of the gaps, divine revelations, god moves in mysterious ways etc etc. It would be laughable if it were not such a pointless waste of human time, energy and intellect. Not one of these believers has come up with a rational, provable reason for believing in god though I give points for imagination to John McD.

Anyway, I'm off on holiday now so I'll leave you all to it. After all we only get one life so I may as well enjoy it. I don't find the prospect of turning back into space dust at all frightening. We have won the lottery of life by being here at all at a time and in a place when such discussions are possible. There was a time when John's Catholics would have tortured me for having my opinions.

Have fun all.

Paul Owen, Birmingham, Uk

Barry - if you think that it's a "fact" that all the evidence we have is anti-God...then I don't know what to say to you.
Either you don't know what a "fact" is, or you have a very peculiar definition of what God is, or you're just incapable of having a rational discussion.

You've gotten most things wrong in this discussion, from my points about the 2nd law, to Einstein's views, to consistnetly ignoring my point that I'm not trying to convince you of God, but negating your certainty in atheism. If you can't have a grown up conversation then it's no wonder you aren't progressing.

Could it be that you haven't even understood the subtler points of your Bible, Dawkin's polemical "God Delusion"?

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Barry and JM...I recommend you read the Black Swan by Nassim Taleb...might help you with your approach to rational process, for both conceptual and factual problems. I'm serious..it's a good read for anyone.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

"So the divinity is indeed immune to scientific attack." It's immune because people have defined it out of the realm of scientific enquiry. However, its *effects* are not immune if it, as many people claim, involves itself in the minutae of our lives.

If it exists as, say, the Christian god then Christians as a group should stand out like a city on a hill (to borrow a biblical phrase) in terms of their nature. In very broad terms, countries with similar policical systems should have lower crime rates if the population is ostensibly much more religious.

If miracles (for which people are beatified as saints by the Catholic church) occur then one might expect amputees to have their limbs restored occasionally. The power of prayer (for intervention) ought to yield positrive results in tests.

And so on.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

John McD, another point is that you misunderstand scientific realism. Realists maintain that the current scientific theories substantially hold true. This is not to say that parts or all of them aren't wrong, but it means that we've done a pretty good job so far in explaining the observables and most of the unobservables so we can be happy that we're pretty much right. Sometimes some information comes to light (excuse the pun, such as in the etheric theory of light) where we were wrong and it results in a recalibration of our current thinking. This is in stark contrast to "divinity" as you put it, whose foundations have been decimated through scientific and social advances over the last couple of thousand years but where believers have been singularly unwilling to accept they were wrong and move on. It strikes me that you just want to understand our existence - but you can question the reasons for existence without believing in "god" in the conventional sense.

JM, London, UK

John:
"['God'] is at odds to all observed and verifiable evidence". Yes I did say that, it is a fact not an argument. You say it is the opposite of the truth then give one piece of verifiable evidence, just one, to illustrate your counter argument. You claim things and never back them up. Is this because you are unable or unwilling?

Gary: "John McD, are you going to get round to answering any of the questions..." - Of course he isn't. Like so many religious apologists he claims intelectual and/or moral superiority but when actually presented with any counter argument conveniently ignores it. I think this may be to do with the mental conditioning that persisits within organised religions. His arrogance, intolerance and one-dimensional arguments are getting rather tiresome. Shame, I thought for a while he may have had something to say.

Barry, Newbury, Berks

Paul, Barry,

Neither of you have engaged me on the conceptual questions raised by my point about the 2nd law being a tautology. Neither have you engaged on the points about us relying on the non-physical Platonic realm.

You say you're open to these metaphysical questions, but you resist engaging in them. All I'm getting is the tired, borrowed and completely inaccurate accusation of "using the God of the gaps argument"...over and over again.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

No John McD, just because something can't (currently) be explained by scientific method, it doesn't necessarily follow that it isn't true. The false conclusion you draw, however, is that if something can't be refuted by science then it must be true. I don't know how many times myself and other posters have pointed out the fallcy of this argument through the use of examples like fairies, Brian the Elephant, unicorns etc, which I know you find puerile and fascetious but nevertheless haven't provided a satisfactory response to. Please explain to me why belief in divinity is any more worthy than belief in the existence of fairies, given neither can be refuted scientifically? OK so you are seeking to understand the meaning of life, and that's fine. The difference is I only claim to understand explanations for phenomena that stand up to rigorous scientific analysis, you clearly don't. Christianity (or "Divinity") isn't immune to scientific analysis any more than scientology or paganism.

JM, London, UK

Robinson, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire-

You should read the posts.
I'm not trying to convince you to believe in God, I'm saying it is irrational to discount the possibility. That you should be agnostic instead of atheist.

This is made explicit every fw posts..please read what's been said before jumping in.

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

Paul,

Are you suggesting that anything that cannot be tested scientifically must be false and dismissed?

If that is what you think then you evidentally do not understand scientific method. This is a bit like your misuse of Occam's razor.

As I have explained multilpe times, science is a subset of rational thought that is applicable only to the measurable, physical universe. So the divinity is indeed immune to scientific attack.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Barry,

"(divinity) is at odds to all observed and verifiable evidence".

Not only is that not an argument, Barry....it's the opposite of the truth.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

John you are making a fundamental mistake: “we do not fully understand the world around us. Therefore there must be a God”. The former does not entail the latter.

The main difference between those who "believe" and those who do not (atheists) is that the latter have no need to invoke <<insert supernatural being here>> in order to feel a sense of wonder and awe at the complexity and beauty of the universe around them. However, much as the "mystery" of fire, thunder and lightening or the motion of the moon and stars around the earth was once explained in theological terms, it is now understood through science. In future, I hope that many of today’s mysteries will also be understood similarly.

It is sad that anyone should die in a road accident, but to try to attach meaning to it through the actions of a mysterious force will do nothing for the advancement of road safety in the country concerned!

Robinson, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire

John , I don't for a moment doubt your sincerity I just don't agree with you. An atheist is someone who subscribes to the theory that god does not exist. That is a perfectly rational stance to take. Most atheists have veered between atheism and agnosticism. I have myself.

The points you make are valid I agree with regard to a philsophy of life, I happen to think however that there is no need to infer a god because of our lack of knowledge even if you are right and there are some things we will never know.

And your arguments are contradictory. You argue about metaphysics and about the things that science cannot answer. But what does religion have to offer? It presents certainties where none exist. It claims divine authority to prescribe people's lives for them based on a lie.

I can accept to some extent your argument that we cannot know the meaning of our existence. But religion claims to have answers, answers which are bogus. if there is a god he isn't the god of the bible.

Paul Owen, Birmingham, Uk

Yet more astonishing arrogance from John in his reply to Barry. Now you're even trotting out the free will excuse. You're contradicting yourself now John. One minute you're saying that you don't believe in the bearded man in the sky image of god the next you're following Catholic doctrine about free will and all that tripe. They also say of course that he's omniscient but how can he be omniscient and we still have free will? How can we do what we like if God has already foreseen it and pre-planned it? And, this being the case, how can we therefore commit sin?

And god is more than just an abstract concept. You're trying to paint us as all materialists with nothing in between which is more sophistry and twisting the argument to yourself. We're quite capable of grasping the fragility of our existence. I don't see it as mysterious however. We're in a vast universe on a tiny rock. If you lack the imagination to grasp that without invoking the supernatural that's up to you.

Paul Owen, Birmingham, Uk

John, your arrogant and patronising posts are becoming a little tiresome. Even we none scientists can understand the scientific method believe it or not. Scientists can be wrong too you know. Einstein was about quantum mechanics.

Science is indeed about tests and discovery of patterns. care to apply any tests to your god? Oh you can't can you.

Here you are lecturing us about science and rational thought and yet you are a catholic. This is an organisation that used to torture people for coming to the wrong conclusions.

I do not believe in the god of the bible, the god of Catholicism. According to everything you say neither do you. All you've argued is there might be a creator or some being we cannot imagine. Then again there might not be. There could be explanations we are destined never to know. But that's not the god of the bible, that's not the god that smites people and cares what we do on Sundays. Are you really a Catholic?

Anyway, I'm off on holiday

Paul Owen, Birmingham, Uk

"how is saying science is enough a misconception?" - Paul Paul, let me explain again. I can understand how a non-scientist such as yourself might be in awe of the power of scientific methodology, but I'd like to help you to get a better perspective on it. Science is a formal system of tests and discovery of patterns based on logical, rational thought - philosphy. Science is a subset of rational thought concerned with the physical manifestation of non-physical rules. Where do the laws of nature reside? How is the human intellect capable of reaching these ideas? Your confusion is understandable, but your resistance to the questions is reactionary and militant. I have a hard time sympathising with that. BTW, Godel's incompleteness theorem shows that you are insufficient for you to explain yourself without some external input. If you think you can explain your own consciousness then you probably don;t understand it.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

John McD, are you going to get round to answering any of the questions that have been asked you relating to this article or are you going to carry on clouding the subject with talk of physics and Einstein?

Do you believe there is only one god or many?

Is your god the same god as every other faith believes in?

If your answer to that is no then what proof do you have that you are actually worshipping the real one and what proof do you have that someone else's god does not exist?

Is it just a coincidence that your god happens to be the god of choice in the country you were raised in? Would it have been the same god had you been raised in country that 99% of people followed a different god?

Gary , Brisbane, QLD

Barry - Actually,it's pretty clear that nyou actually don't appreciate what I'm saying. Seriously, you don't.

Most people in the world do, though...and that's good.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Paul Owen,


Yes I can speak for the majority of physicists on the subject of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and I can safely say that "Kidd Garrett"'s definition was made up nonsense. Is that a problem?

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Paul - you said science can explain everything. This is wrong for several reasons.

Science is limited in scope and cannot explain the conceptual nature of the universe. It doesn't explain where logical laws come from. It cannot answer metaphysical questions, although it can help us to see what those questions should be.Even in the measurable physical universe in which science operates, it is insufficient. Godel proved that we don't have enough information to explain ourselves.

I know you find this challenging, but this isn't sophistry or misdirection. Perhaps you find such questions about our nature unimportant, but don't use atheism to proscribe them. That is irrational.
I've consistently argued that atheist as opposed to agnostic is an irrational stance based on your overstatement of the scientific domain and ignorance of metaphysical philosophy.

"You're reduced to saying, we don't understand why things happen properly so therefore there must be a God" - that's a lie.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

These are indeed two of my quotes Chorlton:

"John McD what we observe is indeed limited. "
"How is it arrogant or irrational John McD to say that the universe is only what we can observe? That is the very essence of rationality surely?"

What are you implying? There is no incompatibility there.

We are saying that we need to have evidence before we accept something as true, especially something like a god for which there is no evidence whatsoever and a lot of perfectly rational reasons to doubt his existence. The only reason you believe in the god of the bible is because you are conditioned in to doing so by his prevalence in our culture. Were it not for that it probably wouldn't enter your head. That's the way the human brain works.

Is there a theoretical possibility that there is some entity responsible for creating the universe, even running it in some way we can't imagine? Of course there is. But there's no evidence. God is a simplistic human explanation that'sall

Paul Owen, Birmingham, Uk

John McD: "To find the idea of a divinity absurd is irrational and ignorant.". No it's not. To not believe in something ill-defined, illogical and at odds to all observed and verifiable evidence to date is none of these things. I can't believe that someone who professes to be a scientist would think this.

You claim to have demonstrated this illogical position. No you have not. It is not that I do not understand what you are saying it is that I do not agree.

Yes there are things that I/we do not understand and perhaps never will; some questions may have no answer. That does not make 'God' any more likely.

Barry, Newbury, Berks

As a practical atheist, I really don't care too much whether the universe was created by a supernatural being as long as creation and creator are not mixed. It's religion that bothers me. The leap from the possibility of a created universe to the specifics of (say) Christianity is where I get involved.
Afterall, we have to answer the question "How should we live?" in the material world and the answer really matters. Religions usually demand a high price in behaviour and I think it is reasonable to subject them to considerable scrutiny and insist on a very high level of justification before we accept their demands.
As Gary (Brisbane) points out, if some priests who presumably have had a subjective revelation of TrUtH are not impressed enough to act wholeheartedly on it then I wonder how reliable subjective revelation actually is in underpinning the socially constructed part of institutionalised religion. Afterall, it's *certain* that millions of believers are wrong.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

"sudden, unmerited death."? The purpose of life is to find ones way through right and wrong aiming to find peace. It is the very instability of this life which makes that process of differentiating between right and wrong a true, unique experience, for all of us. If idealism was achieved in this life then it defeats the purpose and challenge which makes us as people grow. True peace can only be found in the next life, and while here, lets stop finding fault or misrepresenting the nature of this life.

Farrukh, Woking, UK

Barry,

Very few people have taken "the God of the gaps" theory seriously for the past couple of hundred years. If that were so, why do religious scientists constantly try to fill in those gaps?

You say you're prepared to talk metaphysics, but my attempts to broach those questions have been met with enormous resistance in this forum.

Of course a divinity seems unlikely when you give Him a James Mason voice, white beard and staff. Equally you could ridicule the idea of 13 dimensions by saying that they are filled with green custard. It doesn't make them any less real.

People mock what they don't understand..witness the genius that is "Kidd Garrett" responding to my point about the 2nd law being a tautology.

To find the idea of a divinity absurd is irrational and ignorant.

John McDonagh, san francisco, ca, US

Andy of London -
Barry - Kidd Garrett's quote began ""My position concerning God is that of an agnostic" - Einstein.

Not athiest, agnostic. His own words.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

"...yet not one sparrow falls to the ground without your Father's consent." (Jesus in Matthew 10, 29)

Chris Jackson, London,

I'm not trying to persuade you to believe in God - how many times must I say that?
I'm showing that the atheist stance, as opposed to agnostic is irrational.

I never proselytised religion to you...conversely many atheists here have ranted ad nauseam about what they claim to be so certain of.

You're refusal to address fundamental metaphysical questions precludes further progress. You are creating the mirror image of the religious bigotry and zealotry that you are part of the reaction against.

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

2 Paul quotes:

"John McD what we observe is indeed limited. "

"How is it arrogant or irrational John McD to say that the universe is only what we can observe? That is the very essence of rationality surely?"

Spot the difference.

Chorlton Hardy, Manchester, uk

What an entertaining read this has been, i am disapointed to have reached the end, i could of carried on reading all morning!

I was raised a Catholic and every Sunday had to confess as sins my own private thoughts and ask god for forgivness via a proxy he choice to lead me on the right path. It turns out that when this proxy was not listening to an 11 year old boys darkest sins he was having sex with a married member of the congregation.

If you want proof that god does not exist then look no further at organised religion which includes as leaders some of the most greedy, depraved, unintelligent, perverted, vengefull, hateful, unreceptive, dishonest and moraly bankrupt people in the world. If god's glory is so great and he has shown proof of this to those who have asked then why is it that people who puport to be touched by god are capable of inflicting pain on others?

If god revealed himself to those that asked and they did not like what they see, is he really that great??

Gary , Brisbane, QLD

hmmm....mathematics and the platonic universe.
Have any of you ever seen a perfect circle?

How ever hard we try to create one, we never get it perfect. Yet as a concept it manifests itself in physical ways...as do the mathematical rules.

Plato saw that the sensory world cannot be the sole source of our (conceptual, not factual) knowledge.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

John, I referred to google in respect of Chorlton's enquiry about entropy.That was all. You are assuming I get my in formation from those sources as usual without any evidence for this assertion. But then we all know what your attitude to evidence is don't we.

And Shashank, when did I say that I own science? I even acknowledged my limited knowledge of thermodynamics.

I find it fascinating how keen you all are to change the subject constantly away from the complete lack of evidence for your god. It doesn't matter how many ways you can show our incomplete understanding of the universe that still doesn't show that god exists. Your argument is still crass and unintelligent however you try to dress it up.

You're reduced to saying, we don't understand why things happen properly so therefore there must be a god. That makes you no better than the ancients who worshipped the sun. If you're a scientist I hope you're more rigorous at work.

Paul Owen, Birmingham, Uk

David,

Islam and Christianity are very similar. It's quite easy for me to see that we worship the same God.
By the way I do appreciate that you are honestly and responsibly trying to communicate here and that stands out amongst the others.Where does our conceptual knowledge originate from (the perfect circle, God, etc)..
The idea of a malevolent, benign or benevolent creator..that we are here for a purpose or that we are a computer simulation or somesuch....they are entirely plausible ideas. To write them off without evidence is irrational. Those who think them absurd don't seem to be fluent in philosophy or cosmology and are not disciplined in the application of logic. Demagogues like Dawkins whip up reactionary fervour by conflating such ideas with the genuinely absurd and by confronting easy marks.
We are witnessing an over-correction. The religious right here in the US are as much to blame as Dawkins, but the divinity won;t go away because of this, nor will the perfect circle

chorlton, Manchester, UK

Gary, you're addressing your own prejudices, not the points that I have made.

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

RJ,

If I'm sounding like a broken record it is because people like yourself keep on misrepresenting what I've said.

You said "By the fact that one cannot disprove a particcular god does not make it irrational not to believe in him"....right....but I never said as much. What I actually said(over and over again) was "Atheism is an irrational stance because you cannot disprove a God COMBINED with the fact that your understanding of the universe and your place in it is so poor that to pretend otherwise is a mistake."
That doesn't mean you should believe in the spaghetti monster, but it does mean that you should remain open to something divine and/or a deliberate creator. Obviously you think such a thing is ludicrous, but I do not. Having worked my whole career as a physicist and computer scientist I still have huge unanswered questions about the ourselves and the universe..but apparently it's all obvious to you guys. I can't trust your gut that such an idea is absurd. I know better

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

Fascinating discussions, too bad for the personal attacks and arrogance exhibited by some, but then - it is a hot button topic.
With regard to the fate of those Polish pilgrims- I imagine the families of those unlucky soles will be consoling themselves with the belief that God has called them to a "better place" as a reward for their blind devotion. Whether that "better place" is playing free golf on fluffy white clouds or relaxing with seven virgins for a killing well done - depends one which god (story). Maybe he was just preoccupied watching football.The frustrating thing for us non-believers is how you believers can spout fantastical, irrational, and illogical gibberish to support your beliefs. Example, Noah's Ark. When confronted with with the rediculousness and impossibility of the collection of every terrestrial species , the "account" becomes a "parable." Someone earlier made the good point, what about the dinosaures? Good read- A History of the World.... by J Barnes

RMR, Toronto, Canada

Barry,

You keep setting up a false opposition and it's boring.
Try to engage the actual debate and we might get somewhere.

Chorlton Hardy, Manchester, UK

John McD, if you're going to try and be patronising towards me, then at least get your facts right. I've never even mentioned Einstein in this discussion. His thoughts on god's existence or otherwise are irrelevant. They are as irrelevant as is the 2nd law of thermodynamics. This is just a subject you introduced in the mistaken belief that it somehow reinforced your argument. Or maybe it was to distract from the fact that you don't really have an argument except the tired old cliche the god of the gaps.

And now you are apparently able to speak for all scientists too. How gifted you are. It makes me wonder why you need to believe in god at all.

A divine creator is indeed immune from scientific attack and that's because he is a figment of your imagination John. Scientists cannot attack what they cannot see, cannot feel, cannot detect or even prove mathematically.

If indeed you are a scientist I hope you are more rigorous in your discipline than you are in defending beliefs.

Paul Owen, Birmingham, Uk

No Chorlton, as far as I'm concerned science does explain why I exist. I don't find it at all unsettling that I am probably just a chance occurrence in a random universe. Religion was invented to comfort people like you who need 'meaning.' The simple fact of the matter is however that you insist on finding meaning where none exists. If you are happy to live in that delusion because you find it comforting then good for you but I think you're wasting a large part of your life worshipping the non existent when you could be making the most of the only life you'll get. I find that very meaningful.

And John you persist in ignoring anything you find inconvenient to your belief. Thus your belief is not only irrational but based on wilful ignorance.

I know you find it hard to accept that your faith is irrational hence the cheap lawyers trick of trying to turn the tables and call atheists irrational. It ain't working. We have the facts on our side you have nothing but faith in a fantasy.

Paul Owen, Birmingham, Uk

1) We are fallible. So we have to be open-minded, and the concept of "ultimately proven" is bogus, and we can gain knowledge without it.

2) We should believe in things which pass all tests, so it is wrong-headed to keep coming up with extra evidence which is irrelevant to the tests.

3) Statements which can't be tested are worthless, so to say that a thing "cannot be disproved" - i.e. cannot be tested - is nothing to be proud of.

To say religion has been proven to be false would be bogus. To ask for evidence would be wrong-headed, unless religion claimed something testable. The pilgrims in the coach-crash don't falsify religion, but illustrate the lengths religion has to go to to remain an unfalsifiable theory. The various comparisons to a celestial teapot, fairies, and so forth, are the right line of argument. Religion is not a discredited theory because of any evidence that it has failed tests. There can be no such evidence, because it's an unfalsifiable theory, and that's worse.

Felix, Nottingham,

I just realised that I mistakenly attributed a quote from "Brian" to Barry.

I sincerely apologise....big mistake. I'm drunk.

Sorry Barry. Sorry Brian.

Who's more offended?

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

JM,

Do you have an argument or are you just ranting?
If you aren't going to engage in the debate then please do your shouting elsewhere.

Chorlton Hardy, Manchester, UK

"God is the all-powerful creator of the Universe, whose plans cannot be understood by human beings;" I knew this would appear as the ultimate answer and I find it not satisfying. If these people had been required "somewhere else" why did they have to suffer such a violent death? Could God not have 'taken them' in their sleep?

Guido, La Linea,

As God doesnt exist, it's a bit hard to pray to him/her/it!

Paul S, London, United Kingdom

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

"Atheism is an irrational stance because you cannot disprove a God"

No we cannot disprove a god, neither can we disprove the Great Jelly Monster who lives on Pluto, or the toothfairy or Santa Claus - just because we can't disprove something doesn't mean it exsits.

The onus is on YOU to prove something exists not on others to disprove it.

I am an atheist in God, the toothfairy, santa claus and the Great Plutonian Jelly Monster and will remain so until someone provides some concrete evidence to the contrary.

At that point I may become Agnostic to any of them and will finally believe in any of them when there is no longer any reasonable doubt as to their existence.

This is called rational thought.

Give it a try - its quite eye-opening once you get used to it :)

Cliff, Marseille,

The power of the human brain is much larger than the "God" that the brain has created. The concept of God was created to keep a leash on barbarians and people without a conscience. While it has succeeded to some extent on keeping a check on savagery, it has brought in its own set of issues. I have found that the strength of faith is something beyond explanation - which is why I say that the power of the human brain is limitless. There is no point convincing theists that God does not exist. The best way ahead for the world is to engage the strengths of both theists and atheists in a non-confrontationist manner. In the world we are in, this is becoming ever difficult. The only thing I have to say to theists is this - Look at most dangerous issues we face in the world today - war & terrorism - these are perpetrated by people having strong faith in God. We will soon see a day where everything will be wiped out in the name of God - maybe realisation will dawn then

Madhu, Mumbai, India

RJ, JM, Mike,

There's really no point in you posting here if you're going to ignore all the posts already made and just repeat falsehoods about what the non-atheists here believe, as well as puerile points that have already been made and countered numerous times.

Kidd Garrett, your Einstein quote states explicitly that he wasn't atheist, although I grant you he wasn't a conventional Christian, he did claim to be deeply religious, which is all I said about him. So where precisely is the misrepresentation? Here is another Einstein quote: ""My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.".
Please don't trot out quotes and then misrepresent them, ok?

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

"Why else are apparently sincere, committed believers in the Middle East likely to be Muslims and apparently sincere, committed believers in the US likely to be Christians? Doesn't that phenomenon on its own make you question, and question hard?"

Excellent Point David, John, Greg and others you have argued your point for some days now and are adamant in your belief that you have not been brainwashed into believing what those around you belief, you claim that your god has proven his existence to you personally and that your faith is not a result of your upbringing or environment but a real connection with god. i would like you to answer a straight questions if you do not mind?

If you were born and raised in Iran do you think that you would still believe in the same god as you do now or do you think that a different god would have shown himself to you?

Gary , Brisbane, QLD

John McD,

Apologise for what John? It is you who is being pedantic here and increasingly aggressive as well. Very Christian. You are quibbling over semantics, something you have done since the very start. This is your one and only tactic. The 2nd law works. The fact that there are theoretical possibilities that it may not always work is all very interesting but irrelevant.

Why are you so keen to avoid the actual topic of conversation here which is the existence or otherwise of your invisible and undetectable deity? Why won't you tell us what it is that has so convinced you of his existence? Afraid it might undo your so called scientific credentials for which we only have your word?

We have you cornered actually don't we. You're reduced to claiming that your god is a theoretical possibility because we don't completely understand the universe. It's not much to cling to is it? No wonder you keep changing the subject to thermodynamics and the beliefs or otherwise of Einstein.

Paul Owen, Birmingham, Uk

Having just read all 255 comments, I think now I'll go to bed. Unfortunately; being an insomniac, agnostic, and dyslexic I fear I shall lay awake all night wondering if there really is a Dog.

RMR, Toronto, Canada

Oh dear oh dear. You're all getting really desperate now aren't you.

John you have a tendency to make assertions and statements without actually backing them up with an argument. You are now imagining that I have said something that I didn't say.

I didn't say that evolution is a law of physics I said it was a theory. Neither did I 'try to squash them.' I merely pointed out that the 2nd law, whilst the subject of discussion and debate as all scientific laws and theories should be, is something that can be seen to work.

You did what all theists do which is find the tiniest gap in a law or theory and squeeze god in there. Then you even have the cheek to talk about scientific method, lazy thinking and lack of logic. You're the one who believes in an imaginary man in the sky to explain things. They did that centuries ago when they didn't know better. What's your excuse oh sage of all things logical and scientific?

Religion tries to stymie science John it always has.

Paul Owen, Birmingham, Uk

John McD, I do it find it amusing when you criticise other's logic. And correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it you who is saying that things must be true because that is the way you see it. That's your only argument for your faith. You believe in a god for which there is no evidence other than your own subjective experience. Human feelings and perceptions as you have acknowledged are faulty. Yet you then argue that because there is a theoretical and philosophical question mark over a law which works day in and day out for all of us that allows you to imply the presence of a god. This is a standard tactic of theists. It took the Catholic Church 400 years after all to admit that they had been wrong and Galileo was right. And of course then there is the nonsense of ID. Your argument about thermodynamics is just a more sophisticated version of that.

Since you are so fond of talking about logic and applying science when it suits you, why don't you apply the principle of Occam's Razor?

Paul Owen, Birmingham, Uk

JM,

The mysterious nature of why and how abstract rules can have such an relationship with the physical world is not minutae nor umimportant.

The fact that you all want to take maths and logic for granted and brush over the deeper philosophical questions is exemplary of the atheist myopia. Is Mathematics descriptive or prescriptive? Is your view of time accurate or merely an illusion based on your very existence? Could the entire universe be observer dependent as posited by Paul Davies?

I only brought in Einstein to demonstrate the uselessness of deferring to other people's opinions. But since you mention it, the fact that Einstein did not believe in a bearded magician in the sky does not negate his religious feeling. Most religious people do not subscribe to the cartoon atheists like to draw of God.

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

John, for the 50000th time, how is saying science is enough a misconception? That is your opinion it doesn't make it a misconception. In your opinion there is room for a supernatural cause for the universe. But that is just because you assume that gap is filled by something supernatural and godlike based on zero evidence. It's not scientific
And you have not shown that "atheists do not have a grasp on the science" neither have any of us claimed to have a monopoly on it. We have admitted repeatedly that we do not fully understand the universe, that isn't to say we never will. Science is constantly making new discoveries. It has repeatedly forced people like you to recant and accept new theories and discoveries.

You claim to be a catholic but the god you believe in, as revealed to us on here is very different to the Catholic god. Your god might exist because we don't know everything. Is that the catholic position? Your position is more like an agnostic but I doubt you'll admit it.

Paul Owen, Birmingham, Uk

"How could God allow 26 pilgrims to die in a crash?
Because there is no God." - Barry

So because we don't live in a perfect world there is no God?
Free will..mistakes.

Does the fact that we cannot draw a perfect circle mean that we should abandon the idea of circles? That the abstract concept does not exist and should be expelled from all discourse?

Should we reduce all expectations and aspirations to what you see in your everyday life? Are you as good as it gets?

We have free will and are responsible for ourselves. We are Children of Men. We can move to become more like God, or we can be closed and desolate. There exist many righteous people who are not Catholic, who are Muslim, agnostic..and yes atheist. But you have to grasp the mystery of our fragile existence. Love is the key, and I only see cynicism and fear in what I'm hearing from most of you here. Why else would you attack such a benign article?

I'm as imperfect as you. God bless, sincerely

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

"How could God allow 26 pilgrims to die in a crash?

Because there is no God." - Barry

Does that mean there's no humanity either?

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Oh John. Do you really think we're going to fall for your latest nonsense about Godel? You're just saying the same things over and over again, employing more and more esoteric references in the hope that we won't know what you're talking about and give up. Are you that desperate? It seems so. And anyway some obscure metamathematics academic has got nothing to do with a superior being coming to help me out. Unless of course you think of yourself as the superior being. You certainly seem to have a god complex. Are you sure you believe in a god of the bible and not just yourself? I'm not a mathematician or a scientist. Never claimed to be. I studied law.

This is just another attempt to change the subject. It ain't working. No matter how many ways you find to prove that our knowledge of the universe is incomplete which I accept it still doesn't prove that there is a god. All we're asking for is evidence. You're an intelligent guy, why are you refusing to acknowledge this?

Paul Owen, Birmingham, Uk

"Einstein was religious, does he trump your friend?"

er...no he wasn't - see 'the god delusion' for references.

Andy, kondon,

Kevin, for the 45265th time....no that is not my position.
Try reading my posts.

It is the fact that to deny a divinity as the cause of this fabulous universe around us (both the physical and the abstract, yet very manifest natural rules), is based only on your misconception that science is enough.

As has been shown, atheists don't have much of a grasp on the science they claim a monopoly on. You don't appreciate the big mysteries and you overstate the domain of science. This is why the atheist stance is irrational.

Also the atheists here seem quite far outside the norm of society...very polarised and militant. Unfortunately that's teh world we live in today. Bush neocons and Dawkins atheists.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

How could God allow 26 pilgrims to die in a crash?

Because there is no God.

Brian, London,

Paul,

Kurt Godel proved that no system is intelligent enough to understand itself without use of external axioms. For you this means that you can't explain your own nature without some superior being coming in to help you out.....although I dare say you could do a lot better if you went further than wikipedia and popular pulp polemic to get your education.

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

Paul...you keep claiming to own science but you don't have a monopoly on it. John Mcd has shown you don't really have much of a grasp on it.

shashank, glasgow, scotland

Paul,

"To say it is not a law is patent nonsense..... Desperate tactics which make you look foolish. "

I wouldn't expect you to be capable of an apology.

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

Chorlton, you're merely asserting that I'm wrong and that my position is irrational. As a practical atheist - rather than the rare kind identified by Greg who is apparently absolutely certain god doesn't exist (and let's face it, even Dawkins isn't one of those) - I'm not seeing the irrationality. Feel free to expand on it to back your assertion.

In the meantime, religion in the 21st Century dies the death of a thousand cuts for all the real life reasons I've pointed out so far, and many more. For some believers, they have built a huge, inverted pyramid based on the possibility that a subjective 'revelation' of an existing concept is authentic, and for others it's almost certainly pure social conditioning. Why else are apparently sincere, committed believers in the Middle East likely to be Muslims and apparently sincere, committed believers in the US likely to be Christians? Doesn't that phenomenon on its own make you question, and question hard?

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

What we are seeing here is the "God of gaps" syndrome. In that god exists where our understanding of a particular matter is not complete. Perhaps (probably quite likely) we will never know the answers to many question or not be able to prove many things; this still doesn't make "God" any more real or any more necessary.

And no, atheism does not preclude discussions on profound metaphysical questions, if anything it encourages them. By removing the bronze age myths, superstitious drivel and mental shackles introduced by religion people can engage on seeking true enlightenment.

As much as I admire the sophism and side-tracking employed on this thread it would be interesting to see the results of the religious apologists using a fraction of the mental capacity required to perform the mental somersaults employed for their deity justifications in really reading, truly thinking about and perhaps even answering the question posed by other posters on this thread...

Barry, Newbury, Berks

Manchester....my hometown.

The pertinent point about the 2nd law for me was that it may be a tautology, and that what Paul thought was so obvious may be only be true from his human experience. The idea that the forward flow of time may be due to an indirection, and that there is a much bigger, more interesting picture (possibly beyond our grasp), is a subtlety beyond the atheists here.

The atheist, as opposed to the agnostic, is certain of himself and his materialistic world. If only they would apply the rationality they claim to have a monopoly on.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

John McD in S Francisco argues that atheism is irrational because we cannot prove God does not exist. Proving a negative is always difficult. Believers can take any old anomaly - the apparently incurable illness that miraculously goes into remission - and claim it for their own. I prefer to think that an atheist is a rational sceptic. Man has always wondered about how and why we are here and religions have grown rich and powerful by exploiting this basic desire. Atheists do not accept that what cannot be explained entirely in terms of science must therefore result from the divine. It might be comforting to be proved wrong but until such time as a deity reveals himself/herself to me I start from the basic position that most religious belief is born of fear and hope but very little fact.

Kevin Miller, Tonbridge,

Barry - Kidd Garrett's quote began ""My position concerning God is that of an agnostic" - Einstein.

Not athiest, agnostic. His own words.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

BMike of York,

I don't think these atheists believe in free will. I think they think everything and everyone is deterministic. We're all just ants building a giant anthill, see.

That's the barren poetry of their worldview. Don't try to challenge it or you'll be bashed down. They're as zealous as the most extreme religious militant. As intolerant of dissent as the Taliban or the neocon Christian evangelicals. Just as Hitler and Stalin were politically diametrically opposed, yet convergent on tyranny....so to the atheists with their quest to smother philosophy and every vestige of rational, higher thought, however compasionate and humane (see article that his thread is reacting to).

Apparently none of them studied physics at school, but that won't stop them stating the ever so obvious: that there is nothing more to this universe than what they see at the end of their nose each day of their life (and don't try to explain what they see, it just IS).

Don't you want to follow them?

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

Barry, You want evidence to warrant questions about divinity? Your existence.
I never used Einstein to justify religious thought, I was saying that it's silly to defer to others opinions and that we should rationally find our own. Read the posts where I first invoked his name.

However, an appropriate quotation from him is this:
"There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle."

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

"Apparently none of them studied physics at school, but that won't stop them stating the ever so obvious: that there is nothing more to this universe than what they see at the end of their nose each day of their life (and don't try to explain what they see, it just IS). "

And this is coming from a practicing member of an organisation who's core believes stem only from a book that was written two thousand years ago and has repeatedly ignored and suppressed (using violence if necessary) any evidence to suggest the book is wrong.

A paid up member of an organisation who would rather see a 16 year old girl die of AIDS than have her protect herself with a freely available condom cannot be in a position to lecture anybody on their inability to look at the bigger picture.

Gary , Brisbane, QLD

What an entertaining read this has been, i am disappointed to have reached the end, i could of carried on reading all morning!

I was raised a Catholic and every Sunday had to confess as sins my own private thoughts and ask god for forgiveness via a proxy he choice to lead me on the right path. It turns out that when this proxy was not listening to an 11 year old boys darkest sins he was having sex with a married member of the congregation.

If you want proof that god does not exist then look no further at organised religion which includes as leaders some of the most greedy, depraved, unintelligent, perverted, vengeful, hateful, unreceptive, dishonest and morally bankrupt people in the world. If god's glory is so great and he has shown proof of this to those who have asked then why is it that people who purport to be touched by god are capable of inflicting pain on others?

If god revealed himself to those that asked and they did not like what they see, is he really that great??

Gary , Brisbane, QLD

Chorlton you say "science might help you build a plane, but it won't ever show you why you exist." - Neither will religion (I assume that is your implication). Unlike science which helped you build a plane religion you have nothing out of it.

The point to note her is science doesn't try to answer metaphysical questions of this nature, it can give some steer in the forms of understandings of the universe, evolution etc. and can show what is not right but it doesn't profess to have all these answers. I can't see any posts where anyone has said science can answer questions like this.

I don't understand why you would even bother to post something like this unless you had nothing constructive, sensible or positive to say about your own position.

Barry, Newbury, Berks

Wow...

Everybody has a very interesting points and theories especially coming from Paul Owens and John McD. However if God is to exist I think now is the time for him to appear to put an end to all this bickering!!

Needless to say I'm neither a believer or a non believer but I still find all this very amusing keep the comments coming in and we'll see a new Holy War!!! LOL

Tad, Scotland, Scotland

You're now protesting too much twice John. I wouldn't mind but it was a stupid argument the first time.

I don't have to disprove your imaginary friend. It is for you to prove that he DOES exist given that there is no evidence to support your belief. That is a rational stance. You claim you understand science and the scientific method, so why don't you understand that? It's not complicated.

And this is just a cheap lawyers trick to divert attention from your own lack of an argument. The best you've come up with is that you have evidence that has convinced you but of course you won't tell us what this is. I think we can guess why.

Then you tell us that because we don't understand the universe we should be agnostics not atheists. So are you an agnostic? By your own argument you should be.

I'm an atheist because there is no reason to think that there is a god. Indeed there is a wealth of evidence to suggest the opposite. That is rational. You ignore what you don't like.

Paul Owen, Birmingham, Uk

Twisting, sidetracking, ducking, dodging. This is getting a bit pathetic.

Trying to steer the focus onto thermodynamics, entropy, Einstein's personal views or whatever is the rather deperate attempt of all religious apologists present to deflect the fact that they do not have a leg to stand on when it comes to justifying their belief in god. I suppse you have to clutch at whatever straws you can get.

Let's be clear, it is up to those making a claim to prove it. It is NOT for others to disprove it. We can all make outlandish claims that are not falsifiable. It does not make them true. So once again:

Let's hear one shred of proof.
Give one example.
Give any reason whatsoever.

To offer any credence to the existence of "God" as defined in the bible. It shouldn't be difficult but there has been not one post here that can meet any of these criteria, surely someone can at least try?

Barry, Newbury, Berks

Hello RJ,

I appreciate what you are saying, I have tried to avoid emulating the christian attitude and have attempted to be patient and forbearing.

I persist in the discussion because I dislike the idea of such expressions remaining unchallenged. By and large I agree with the sentiment in the words often attributed to Voltaire:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Sadly the expression of the religious often goes far beyond mere (or not so mere) words. If the words are allowed to pass as if they were unexceptionable, then actions may follow. If the degree of opposition to such thinking is made evident, then the actions may be avoided or ameliorated. I am not temperamentally an appeaser, they are not getting my intellectual Sudetenland. (Oops).

Freedom of speech is marvellous, but freedom carries responsibility. For ignorance to triumph, all that is required is that the wise do nothing.

Say Hi to the dog for me.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

Michael, did you think that up all by yourself or is it just something you picked up at sunday school? Methinks probably the latter, but have a gold star anyway for being the most attentive brainwashee in the class. While I will accept that there may arguably be psychosomatic benefits to robotically repeating mantras forced down your throat from a young age, it doesn't contribute to their truth value, or indeed sense.

I don't need to think of a dubiously true historical event of some bloke dying on the cross, who probably didn't even exist anyway (and even if he did we have no reliable source of evidence which accurately records the circumstances surrounding his life and death), to show me forgiveness, compassion or reconciliation. Please, that is so smug, complacent and patronising it's almost funny (but not).

By the way, why is death such a tragedy? I thought you guys had eternal life to look forward to in the kingdom of heaven? Or have you been a naughty boy ... ??

JM, London, UK

"Kidd Garrett" -you said "So you want to take issue with the great majority of physicists do you"... the answer is no, because the great majority of physicists (I am one) would agree with me. "Science" is derived from the latin "scientia", meaning to know. It is a branch of philosophy, discovered by Newton, Copernicus, Gallileio etc. It is a very successful branch of philosophy, but nevertheless under the umbrella of rational thought. I'm sorry "brief history of time" was to difficult for you, I can suggest some easier titles if you want. I never suggested that we should expect our experience of time and entropy to change from day to day, you crassly inferred that. Your description of the 2nd law was ludicrous and nowhere near the truth. If you don't understand something then ASK instead of guessing and polluting the discussion with errant nonsense. Would you like an explanation of the tautology point? Garrett, you are out of your depth.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Paul - Einstein was not an atheist and never said he was. He was simply complaining about people attributing specific and erroneous interpretations to his religious beliefs, much as you are trying to superimpose atheism onto his words.

Paul - you don't understand. There is ZERO evidence that the 2nd law is not a tautology. It almost certainly is. I wish you would try to understand what it actually means before guessing and then attacking it. Thankyou, but I do not need google and wiki to get my physics education.

Maths is really taken for granted by atheists like you.
Almost every mathematician and physicist regard maths as being a set of abstract ideas on a transcendent Platonic realm that can manifest effects in the physical world. But why are they there and why can we understand them? A divine creator, (as opposed to the mythical bearded magician that you like to attribute to us) is immune from scientific attack. Science is merely a (effective) branch of philosophy.

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

Yes I know that I can expect entropy to appear to increase in my world everyday, thankyou. In case it wasn't obvious I do understand that. I first learned the 2nd law aged 15 at highschool in the UK.

The questions I actually raised about the 2nd law are important and valid cosmological questions. There are a lot of physicists basing their PhDs around such questions. They relate to the nature of our existence in the universe. It's really only the educationally infirm...scientific pretenders, who ridicule and misunderstand such questions. I just thought that since you're all so smart you might have been able to follow, especially since I've explained it over and over in different ways.

The atheists here are almost uniformly unreasonable, looking desperately to find faults where non exist, and not at all focusing on finding the truth. Haven't you got anything better to do?

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Which ever way you look at it, we're all going to die at some point. This tragedy underlines the fact that it's better to be ready. The idea that God is going to step into a world which is merrily going it's own way and supernaturally stop all suffering is both illogical and incompatible with a doctrine of free will. His response to suffering and injustice is a perfect one - to die a sacrificial death upon the cross, reconciling our imperfect world with a perfect Father. In doing so, the very real presence of God can be with us in our sufferings. Justice is satisfied, and forgiveness and reconciliation have been made possible.

Michael, York, UK

Russ....I'm not trying to convince you to be Catholic. I'm explaining why it is irrational to be atheist. Perhaps you missed that subtle thread of the discussion.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

paul - science might help you build a plane, but it won't ever show you why you exist.

Chorlton Hardy, Manchester, uk

And just to drive Barry's very well made point home, the atheist's perfectly rational response to such a conundrum would be that given our current (albeit imperfect) knowledge of how the solar system works, while we cannot categoricaly disprove Brian's existence, it is sufficiently improbable for it to be given serious consideration.

JM, London, UK

Kidd,

So how does that make Einstein atheist??????

Verity, cowtown, WX

James B, In written disagreements with Bohr for example Einstein used the phrase "He [God] does not play dice". He was not literally refuting the idea that a large white-bearded deity was throwing cubes with numbered sides. He was using this as a metaphor to indicate what he saw as a fundamental problem of quantum theory. 'god' in this sense is the way the universe works not some prayer answering, infidel smiting, conscious entity as defined by Christianity. I'm sorry if this is hard for you to understand. Another sidetrack though (deliberate or otherwise) which is not worth going down. One person's beliefs do not change any facts. I am still waiting for anyone to provide one piece of evidence. One reason. Even one reasonable argument as to why one should believe in any gods let alone kill or die for them. No? Didn't think so...

Barry, Newbury, Berks

John McD - no John once again you seem to misunderstand. The burden of proof lies with the claimant. That claimant is you. Now if we apply the "logic" in your last post with regard to say Catholicism we would find that to be equally irrational as athiesm is. If not then you are using nothing but a "god of the gaps" argument. Which as everyone knows is false.

Russ, Reading, UK

John McD, You write: "The 2nd law is actually a postulate and not mathematically proveable." So you want to take issue with the great majority of physicists do you? On what basis? Is this a revealed truth, or another example of choosing the meaning of words to suit your own ends regardless of how other people use them? It is a law because it works, it works because it has had no observed repeatable exceptions and is consistent with observation, from making a cup of tea to observing distant galaxies. If you are expecting a teleological component or some anthropocentric explanatory power from the law, sorry, that is not what it does, it is a mathematical description of what happens to things. If you want to call that a tautology, fine, but to describe the working of a kettle using the second law is a great advance on the phlogiston model. Science had good reason for the divorce from philosophy, most philosophy is obscurantist and arcane, science is just challenging.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

Einstein was very clearly (a religious) agnostic and NOT atheist.
He believed in a non-personal divinity and was Platonic in the sense that he realised that what we observe are mere reflections of the full truth.

James Byrne, Catterick, UK

John, I didn't say that atheists get no air time. Read it again. Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchins are notable as rare exceptions. Dawkins seems to be on a bit of a roll at the moment, bless him. I shall probably watch his new two-part thingy although I didn't much rate the one about religion.

I wonder where you stand on clairvoyants communicating with 'the other side', crystal 'energy', astrology, and tarot readings? I imagine you're pulled both ways as it's all 'wooo' stuff like the god hypothesis yet so highly improbable that people, even religious people, tend to dismiss it. There are some people, of course, who believe wholeheartedly in it.

If you get to watch it and you're quite scornful of the 'wooo' stuff at the end then try to empathise with practical atheists like me. That's the way we tend to feel about religious 'wooo' stuff.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Dear Shashank,

We use the second law all the time because it works.

The second law relates specifically to the statistical behaviour of an aggregate of particles, the more there are, the more acurate the law becomes, at scales which can be observed without magnification, the law holds. We know why different things occur with just a few atoms, but to say that invalidates the 2nd law is like taking me as a population sample and deciding that everyone has beards or that no-one can catch fish.

Stephen Hawking achieved one of the least readable books ever in A Brief History of Time, your understanding may be tainted with the associated pain of reading, Hawking having issues with information and black holes is a congruent matter relating to entropy, though as of 2004 he seems to consider this resolved.

Maybe your prof. had issues with the second law of thermodynamics because he liked thing to be neat and Newtonian and macroscopic where the math can easily translate into a model.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

Atheism is an irrational stance because you cannot disprove a God COMBINED with the fact that your understanding of the universe and your place in it is so poor that to believe that to pretend otherwise is a mistake. If you don't know then admit to being an agnostic, that way you leave yourself open to discovering the truth at some stage.

The atheists jumped into tihs discussion accusing the religious of being "mentally ill", "absurd", attributing every disaster and war and atrocity ever committed to us, and blindly and offensively presuming to understand the basis of our belief.

It ain't us that are protesting too much, Paul. It's you.

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

As with most of the arguments put forward by the proponents of religion, the argument whether Einstein was religious or not is a complete and utter red herring. The only purpose proving Einstein was religious would serve is to demonstrate the power of institutional religion to pollute the minds of even the most gifted and rational of people. If normally intelligent and cogniscent people such as I'm sure John McD and Chorlton are can be indoctrinated with such a load of outdated, illogical, irrational and unproveable twaddle then what chance do less intelligent / more vulnerable people stand? Personally I think people are entitled to their opinions, but what really breaks my heart is the inability, or worse reluctance, to justify beliefs on rational grounds when it comes to religion (and the indignation in being challenged to do so), when they're perfectly happy to debate the minutiae of other secular beliefs such as, for example, the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Cue indignation.

JM, London, UK

Barry,


So Einstein was an atheist and used the word "God" metophorically? Oh really???

And what was the metaphor for then?

Talk about sophistry!!!

James B, Catterick, UK

Hey Paul, This is a great example isn't it? You think that the second law of thermodynamics is unchallengable because you see it everyday. It hasn't been proven, it just IS, and anyone that says that it could be different is insane.

But actually the 2nd law is not only based on your view of the world, it IS your view of the world. And you're not interested in the concept that your view might not be the whole truth. You're not interested in what is outside of your immediate field of vision. For all you know, entropy is decreasing right now. Time could be going backwards (although it will always seem to be going forward to our perspectives). You don't want that kind of discussion, though...you want things kept grindingly simple.

Fortunately others are more rational and humble, and it is people with curiosity and imagination that have driven science, political thought and social development on through the ages. Atheist does indeed = irrational.

Jago, Essen, Germany

David,

No air time? Doesn't Dawkins have a new series starting on either the BBC or Channel 4 this week? I'm sure I saw an ad for it. We certainly hear no end from him....he has columns in this paper.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Chorlton Hardy - Einstein used the word 'god' in a metaphorical sense he was personally an atheist. His own words: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."

John Mcd - The point people have been making that perhaps the 2nd law is not proven mathematically but ALL THE EVIDENCE TO DATE SUPPORTS IT. This is not true for any of the world's popular religions. Therefore it is not "irrational" to dismiss them as invlaid. You have already done so with all non-Christian religions I expect.

Barry, Newbury, Berks

You keep banging on about our limited perspective John. This is your catch all excuse. Ironic coming from someone clinging to a centuries old religion that has been shown to be wrong in hundreds of areas. Your own Catholic church took 400 years to admit that Galileo was right. Yet you claim it is atheists who are illogical. We just prefer to believe in things that are factual and proven. You rely on semantics and theoretical gaps in well established laws and theories to cling desperately to your beliefs. Yours is the inflexible approach.

The incompatibility between science and religion as you know very well is that science relies on evidence, repeatable experimentation and peer review. You rely on blind trust in an unprovable being whose existence fails any test we care to set for it.

And at no point have I said I know it all. You imagined that too. You however are imagining you know of the existence of something without anything to back you up. What does that say about you?

Paul Owen, Birmingham, Uk

Chorlton entropy is understood by physicists. It is often misunderstood however by popular novelists and philosophers who imagine it means something it doesn't about the tendency of nature. Try googling it. There's lots about the misunderstanding of entropy out there.

John makes a point which is irrelevant. It might be a tautology but all evidence gathered to date suggests otherwise except at the sub atomic level and that is an area being investigated. John is using transparently obvious and rather desperate tactics to infer the presence or even the possibility of a god because of a possible, theoretical gap in our knowledge.. it doesn't say much for his and your faith that he is reduced to such desperation.

We don't understand the universe completely. Who said we did? But it's a big leap from that gap to believing in a big man in the sky who controls our lives and created us. That's simplistic outdated gibberish. The human race is moving on, why not join us.

Paul Owen, Birmingham, Uk

"Kidd Garrett" - what you're not acknowledging is that science can only lead you to the same point, philosophically speaking. It's great at curing diseases and making bridges, but it won't tell you the nature of your existence. That is impossible because of our limited perspective.

Look at the vying theories about the creation of the universe (and no it doesn't stop at the big bang). Quantum research has cast some absolutely fascinating theories in this area, but they all lead back to the same metaphysical questions. These are questions which atheism brushes aside. Atheism is irrational because it is blinkered and stymies an important discussion.

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

Paul,

Hang on..entropy is understood. John McD's point was that the 2nd law might be a tautology. That it is interesting because what may appear like an everyday obvious occurance may not actually be the truth, but merely how it appears to you. It is challenging assumptions. For all you claim to support scientific method, you are still refusing to have your assumptions challenged.

That's the short-sightedness that makes you irrational.

Chorlton Hardy, Manchester, UK

My understanding of the 2nd law was that *as far as we know* 'in an isolated system, a process can occur only if it increases the total entropy of the system: hot things can only get cooler, not hotter, (without an injection of energy).'
However, we don't know everything: this statement is called a law because we've never observed the opposite of it to happen, and it explains otherwise inexplicable phenomena.
Like the existence of god, it has never been disproved, however, unlike the existence of god, it has been shown to explain processes in the world extremely accurately.
Of course we could discover that it is as foolish as believing that storms are caused by the gods, not the conjunction of low & high pressure systems, accompanied by atmospheric discharges of electricity.

We don't KNOW for certain, we don't KNOW anything for certain, and that's good, it keeps us looking, keeps us interested, keeps us humble... well some of us anyway ;-)

- secular humanist an philosopher

Nick, manchester, uk

Chorlton Hardy
One of Greg's arguments (as well as alot of religionists) in this discussion is "seek God and yee shall find God". My point is this; if this is the way to do it then how come my friend and many others go the other way when they do have strong faith? Surely if you have found god it's the most amazing thing ever and why then come to disbelieve? You seem like every other theist who simply ignores the questions, skirts around the topic, (deliberately) misunderstands the point and then puts irrelevant points to the questioner.
Why will none of you answer the questions? Please answer the questions that people have posed in this thread.
Go back and read the thread and answer the simple questions, please.
His other argument is the plainly simple one described, which he still will not answer. My anecdote shows he has the same reasoning skills as my 10 year old friend. He also fails to realise that agnosticism is still a disbelief in god, i.e a form of atheism.

Russ, Reading, UK

Paul,

Evolution is not a law of physics. It's a commonly accepted theory based on the available evidence. I was talking about logic, and we are still on shaky ground when it comes to knowing the fundamental laws (see Topoi theory). You don't even seem to get our commonly used discrete maths.

But I don't want to get into a slanging match with you about your grasp of scientific theory or logic. The posts speak for themselves. I think we may have hit upon the crux of the gap between us here. A little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Your lack of humility makes you genuinely think you understand the universe and anything that challenges your viewpoint is "absurd". Lazy thinking, pal.

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

No John, atheism is a logical standpoint for those who observe the universe, can describe scientifically the way much of it works and have viable and testable theories for how it came about. Furthermore we do not cling to those theories in the face of new evidence and new understanding.

Contrast the religious standpoint. Those with differing views have been dismissed as heretics and often punished. Then when the evidence has become too strong interpretations have changed. This has happened with every scientific advance casting doubt on what the church has taught.

We don't need to disprove god because we have alternative explanations which make more sense and, though sometimes incomplete, do not need suspension of belief or invoke nonsensical supernatural explanations. You argue our place in the universe means we don't understand. Is that the same universe the church said didn't exist?

You can't use logic to defend your position. Deep down you know that. You protest too much

Paul Owen, Birmingham, Uk

NO no no Paul.

The point is that you have been unscientific. You do not follow your own standards. The scientific community happily entertains the issue that I have raised...you on the other hand tried to squash them.

As a Catholic, I feel there is important to remember that there is NO incompatibility between science and religion. None at all. Paul, you try to squash the debate, not me. The beauty of the scientific rigour that you want to bypass is that it ultimately leads us to the same philosophical questions.

You think you know it all....science shows that you don't.

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

Russ, I really don't think John is saying we should assume god exists because we can't prove it doesn't. He is relying on the certainty that our reality is not all it seems at the moment; he then extends that idea beyond the limits of materialism as a worldview, and stuffs god in that space. It's 'wooo' stuff but not necessarily wrong. Greg, and perhaps John, rests his belief on a non-rational foundation of revelation to point him to the tRuTh of the wooo stuff and uses the many centuries of religious interpretation and modification to claim it is all internally consistent and therefore rational. It's not necessarily a bad approach, just outlandish and weird in my opinion.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

You silly geese. God punishes you when:
1) You are negligent and do not check equipment (e.g. The Minnesotta Bridge) 2) when you are stupid, and drag your feet discovering truths and developping science, 3) when you do not hang all criminals from the nearest tree so that they can no longer harm the innocent 4) and when you go about feeling good about the good without combatting evil.

Take a look at the next tragedie. Someone was surely negligent and went unpunished or worse, was guilty of criminal intent. Move your asses, people, and be truly holy.

God wants you on your toes.

Eugene, Heidelberg, germany

I do not claim to be an expert in Physics or Thermodynamics. Perhaps this led to my not expressing myself very well. There also seems to be a deal of confusion about the 2nd law, not least amongst some academics and particularly philosophers with regard to entropy. Nevertheless, for all practical purposes the 2nd law works and is used by humans daily. Is there a theoretical chance it can be challenged or shown to not always be true? Of course.

That is the beauty of science. Laws and theories are constantly evolving as our understanding improves. Faith does not do that except when it is dragged kicking and screaming to admit that some things it once regarded as wrong and heretical are in fact true. John McD is suborning a slight theoretical possibility and attempting to shoe horn god in there without any other evidence. Sophistry. If he used his critical faculties on his own beliefs as readily as he does on largely proven scientific laws and theories would his beliefs survive?

Paul Owen, Birmingham, Uk

John Mcd,

You are beginning to sound like a broken record. By the fact that one cannot disprove a particcular god does not make it irrational not to believe in him. Religion morphs to make 'God' a non-falsifiable concept, we have seen that with the evolution of religions throughout the ages. Equally, an incomplete understanding of everything does not offer any support to the existence of any deities.

For example you cannot prove that a large pink rhino called Brian doesn't live in the centre of Jupiter singing old Elvis numbers to anyone that cares to listen. Does not believing in Brian make you irrational? Even "COMBINED" with the fact your knowledge of Jupiter and the rest of the surrounding universe is not complete make Brian any more real to you?

Barry, Newbury, Berks

To Paul, Kidd etc, having followed the thread of this discussion I am not sure why you are continuing to bang your head against a brick wall with John, Greg and Bryan.

It is very clear that they are so deeply intrenched in the fantasy that NOTHING will convince them that you might actually be rational individuals who hold a valid opinion - even if it does conflict with theirs. Some of them simply revert to catty remarks or veiled insults when pushed into an itellectual corner (how very christian).

Incidentally, I have the same kind of pointless debate with my dog when I try to explain that rolling on a decomposing rabbit carcase will result in a shampoo and bath when we get home. The dog won't listen to me, thinks I am taking an irrational stance and thereafter simply keeps rolling around in the stinking mess.

He is a rather intelligent dog otherwise!

RJ, Jersey,

The problem is that due to, among other things, generations of childhood indoctrination (to coin Richard Dawkins' phrase) religiosity has become accepted as such an impenetrable virtue that people aren't allowed to subject it to the same level of rational scrutiny as other "lesser" beliefs. We have already heard how Christians are atheist in relation to Dharma, Zeus, Thor and the rest of them, all equally unproveable and presumably no less virtuous beliefs than belief in the holy trinity (at least from the perspective of those that believe in them). I would take it once stage further and ask that in the absence of any empirical evidence why should belief in any of these gods be more acceptable (and less risible) than belief in, for e.g. fairies?

The difference between religious fundamentalism (in the sense of unshakeable belief) and atheism, is that most atheists would gladly change their minds in the face of recalcitrant evidence, whereas most fundamentalists do not and would not.

JM, London, UK

Dear Chorlton,

To quote Einstein from 1950: "My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."

Please don't trot out the quotations out of context that misrepresent Einstein's thoughts on the matter.

As regards Greg's "argument", if you think Russ has done a bad job or has misunderstood the gist of it, please explain what it is that Greg is trying to convey. I am mystified.

Philosophy, hmm.. Love of Wisdom? Sadly it often seems more like love of tenure. The amount of damage that Plato, Hegel and their ilk have unleashed on the world is staggering. Thankfully there are a few, like Voltaire, Wittgenstein and so on, who actually seem to have some respect for Wisdom, rather than a desire to justify that which suits their own ends.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

David,

No offence, but the fact that you've worked hard to come to the wrong decision doesn't make your position any less irrational.

Chorlton Hardy, Manchester, UK

All these lovely arguments! Ok for fun, replace 'God ' in the argument with say 'Unicorns', it then becomes " I cant prove there aren't any Unicorns: therefore it follows that there are."
As to God - I put my faith in Mr Boeing, Messrs Rolls Royce and my ground crews thank you! (Not in that order lads!)
Incidentally John McD, man wages wars on behalf of god. Be it whichever or even the same one.
I also wonder just why someone who doesnt share someone elses strange superstition is 'bigoted'.
Yours sincerely
Bigoted of Brighton

Mike Asacret, Cambridge, England

Why can't we all believe on the one true thing that we all have? Ourselves and each other. Next time you step out of your house, take a look at the people around you (most of us, thanks to religion, ignore each other) and you may get a pleasant surprise. they're all people just like me and you. Just trying to get along in the world, existing. If you go one step further and actually talk to them, amazing they'll talk back, and maybe you'd part company and feel good about each other. How many of us have got true friends? People you can call on not only in bad times but the good times too? How often do you pick up the phone, to see how your friends are? How often do they do that to you? True religion is belief in ourselves as individuals and colletively, miracles are what happens when we work together to get things done. Nothing else is going to make it 'alright' pick up the peices and repair shattered lives, because there is nothing else there. Just us humans, lets get along.

Lee, uk,

Here's another thought about subjective religious experiences: does anyone remember the Toronto Blessing phenomenon in 1994? I went to one of my local evangelical churches at the time to talk to the pastor there about it. He said there were occasions at his church where members of his congregation would collapse or talk in tongues but he didn't 'encourage' it because it was putting peer pressure on others. He was obliquely suggesting, I think, that people were generating it themselves, perhaps subconsciously, to appear more godly in front of others. I wonder what happened to the Toronto Blessing? Surely the people who experienced it were not all charlatans yet I gather it was not widely accepted as a Holy Spirit phenomenon.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Paul-

Well some of my old posts are being put up very late and out of order.

I was using the 2nd law as an example to you that what you apparently still think is an obvious truth may not be. You're understanding of logic is faulty. The 2nd law is actually a postulate and not mathematically proveable. It could be reversed at some stage or more likely it is a tautology based on our limited perspective of the universe.

Throwing insults around and saying that it must always be true because that's how you see it actually makes you the zealot and makes you look foolish.

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

Russ - so you know someone who is a professional scientist and an atheist. Is that anecdote supposed to add any value to the discussion? Einstein was religious, does he trump your friend?

Can't we discover our own answers without comparing resorting to quoting other people?

And I think Greg's argument was considerably different from the way you have mis-stated it.

Chorlton Hardy, Manchester, UK

I had an argument with a minister's son about the existence of god when we were 10 years old and his reasoning was exactly the same a Gregs'. i.e because there is no proof either way we must accept a positive. To think that a grown man applies the same reasoning as my friend at 10 saddens me. I do not laugh because there are so many more angles to take, yet the simplest was chosen.

My friend is brighter than me and went on to become a successful neuroscientist. We both remember and joke about our argument and I value him as a friend as much now as I did then. Only recently did I find out that he was an athiest. I enquired why and he simply stated that he had sought to find the truth yet found that god was not the answer, god was merely a smokescreen. I was shocked.

How can someone who has always believed, who has sought god, come to be an athiest? Why did his searching for the truth lead him to that position? Surely someone who seeks should find. What did he do wrong?

Russ, Reading, UK

John, I have had lots of mormon and Jehovah Witness people knocking at my door and I walk past Christians broadcasting in the city centre most lunchtimes. In the UK, we get religious programmes on TV every Sunday and the cable TV has a dedicated god channel. Our legislature even has bishops involved in law making specifically because they're from the Church of England.

You know, I've never had proselytising atheists at my door, nor heard them broadcasting in the city centre, nor get regular atheist TV scheduling. I doubt there are any in the legislature specifically because they're atheist either. We're not generally a proselytising bunch, I think you'll find. That's a religious thing and it's mostly because people need to be *told* about something as outlandish as institutionalised religion.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Paul, you seem to think that science and philosophy are separate, exclusive disciplines. In actuality they are inextricably intertwined and codependent. Science comes from philosophy, all under the umbrella of rational thought.
This is your misunderstanding, your blindness. It is this myopia which causes you irrational belief in atheism. The rest of us see things differently. Perhaps you can try to appreciate that.

Chorlton Hardy, Manchester, UK

Good god, What a load of twaddle!

Elwin parsley, london , UK

I don't know what this fixation with the 2nd law of thermodynamics is and what it has to do with the present discussion. Maybe it is just a further attempt to blur the issue.

As has been pointed out though the 2nd law of thermodynamics is perfectly valid and proven. You prove its validity every time you take a breath. Any doubts about it are outdated and come from philosophers who have failed to understand the science. To say it is not a law is patent nonsense in the same way that it is ridiculous to claim evolution is in doubt because it is just a theory. Desperate tactics which make you look foolish.

But then we should expect this from religious adherents who reject the real evidence all around them and prefer to trust a feeling and who argue that atheism is illogical because we cannot prove that god doesn't exist. This is such a fatuous argument I and others can scarcely believe you made it once let alone keep repeating it as though it is some kind of trump card.

Paul Owen, Birmingham, Uk

Atheism is an irrational stance because you cannot disprove a God COMBINED with the fact that your understanding of the universe and your place in it is so poor that to pretend otherwise is a mistake. If you don't know then admit to being an agnostic, that way you leave yourself open to discovering the truth at some stage.

The atheists jumped into this discussion accusing the religious of being "mentally ill", "absurd", attributing every disaster and war and atrocity ever committed in the world to us, and blindly and offensively presuming to understand the basis of our belief.

It ain't us that are protesting too much, Paul. It's you.

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

Atheism is an irrational stance because you cannot disprove a God COMBINED with the fact that your understanding of the universe and your place in it is so poor that to pretend otherwise is a mistake. It's too easy to call something you do not understand absurd. You are not leaving yourself open to discovering the truth at some stage.

The atheists jumped into this discussion accusing the religious of being "mentally ill", "absurd", attributing every disaster and war and atrocity ever committed in the world to us, and blindly and offensively presuming to understand the basis of our belief.

It ain't us that are protesting too much, Paul. It's you.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

John McD, you write that you are:

"merely showing why the position of atheist (as opposed to agnostic) is an irrational stance to take."

If you wish to show the irrationality of atheism it is not sufficient to rely on irrational argument. You won't convince people to "open their minds", as the phrase goes, by attempting to (re)define words to suit your particular wishes or using emotionally loaded terms to disparage, nor can you suborn quantum physics and thermodynamics to your purposes.

Science uses concepts because they work, it is founded on shared experience, we can measure the distance to the moon, within a few percent, in my back yard. Quantum effects are trickier, but lots of circuits use Zener diodes...

None of this works with god. We have to take someone else's word with a complete lack of corroboration. We have numerous competing claims all asserting exclusive access to deity and unique truth. Why would anyone give credence to any of these claims? Pray tell.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

Father Bryan, I have to take issue with your assertion that:

"the concept of God is very evident in human conscience."

The conscience appears to be, in great part, a societal construct, so it seems your conscience would be a very different can of worms if you were, for example, an aztec or from the Andaman islands.

Because god is so obviously not evident in conscience, or anything else, to the majority of commentators on this debate, it does require proof, or at least a more developed argument. To say:

"Latent though it is, it's clear and needs no 'proof'. It's a first principle."

Is to offer up a pair of sentences which have no meaning in context. If the concept of God is very evident, how can it be latent? Why is it a first principle? What it is it? What is the significance of it being a first principle? This doesn't explain or clarify, it reminds me of the battle to keep the bible in Latin, to keep the power in the mystagogues hands. Wittgenstein was so right.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

Bryan, yet again you are seeing what you want to see and ignoring the rest. I didn't say I agreed with the main thrust of what you were saying. You were saying that God is part of our conscience. I said that it is part of the human psyche. These are two very different things. Scientists have identified a human need to invent a kind of spiritual comfort blanket. That is all that god and religion are.

You also asserted that this god of our conscience is clear and needs no proof. That's just wishful thinking and you know it. You clearly have doubts too about all of this which is why you keep making your blithe statements to appease your god and conscience. That's part of the human psyche too.

Goodness and god do not have to be inclusive concepts. Humanists want to be good and often are without the religious mumbo jumbo. I would have thought that makes them better human beings for doing good just because it is good rather than because they are operating on imaginary instructions.

Paul Owen, Birmingham , UK

Russ,

As I said, your inability to see the difference here is a big part of the problem. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is not a true law because it can't be proven. There is a difference between "cannot" and "has not". There is still a wide debate about whether this rule is a tautology based on what gives us our perception of flow of time, or whether it really can be broken in the right circumstances.

Either you don't understand this logic or you're being wilfully obtuse.

Secondy: no I never said that because God cannot be disproved you should believe in Him. You inferred that all on your own. I've explicitly stated that I'm not trying to prove God to you, but merely showing why the poistion of atheist (as opposed to agnostic) is an irrational stance to take.

John McD, San rafael, ca, USA

Greg: "...that a God could answer for you. So why not ask? the agnostic has no excuse. You could ask God whether He exists. Too much effort perhaps, after all it would appear that to deserve something we must make an effort and persevere. You don't ask because you are an atheist."

Actually, I've been through that process and now I'm more fully atheist. Obviously I got no revelation and I stopped because I finally recognised it for what it was: a form of conditioning. It helps provide some sort of comfort, I'll admit, but the cost is far too high. I want to keep my intellectual honesty.

You know, I found I was talking to 'Mr God' (from the book 'Mister God, This Is Anna by Fynn) regularly and trying to work out what I was supposed to do. I was suddenly spotting patterns in events and interpreting them as answers, much like Thomas Merton in The Seven Storey Mountain. However, unlike him, I eventually came to my senses. The conditioing is called self-delusion.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Greg, I'm a practical atheist and I *have* asked Mr God (from the book Mister God, This Is Anna, by Fynn) whether he exists and what I should do. I tried talking to him as if he exists and eventually I found that I was interpreting events as though they were answers to my questions. In effect, I found I was conditioning myself even though I had no 'road to Damascus' revelation.

Have you read The Seven Storey Mountain by Thomas Merton? Merton did much the same thing, recognising patterns and significance where almost certainly they didn't exist. We're very good at doing that. However, unlike Merton, I had a 'gestalt shift' and recognised that I was deluding myself. Merton eventually become a monk. You know, I think I'm a better atheist for the experience.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

But John McD you haven't shown the irrational nature of the atheist position. Your sole argument is that atheism is irrational because we cannot disprove the existence of god. That is sophistry and you know it.

This is typical of the underhand tactics of believers. You use tenuous logic and ignore simple facts to suit your own prejudices. In so doing you betray the fact that your belief is nothing like as strong as you claim. If you truly believed you would just be happy to believe without evidence. But instead you have to employ false reasoning. There is a simple reason for this: you have doubts and feel guilty about them thus you come on here to ease your conscience. Bryan and Glen are doing the same thing. Bryan in addition to his meaningless sermonising deliberately misunderstands what people say, presumably in the same way he deliberately skips over the parts of the bible that are bigoted, violent, inconsistent or absurd.

Methinks you all protest too much.

Paul Owen, Birmingham, UK

I disagree that there is zero evidence to support my religious claims, but that is besides the point. As has for been pointed out to you multiple times, I am not trying to prove the existence of God. I am merely showing the irrational nature of the atheist position. This has been explicitly stated multiple times on this board, yet it doesn't seem to register with you.

At least I can get some succour from the knowledge that the only diehard atheists on here have a very weak case that is certainly not winning any knew converts. As I said, the materialists will have to be much more conning and deceitful to proslytise effectively.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Barry,

Obviously the idea of the 2nd law of thermodynamics being broken is absurd to you (because it's just so obvious, right?). That says a lot about your capacity for thinking outside your own limited, superficial materialistic perspective.

For someone that has been boasting of his scientific understanding and rationale, this does not bode well.

You don't even understand the basis of your own rationality yet you attack mine. You claim your domain to be logic then when things get tough for you, you claim that I'm using 'sophistry'. I'm glad that this is the standard for atheist polemic. Even Dawkins could do better than this (although maybe not Hitchens).

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

John Mcd,

Either a cunning sleight of hand to deliberately steer away from the point at hand or another demonstration of inability to understand the simplest of concepts.

We could engage on some esoteric metaphysical search to define what 'proven' means in the context of a scientific law but this is a side issue that cannot be addressed through a forum such as this. Regardless of the finer point of any semantics discussed the simple fact remains that there is absolutely zero evidence to support any religious claims. In fact there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary. Therefore, as I said before, the logical position is to say "that sounds a bit far fetched. Count me out"

To say otherwise is delusional at best. You seem like a smart guy, remove the religious blinkers for a while and embrace this beautiful world head on. I'm sure you will work it out in the end.

Barry, Newbury, Berks

Paul Owen of Birmingham, I'm glad you take the main thrust of what I'm saying. I'm sorry you then go off at tangents. I don't notice contradictions in what I write. 'Fatuous unfounded generalisations' ? Tell me more.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Barry,

You're wrong. Some laws are proven, others (the 2nd law) are not true laws but merely observations that appear to remain consistent. You don't see a difference and that's a problem.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Bryan Storey, the concept of a god or gods is evident in human psychology it is perfectly true. But there are different gods in different cultures and across different times. All that changes is the different sophistry employed by the religions organised in their name to justify their and god's existence.

The path to altruism does not have to have anything to do with god. Some of us can be altruistic without the need for the promise of heaven or hell.

And he isn't the lord of life. That is patent nonsense. You lot keep chopping and changing your argument. One minute he controls everything but then he doesn't when a coach full of pilgrims goes careering out of control.

You have a tendency to make blithe generalisations and fatuous statements with no basis whatsoever. Your evidence for these statements is based on blind faith and a partial interpretation of the bible. It is also contradictory. We're fortunate that we live at a time when people see it for the nonsense it is.

Paul Owen, Birmingham , UK

Of course the atheist cannot prove the non-existence of God because of our innately limited perspective of the universe. Think harder. John McD

/heavy sigh.

1. We cannot prove that god exists
2. Therefore we should assume god exists

This falls over so hard logically. Even a small child can see through this logic. Your belief is therefore irrational.

If you use this logic for believing then there is absolutely no reason for you not to believe in fairies, unicorns, FSMs because it uses the same process.

Do you believe in fairies and unicorns John McD? If not why?

You also misunderstand why the 2nd Law of thermodynamics is called that. It's because it can't be broken. It simply has NEVER been broken. Unless you can find a way for an ice cube to get cooler when left outside on a hot summers day and the air warmer. Science > Faith for understanding the universe.

Yes it is tragic when people die in this and other violent ways but we do not need god to show empathy or sorrow.

Russ, Reading, UK

No, Mary Shelley, what Greg and John have done is what most believers do, they've used sophistry and ignored inconvenient facts. Of the four 'proofs' you mention, three are fictions created by the church and believers for their own ends and believed by silly credulous people down the ages. The fourth is the only kind of proof that would stand up in a court of law. Of this there is nothing. Greg and John have admitted as much. Oh they've come up with the ridiculous argument that because we can't prove the non existence of God that proves his existence but that is a non-sequitur and they know it. They even claim that because the existence of god cannot be disproved this makes atheism illogical. Nonsense. That is a classic diversion tactic, the same sort employed by those proposing ID.

Analysing the words of both it's obvious they have grave doubts themselves but can't admit it. So they argue and argue to placate their god to pretend doubts don't exist. That's just superstition.

Paul Owen, Birmingham , UK

The concept of God is very evident in human Conscience. Latent though it is, it's clear and needs no 'proof'. It's a first principle. Morality is a great part of this. Choose what is good and you choose God yet the more we consciously choose God, the better it all is. We regularly (often unconsciously) worship self. Worship of God is the only way to grow in altruism. He is the Lord of life, giving it and removing it. Accept this and find great peace. Reject it and agonise. Death is the beginning of new life. Domination of others pertains to non worship of God among believers and unbelievers alike. No delusion to compare with the anti God one. It's derived from non God worship.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Hello John McD Interesting: "It isn't for me or any man to prove to you what God is or that he is." So why bother contributing to the forum, why di the son of man allegedly communicate to other men? "I'm not trying to convert you and neither is Greg. You have to come to God yourself." We don't want to, we have too much respect for ouraselves and our fellow beings, that is why we are concerned. "There are many things I have experienced which I know happened but which I cannot prove to you." These are usually called dreams or hallucinations or fancies/fantasies, otherwise they are part of what we accept consensually and as such don't need proof, proof is only required when something is questionable. "An atheist telling me my faith is false is rather like me telling you all your memories are false. Of course the atheist cannot prove the non-existence of God because of our innately limited perspective of the universe. Think harder." We think smarter. Cheers

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

Jem,

My belief is totally irrelevant. Are you pretending not to follow the discussion? I mentioned confidence only to fend of your accusation of smugness.

"I prefer to accept there are certain questions that we cannot answer".

...that a God could answer for you. So why not ask? the agnostic has no excuse. You could ask God whether He exists. Too much effort perhaps, after all it would appear that to deserve something we must make an effort and persevere. You don't ask because you are an atheist.

In regard to zealots: surely a relatively educated person as yourself would not dismiss the rest because of the badly behaved? Since the well known teachings of Christ involve loving your enemy and turning the other cheek, it seems you go hard on us without good reason. As mentioned: you focus on the negatives. Your unfairness does not bode well of any potential of compassion and care coming from yourself. What means compassion when you only believe in yourself, as you must.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Ellen,

thanks for adding to the litany of crass anti-religious comments on this board.

Religion does not wage wars, man wages wars.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

John Mcd from San Francisco,

I can only assume you are missing the point deliberately. Scientists use the 'laws' that they have defined as a basis to improve understanding and better ourselves. All the evidence to date follows those laws so we stick with them. Although the current laws reflect our current understanding these scientists know the exact criteria that would have to be demonstrated to prove the laws wrong and would embrace the new understanding.

With religion and religious believers this is not the case. I think we can all agree there is not one iota of evidence to support any of the modern religions (I mean real evidence, not say a dream or a passage from a book). Moreover all the actual evidence we see around us: astronomy (or do you still believe in the firmament), evolution (please tell me you have dismissed creationism and ID) etc. demonstrate the exact opposite of what the religious beliefs state.

The 'truth' is what interests me. I hope you find it.

Barry, Newbury, Berks

Once again without the extras...all Greg and John McD have done is demonstate the Church's teaching (I won't use the word proof) that it is reasonable to believe in God.

They have not shown the atheists here *their* proof, only maintained there *is* proof. Truth or "The TRUTH" is determined, maybe, through four ways...through interior seeking (the truth of Buddhism or the truth of the mystic) , through authority (Divinely revealed truth, Church authority), through logic or reason, and through observation (or empiricism). God can be found using all four methods.

"Seek and ye shall find, ask and it shall be given to you" &tc.

Mary Shelley, London, UK

It's been fun guys, but I think we should draw a line under this one as we're clearly not going to agree. Each his own. :-)

Dave C, Belfast,

There's no surpernatural power intervening for good or ill. People just project human values on the universe. Things happen - we experience them as good or bad. Nature and the universe aren't good, bad or indifferent - they're just there.

cath, london, uk

Let me repeat what's been said many times. It isn't for me or any man to prove to you what God is or that he is. I'm not trying to convert you and neither is Greg. You have to come to God yourself.

There are many things I have experienced which I know happened but which I cannot prove to you.

An atheist telling me my faith is false is rather like me telling you all your memories are false. Of course the atheist cannot prove the non-existence of God because of our innately limited perspective of the universe. Think harder.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

John, I have a subjective experience of reality but I leave the house each morning with clear expectations of how it will behave and my expectations are within the public context which we call objective after we accept some very fundamental propositions. The god hypothesis is so outlandish in the public context that I do require strong supporting evidence at the very least to make it a working hypothesis. At the moment, the phenomenon very much suggests the opposite: an example of which is the alleged miraculous cures of self-limiting diseases when the miraculous replacement of lost limbs does not happen.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

As far as I can make out, God loves to see people die. Allah Achbar! Boom.

Ellen Morris, Leeds,

Greg Lorriman.

You can repeat yourself ad nauseam and still not address the issues put to you, this seems to be your tactic, but it doesn't get anyone very far.

Relying on your own particular definition of a word, when it is clear that this definition is not shared by those with whom you appear to want to communicate reminds me of the conversation with Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland:

"When I use a word", Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

You can choose to disregard changes in language and society and insist on a very partial interpretation of some rather important words, just as you can insist that you know there is a god for reasons known only to yourself, but please don't expect agreement. I can let you off on the god bit, as it is something I don't want to share, but we do have to share a language. I don't see any reason to let you attempt to suborn words as if you were humpty dumpty.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

The foundation of Greg's position is non-rational not irrational as it's a subjective experience. He makes a subjective proposition which he calls a proof to himself although of course it borrows no legitimacy from the common understanding of proof. It's a belief because it's a proposition derived from, rather than about, a feeling.

As he says, a certainty in god's non-existence is irrational but he provides an excessively narrow interpretation of atheism. The implication, perhaps inadvertantly, is that this dismisses atheism as a position. However, I imagine most atheists are practical atheists who look around and consciously set aside highly improbable propositions and are therefore 'without belief' in respect of a god or gods.

The deaths of pilgrims, or the lack of amputees made whole compared to the alleged miraculous healing of diseases, or the plethora of competing religions and divine revelations, all support atheism as a working hypothesis. That's rational.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Greg, You have not given a rational foundation for your belief. You have given, as numerous people have pointed out, a foundation that is subjective, flawed and thus meaningless. You might as well say that your faith is based on a dream, a Tarot reading, astrology or tea leaves. There is no difference between any of these things and your beliefs except that you protest more and twist the truth to suit your needs. Religion runs through human history, it does so for the very good reason that humans need explananations and order to their lives. Thus we have had dozens of different religions throughout the ages. What makes yours special? Nothing other than their greater power, wealth and willingness in not so distant times to bully people into submission. Religion started as an explanation and turned into a source of power and influence, nothing more and nothing less. The reason believers object to evolution is because it is an alternative explanation and lessens their power.

Paul Owen, Birmingham, UK

Barry,

Most physisists follow the 2nd law of thermodynamics (that entropy within a system increases over time), however it is impossible to prove conclusively so they accept the possibility that it might not always be the case. It's not really a law, it's a strong opinion. So it remains with atheists (although there is no evidence for atheism, unlike the 2nd law of thmdncs).

The reactionary, empty mind will always say "but time always goes forward and it's absurd to say anything else". However the enlightened will attempt to step outside of his own limited perspective and attempt to find the full truth. You should follow your own advice and do as much. I don't see atheists preaching love and understanding..they attacked this article for doing so.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Ahhhh, the old 'Because it's god's will' argument. It's a great cover all isn't it? Why did this happen? Who can guess god's intentions....hmmm well that's convenient. Read between those lines 'That's too difficult to answer, roll out the old mystical omnipotence thing'
How about this though? We are organisms like any other on this planet, trying our best to survive with varying degrees of success and at the prey of chance, bad luck and natural disaster.
Isn't that more palatable? Put it this way, I can accept natural disasters, disease, child mortality, accident fatalities, not to mention humankinds natural tendancy to want to kill his/her neighbour, when you put it down to instinct and chance. But suppose I'm wrong and there is a god? If you put those things down to its will....... who would want to praise something like that? This accident was tragic and my thoughts are with those who have lost loved ones, but human sympathy is the best you'll get.....no one else is listening.

Simon White, Edinburgh, Scotland

Thanks to Mssrs McD and Lorriman from this Catholic for ‘proving’—I’ll never use that word frivolously again!—that it is reasonable to believe in God. But reason can only take us so far. Wonder needs to take over from logic at some point.

Modern atheists cannot comprehend what the ancients understood instinctively: created by God, the world is an extraordinary place (even with the deaths of the pilgrims). Anyway, it all there is on offer (for now). To acclaim the material world and praise its Creator is a religious act, similar to the praise of the ancients in Caedmon’s Hymn: “Now we must praise to the skies,__________the Keeper of the heavenly kingdom
The might of the Measurer,____________all he has in mind,
The work of the Father of Glory,________of all manner of marvel...."
(for rest of Paul Muldoon’s most recent trans. Of Caedmon’s Hymn see ‘Moy Sand and Gravel.')

Mary Shelley, London, UK

greg, you may be confident and sincere, but you do not accept that you could be wrong. which makes you wrong (imnvho). what you consider to be god revealing himself to you may simply be evidence that you have misinterpreted. we can't "know" anything. we can, of course, rely on the most likely explanation. however, your sincerely held belief is no different (in this forum) to other sincerely held beliefs, some of which are contradictory - why should we give credence to yours or any? they all seems as true or as mad. I prefer to accept there are certain questions that we cannot answer. I also see feel that it is more important to be compassionate, considerate and kind than it is to believe in god. it is certainly not necessary to be any of these things to believe in god, as successive generations of zealots have proven. and yet they would justify evil acts using their certainty. rather confidently and sincerely, I might add. I'd be wary of anyone so convinced he was right.

jem, london, uk

Dear Father Bryan,

Dogmatic assertions don't further anything, or do they, am I wrong?

"Without God, spirituality is an illusion. He's more evident than Maths, Dave of Belfast."

I know a number of buddhists, not to mention a few goddess worshippers, who would take issue with the first part of this precarious statement and every person I know who approaches rationality would take issue with the second part, even the ones who are really rather poor at Mathematics.

There are peoples, still, in parts of South America and, for example, the Sentinelese in the Andaman Islands, who have not been exposed to "the word of god". Would you write these people off as doomed never to enter heaven because of geographical accident (or however you would care to rationalise it)? This appears to be the case, if no-one can come to the father except except through jesus.

These people are very much without the god which you profess, do you deny that their life can be spiritual? Please, why?

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

"He's more evident than Maths"

If that were true then there wouldn't be an athiest or agnostic on the planet. Now I can show you lots and lots of evidence for mathematics which ultimately relies upon logic. Can you please show me your evidence for god because if this evidence is truly more evident than maths I shall convert the moment I see it.

P.S. quoting scripture or personal experience is not evidence. ;)

Russ, Reading, UK

Bryan Storey (not my father) - a constant source of one-line amusment.

I once said yes to god, despite not knowing the question. I still had a sore back and athlete's foot. However, when I said YES to the pharmacist - BINGO - I felt great in no time - medicine, it seems, is the greatest healer.

Getting back to the original question though. Why did god allow these people to die? Perhaps they were simply rooting for the wrong one. Perhaps god can't drive a bus.

I apologise to all for not producing a more intellectual argument but the big problem with such a pointless debate is that one side is fundamentalist and the other not.

Whilst atheists would happily start believing if the great bear