Though not without his detractors, I always found Richard Dawkins' stuff quite entertaining in its ability to reaffirm my atheism - if you want someone who *really* hates religion, check him out.

→ Posted by: Dave at August 3, 2003 6:27 AM

I'm an agnostic, and I was about to post a funny entry about why I'm not an atheist or a christian, but I lost it in a browser crash.
However, I someday wish to create a website for arguments against agnosticism, the primary ones being:

ARGUMENT AGAINST SUBJECTIVITY
(1) You don't believe that we can know truth objectively.
(2) I do.
(3) Therefore, agnosticism is false.

ARGUMENT FOR DEBATE
(1) You won't argue for any position other than that of subjectivity, and you're willing to be admit that you might be wrong about that.
(2) Debate with you is somewhat useless.
(3) I like to debate.
(4) Therefore, agnosticism is false. And stupid.

Conversely, there are the arguments for agnosticism:

ARGUMENT FOR SUBJECTIVITY
(1) [The sky is blue.]
(2) To prove that, you'd have to prove to me that there is a tangible universe. Go ahead. Try it.
(3) [Useless sputtering.]
(4) Agnosticism rules!

ARGUMENT VIA STUBBORNESS
(1) My beliefs state that any argument may or may not be true regardless of logic, because of subjectivity.
(2) You can't argue with that, given that it's true.
(3) Take that.
(4) Therefore agnosticism is correct.

→ Posted by: fabutron at August 3, 2003 10:42 AM

I'm a (straight) atheist, so I won't presume to speak on behalf of Jesus - but I just can't believe that the Jesus I had drummed into me at school would share the Roman Catholic church's (and other so-called Christian sects') views on homosexuality.

→ Posted by: Richard at August 3, 2003 1:41 PM

I'm a "weak" atheist or agnostic. Pick whichever term you like. I operate assuming there is no god, but can't prove it, hence the agnostic. I find the positions of being "absolutely" sure that there is or isn't a god to be strange. You think religion should be kept completely separate from policy and the rest of the world. That seems impossible to me and not really the solution. There are many people out there that operate with full religious conviction and do many great things for this world (and many who don't). I wouldn't want to lose the good just because I find their reasoning to be flawed. As long as people operate with good intentions and in a tolerant manner towards others than I don't care what they believe.

→ Posted by: Dave at August 3, 2003 1:52 PM

I'm also agnostic, and believe that in a way, atheists and Christians are more similar to each other than to agnostics. They both believe that they can know what the ultimate truth of the universe is, whereas I know I'll never know and choose not to think about it. I used to be an atheist and don't lean towards any religion, but after reading some philosophy I've come to accept that the existence of God (or any "ultimate" truth besides my existence) is just not a solvable question.

→ Posted by: Mark at August 3, 2003 2:38 PM

Exactly. Have to say I agree with Mark. I think it takes as much 'faith' (if you'll excuse the term) to be an atheist as it does to be a Christian. Both believe in something, apparently with every fibre of understanding in their bodies.

→ Posted by: Vaughan at August 3, 2003 2:47 PM

Well first things first I'd like to say that I do care what people believe, whatever the actions are that result from their beliefs. I would also fight for their right to have and act on those beliefs (in as much as they don't hurt other people - which, ironically, these ones do, but never mind). But even though I'd stand up and fight for the right of Christians to believe what they believe, I'd still try and fight the belief system at a person-to-person basis (if I had the time) because I don't think that it's obvious that 'good Christians' inevitably do 'good things'. Moreover, just because good Christians do undertake good works on occasion does not mean that the reasons they are undertaking those actions are reasonable, plausible or that those same reasons won't cause as many problems subsequently. I'd ask you this question - do you really believe that moral people who have no faith live less moral lives? Because I don't at all. A religion based on a text cannot learn. It cannot evolve in a useful fashion - responding to changes in society or science - without undermining itself. That's why orthodox Jews can't wear Polyester and Cotton, or trim their beards. Leviticus told them they shouldn't do that stuff - presumably for what were considered pretty good reasons at the time, but which clearly don't apply any more. Religion based on texts is the "moral compass" that only points forward whatever direction you're going in. It's the "stopped watch" that's right twice a day, but not because it can tell the time.

→ Posted by: Tom Coates at August 3, 2003 3:00 PM

With regard to the point about absolute proofs for the non-existence of God, I think it's fair to say that I couldn't say with total logical conviction that there is no god. That's for the same reason that I couldn't say that there aren't invisible penguin militia walking down my street at the moment - that it's not logically possible to prove that anything doesn't exist. And more to the point, why on earth should we even believe that the burden of proof lies with the atheists anyway? It's the believers of the ludicrous who normally have to convince everyone else...

   I choose to treat the concept of God with the same respect as I treat the other infinite possible invisble, intangible things that could exist in the universe (and which do so without leaving any evidence whatsoever, while going against all the evidence that we actually do have). And when I say I treat them with the same respect, I mean to say that I accept that they're all pretty much totally irrelevant. I simply refuse to accept that there's anything distinct and different about "God" that makes it different at a conceptual level from Mind-Control Cheese from Denver - ie. it's basically ridiculous. I do not consider myself 'agnostic' about Mind-Control Cheese. I do not think that the existence (or not) of naked invisible porno monkeys deserves to be considered an 'unsolvable question' worth serious debate. We give too much credit to these stories purely because a lot of people believe in them. That's not good enough.

→ Posted by: Tom Coates at August 3, 2003 3:09 PM

Vaughan - that's simply not true! Or at least - if it is true, then it's only faith that makes us believe that we're not all hollow and filled with bunny rabbits. It's only faith when we say that we're not being mind-controlled by bees. It's only faith when we say that we think the idea that the sun is full of Bounty bars is pretty ridiculous. There are an infinity of counterfactual things that could be true if we were prepared to suspend disbelief to that extent. But we don't consider it an act of faith to say that they're not real. I'd even be prepared to push this to the extent of divinities - do we really consider it an act of faith to say that the Greek Gods don't exist, or the Roman ones, or the Mayan ones or the Indian ones, or the Aztec ones or the Egyptian ones? No! Of course we don't - because it's almost infinitely unlikely that they do. And it shares that status with an infinitity of other potential things. Why does only one of that infinity get this special status of requiring a negative proof in defiance of the fact that a negative proof is impossible?

→ Posted by: Tom Coates at August 3, 2003 3:24 PM

"I do not consider myself 'agnostic' about Mind-Control Cheese."

brilliantly funny! i've never really heard a good argument against agnosticism before, but now i'll always remember this sentence.

→ Posted by: scott reynen at August 3, 2003 3:24 PM

The Cosmological Argument appears to be the argument which has most substance to me, as it derives from observation of the world we live in and although it does not prove the existence of God, it does prove the existence of a creator. Perhaps. Everything that exists has a cause for existence and that cause has a cause of it's own, etc. This paints the idea of a constant regress into the past, also known as the chain of cause and effect. Thomas Aquinas, who was brought up in a Benedictine monastery in 1224 - 1274, first acknowledged the chain of cause and effect, and proceeded to state that the chain of cause and effect cannot be ultimately causeless - it must trace back to an uncaused cause, this being God. This however, seems a bizarre leap for us to comprehend, yet Aquinas drew upon Christian scripture to support his claim - Genesis in particular, which writes of how God created everything from nothing. However, as an atheist who does not believe in God, therefore does not view the content of the Bible as valid, I thought this to offer no justification for a belief in God whatsoever. Aquinas did have a point though - that this regress of cause and effect could not be infinite. Although a theoretical infinity may seem a straightforward idea, the conception of an actual infinity causes a lot of problems, namely, that they cannot grow. Infinity plus one equals infinity. The series of cause and effect, then, cannot be an infinite temporal sequence, because the chain of cause and effect continues to grow into the future. The chain of cause and effect then, MUST be finite - it must have a beginning - there must be an uncaused cause. This uncaused cause must be the creator of everything that we know now as it is at the very beginning of the sequence of cause and effect. This uncaused cause must be the creator.
The matter of the creator being God, however, cannot be proved or disproved. In fact, the chain of cause and effect cannot be proved or disproved as we can never ascribe to the cause of any qualities, but what are exactly sufficient to produce the effect. I think it's vital that, for one to be Christian, one must offer one's own justification of being so, one must offer one's own argument for the existence of God. It is not enough to simply say 'I believe.' If I were a Christian, this would be mine. Perhaps what makes it most credible, is that it is based upon existence of the world and not reason alone (unlike the ontological argument.) The Cosmological Argument also sets out to prove to an atheist that God does exist, whereas the Ontological Argument does not. When considering the Ontological Argument, originally set out by St. Anselm, it is important to note that the argument itself begins with the premise that God does exist. A belief in God is never in doubt when considering ontology, instead, the argument allows one to understand God's existence in a particular way - a way which leads one to the conclusion that God must exist.
Perhaps theologian Richard Rubenstein had the best idea. In the beginning there was a creator, this creator was celebrated, religion was established. The biblical image of an omnipresent, omniscient, saving, loving God has got to go. God is nothing but 'Holy Nothingness.' The focus should not be on God, but on a celebration of the creator and a celebration of one's own roots and origins through the participation of rituals and practices but not through the emphasis of a theistic faith. He drew upon French existentialist belief, when he said that one must create one's own meaning from life, but not assume that existence derives meaning from the divine.

→ Posted by: pilkington at August 3, 2003 3:50 PM

You might not realize it but you're writing off some okay people by dismissing agnosticism.

I recently 'converted' from atheism to agnosticism. Unlike most of you, I actually *despise* religion. However, I am fully aware that this is just my prejudice against religious people. I am laregly happy with the term "bright" and hope it catches on but...

I no longer believe (for reasons that would go on for a few pages and that relate to physics rather than the current topic) that the universe will have a "big crunch" and as such, I think that time will march on infinitely.

An infinite amount of time means that all sorts of crazy things will happen. If you really believe that the universe is infinite than you must also accept that godlike things will exist. Here's one scenerio: I think it is Ray Kurzweil who has a theory about runaway technology - that computers will proliferate to the point where everything in the universe will be computing, the entire universe will be sentient. You can argue that that will not be a God but you'll be splitting hairs.

I don't think humans are smart enough yet to feel confident that they know 1/100th of what is really happening in the universe. Hell, we don't even have DNA down yet. We can't even cure cancer. We suck. Lots.

Athiesm is just as irrational as theism since it implies that humans have conducted enough experiments and collected enough data to have a fucking clue (and we haven't). Agnosticism is more responsible imho.

→ Posted by: Izzy Memom at August 3, 2003 4:06 PM

Faith is very essential and religion binds the world and humans together else the human edifice would crumble leading to the dog eat dog phenomenon . . . May be its a device to keep humans to decimate humans - adaptation survival tactic
My recent post can be found on the dame topic - recently . . .

Read it @
http://shamitbagchi.blogspot.com

→ Posted by: Shamit at August 3, 2003 4:58 PM

I'm agnostic, and I guess it comes down to my not caring if there is a god or not.

Both believers and non, will go out of their way to have you come to their method of thinking, while fellow agnostics would rather worry about something that actually affects them.

The Pope cannot hurt my feelings, nor can Jerry Falwell for that matter.

→ Posted by: chris joseph at August 3, 2003 5:13 PM

also an atheist, but i think the way you wrote this essay may belie a certain lack of tolerance. maybe thats too harsh, but i really do think religion has a great deal of pragmatic value in this, our real world. (with the exception of radicalist religion and fundamentalism. snake handling is obviously whack...)

i rarely argue about god with those who disagree with my beliefs. in part because my reverse-evangelism is not any more likely to win them over than their pleas are that i should accept christ/freemasonry/four noble truths/shiva/etc. but also in part because i believe religion has a great deal of efficacy. in the best of times religion can act as a morality heuristic, a pre-packaged 'civilizing' force for those who might otherwise not take the time consider the advantages of living a compassionate, altruistic life.

of course, in the worst of times it can become a way to rationalize violent acts like airplaning a skyscraper or shooting off a few hundred cruise missiles or even widespread policymaking and bureacracy in the promotion of genocide. less than a century ago we saw that religious-like fervor over fascist leadership is just as dangerous as religion can be. so maybe we should be most wary of the a way a set of beliefs are put into action than the set of beliefs themselves. thought is a good thing, and like it or not, spiritual and superstitious thoughts seem to be a big part of being human.

maybe i'm not disagreeing with you at all, this is starting to sound pretty random... sorry.

→ Posted by: Justin at August 3, 2003 6:13 PM

If this is somehow a multiple choice question between: a. There absolutely is some sort of divine being; b. There absolutely is no divine being whatsoever; or c. I don't know and neither do you because you're as clueless to the true nature of all things as I am and therefore it is the responsiblity of any potentially divine being to deal with issues revolving around their own existance or lack there of and we humans should spend or energy on issues that most of us deal with in this box we call "consensual reality", then I would choose answer 'c'. Your mileage may vary.

→ Posted by: wKen at August 4, 2003 1:21 AM

Those proofs of God's existence are a presented completely fairly. They show how intellectually honest you are. Kudos to you.

→ Posted by: Astonished at August 4, 2003 2:48 AM

An interesting parallel: the document says, as you've quoted, that, "Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil." And at the same time, atheists are finally gaining the confidence to say that tolerence of other people who have religious beliefs is necessary, but tolerance of their beliefs is not. It's not okay to believe in God, nor is it okay to judge someone who does, at least not solely on those grounds.

→ Posted by: Rory Parle at August 4, 2003 3:00 AM

As far as tolerance goes, though, I think it is those who choose to express their non-belief who encounter the most pronounced lack of it. But it is important to. I was encouraged by this article in the nytimes - about people who describe themselves as "the brights" - to speak out more often.

→ Posted by: David at August 4, 2003 4:51 AM

Refutation of the cosmological argument: Just because we don't completely know the nature of the universe--we don't know what came before the big bang--does not mean that there must be a god. That kind of knee jerk reaction--can't find an explanation, there must be a god--was the same thinking that led people to believe in gods of lignning and volcanos. To me atheism, and more importantly the belief in science, is the faith that we *can* find answers to questions about reality, that it's worth trying to understand strange phenomena rather then saying God did it. And what is god anyway? When it comes down to it, god is just a word. A meme which is like the gateway drug to stupidity, once you belive in the paranormal you can be convinced of pretty much anything.

→ Posted by: Alex Shapiro at August 4, 2003 5:20 AM

May I recommend 'Godless Morality - Keeping religion out of ethics' by Richard Holloway , who at the time that he wrote the book was the Bishop of Edinburgh. It addresses the issue of a moral system based on religion and a moral system based on the avoidance of harm and injustice to others and why the former is no longer the way forward. Holloway also covers some other interesting contradictions in the Bible.

→ Posted by: Vicky at August 4, 2003 6:47 AM

I personally have no time for very religious people, but they are a fact of life that we can do little about. I only start to worry when their morality starts to affect my daily life: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1011460,00.html

→ Posted by: Lisa at August 4, 2003 10:09 AM

In my view this very relevant discussion does not boil down to the question of God's existence vs. non-existence (though I'm turning all agnostic reading the comments). And answering the question will not solve half the issues raised in the post. More to the point seems to be a discussion of the ethics of different belief systems and the apparent consequences for both followers (ultimately living in fear of (a) god) and non-followers being discriminated against. On a broader scale we have to acknowledge that religion is so much a part of western civilization that it's already irreversibly entangled in our concepts of morality, ethics and even reason and that a complete separation of religious reasoning from ‘policy decisions, logic and the like’, therefore, is quite impossible. I’m drifting, but it’s worth a thought or two.

→ Posted by: Mikael at August 4, 2003 1:18 PM

There was an article in Saturday's Irish Times which suggested that the Catholic Church might find itself on the wrong side of an 'Incitement to Hatred' charge here if they aren't careful about how they diseminate the Vatican's booklet on homosexuality.

→ Posted by: David Stewart at August 4, 2003 1:46 PM

Mikael - I'd agree that our ethical systems have been shaped by the Church, but then again the Church was also a product of ethical systems which heavily intersect with our own. I don't think any of us have any problem with the consideration of ethics as part of decision-making. The part we take issue with is when those ethics are considered immune from investigation because god said so.

→ Posted by: Tom Coates at August 4, 2003 2:13 PM

Latest reports that our dear friend Tony is about to bring his Christian views and opinions to a more central role within government is.....scary...and just plain wrong. What about being elected to represent the people and since when (in modern history) did religion and politcs mix in Britain, this clear segregation between the two is something to be proud about living in Britain, but quite frankly if this occurs I'd be happier living and paying taxes elsewhere.

→ Posted by: Dominic Bacon at August 4, 2003 3:10 PM

It IS faith to say we're not hollow and filled with bunny rabbits. I don't know if you'd actually argue against that or not. It's an absurd proposition but certainly there are (admittedly philosophical) arguments that could be made to support it; but ultimately the arguments come down to something you said, namely that it's not logically possible to prove that anything doesn't exist.

However, it seems to me this agnostic vs. atheist thing gets down to a very serious disconnect between definitions. The "God" that I, as an agnostic, choose to believe we cannot prove or disprove the existence of is really a category. Your examples comparing disbelief in god to disbelief in (insert absurd concept here, including mind-controlling cheeses and invisible, weird creatures) causes me to think that the god you don't believe in is somehow more specific than the god I choose to neither believe nor disbelieve in. The Christian God is right in the same league as mind-controlling baby-swiss cheese manufactured in Wisconsin. In other words, any specific "God" is easy to actively not believe in.

The category that "god" represents for me includes any sentience that created this universe we occupy. That category occupies a whole half of a set of things, then. If we accept as given that the universe is here, then it was either created by a sentience or not. My proposition is that the belief that we have any possible way to know whether or not the universe was created by a sentience is absurd. JUST as absurd as the belief in the hollowness and bunny-filledness of our bodies.

→ Posted by: i at August 4, 2003 4:28 PM

The following tagline sums up the basic reasoning that I employed in becoming an atheist at the ripe old age of seven when they couldn't give me answers to my questions in Sunday School:
...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours -Stephen F Roberts
While it's not going to help anybody give up their belief in sky-gods -- it does present a black-n-white unemotional map to help them see the path you took to get to your side of the fence.

Cary
Cary

→ Posted by: Cary at August 4, 2003 4:37 PM

Morality has never been about the common good or the public good. Morality is ultimately a matter of taste, what the majority likes or dislikes. And when it comes right down to it, I think behaving morally is essentially based on self-interest. ... And I never understand the "public good" argument against gays adopting children. Of course, generally the adoption system doesn't make sense.. After all, where's the common good in that almost anyone at all can have their OWN child and treat it howevery they please? I mean, come on, how many abused children's parents actually go to jail? Yet we're so concerned about what an adoptive parent's going to do?

→ Posted by: Chloe at August 4, 2003 4:51 PM

pilkington - The real problem with the cosmological argument is it doesn't solve the 'cause' problem. You need a cause for the universe, so you have god. So what is the cause of god? No cause? Well, then I would invoke Occam's razor. If you can say, "god just 'is' and doesn't need a cause," then I would say, "the universe just 'is' and doesn't need a cause. Adding god just adds an unnecessary layer of complexity.

→ Posted by: Dave K. at August 4, 2003 4:57 PM

The universe does need a cause though. Looking back in time, the universe MUST have a cause for existence. As we observe things on our planet, we see that everything that comes into existence is caused by something and that cause is caused by something else. Simply: 1 Everything that begins to exist has a cause for existence. 2 The universe began to exist. 3 The universe has a cause for existence. The cosmological argument does establish that the universe has a cause, but it does not establish that cause is God. The initial cause, however, does not need a cause itself - it can't possibly have a cause for itself - because what then, caused this cause? You cannot say that there is an infinite amount of causes because that is absolutely impossible due to the fact that infinity cannot grow or be reached, yet the amount of causes today proceeds to grow and grow. (see previous comment). Some objections to the cosmological argument that I have considered, however, were proposed by David Hume and Immanual Kant. Hume suggested that we cannot apply to law of cause and effect to our world - we cannot say for sure that one thing causes another. For example, the ambient temperature of water may drop, the water will freeze. But did the temperature drop CAUSE the water to freeze or was the freezing of the water just something that followed the dropping of the temperature. Common sense would tell us that the temperature caused the water to freeze, yet it cannot be actually proven. Therefore, the law of cause and effect cannot be applied to our universe. Even if things today do exist due to cause and effect, it does not mean to say that this is the way it has always been. Kant said that the whole notion of cause and effect was one of the ways (along with the concepts of space and time) in which our minds interpret the world - we cannot help but impose causality upon our experience. If Kant is right, then an uncaused cause is a mental impossibility. I do not believe that the cosmological argument is a proof for God's existence. But despite the above criticisms of the argument, I believe the cosmological argument clearly shows how the universe must have an uncaused cause. Whether you choose to make the leap of this uncaused cause being God is up to you.

→ Posted by: pilkington at August 4, 2003 5:24 PM

WARNING: THE FOLLOWING COMMENT(S) ARE BEING MADE BY A FOLLOWER OF JESUS CHRIST.

Whew, got that one off my chest.

Basically you all have to decide one thing: Do I believe in freedom and free will or not.
Richard doesn’t seem to lean one way or the other but my experience of most atheists is that they want to believe in personal choice (personal freedom of will) at the same time that they insist that there is no God.

Let’s just cut to the quick.
1) No God = nothing beyond nature
2) Nothing beyond nature = all things are the result of natural systems being worked out
3) All things are the result of natural systems being worked out = humanity is simply the result of atomic/subatomic/nanoatomic/quantum particles working within the “system”
4) The result is that although a human may feel personal choice, the reality is that the feeling is some sort of chemical reaction created by several pounds of gray matter we call a brain as it functions within the structure of a natural world.

Don’t you just love nature?
I’ll admire and respect the first atheist to surrender his/her devotion to human self-fulfillment and declare absolute power to the random workings of a chaotic universe fulfilling its own non-human destiny.

As to the Pope? Homosexuality?
Look at the people Jesus hung out with: fishermen, whores, tax collectors and lepers. Check out the Gospel of Mathew, Chapter 9: "That night Matthew invited Jesus and his disciples to be his dinner guests, along with his fellow tax collectors and many other notorious sinners. The Pharisees were indignant. "Why does your teacher eat with such scum?" they asked his disciples. When he heard this, Jesus replied, "Healthy people don't need a doctor – sick people do." Then he added, "Now go and learn the meaning of this Scripture: 'I want you to be merciful; I don't want your sacrifices.' For I have come to call sinners, not those who think they are already good enough."
Did you see him hanging out with any guys with funny hats? Nope. My bets are with the living Jesus, not with the Pope. Jesus is the guy who’d be hanging out with anyone whom society has marginalized. With anyone who is hungry for justice and fair treatment. Anyone like you or me (and I’m as messy a sinner as anyone around that table). Remember who Jesus is John 3:17 God did not send his Son into the world to condemn it, but to save it!
Jesus would definitely be talking to the Pope & the leaders of today’s church the way he addressed the Pharisees in Mathew 3:7 "You brood of snakes!"
I could go on but I won’t. You all would probably kick my ass.
Find out who the real Jesus is. And don’t let the Christians convince you he isn’t worth pursuing.
Peace.

→ Posted by: Bill Russell at August 4, 2003 7:22 PM

Though I agree with your reasoning about being an atheist! Perhaps, you really never gave god or a god a chance- Christians and most religious people have no idea what they are talking about even when they think "god" talks to them- All i am saying is, don't let stupid religious people keep u from learning about what it means to be human and the realization that God exist, but does not care. and the truth that it is not so much what you believe in, but how u live your life- if you don't believe in god it does not mean god does not exist- if others tell you what god is and how god views us humans doesn't mean they are right and even if they are wrong doesn't mean that god does not exist- And heaven and hell is just a red herring- for only the blind will believe in a god to get to heaven or to avoid hell- only the wise will always do what is right even if god tells them not to do it- to defy god to do what is right is the greatest deed of all and the door to everlasting humanity and perhaps, just perhaps u may find yourself in the presence of the all Mighty in a room full of atheist.

→ Posted by: Tony at August 4, 2003 9:24 PM

I'm a Christian however we aren't all anti-gay or keen to see 'Christian' values (which are subject to a great deal of interpretation) shoved down everyone elses throats. I am as incensed about the blatant homophobia within the Church as many atheists are - perhaps more so as it is no fun from the inside either.

I don't however see why atheists feel the need to explain to me how stupid I am for being a Christian. I understand that some Christians may have tried to convert you at some point, but we aren't all that way inclined - they try and convert me too, so I know how it feels - as a liberal Catholic I'm not counted as Christian at all by some quarters. As far as I'm concerned the faith, or non-faith that people have come to as a result of their own journey, and their own studies is great. If someone can say 'this is why I am xxx' they are doing better than an awful lot of people who fill the pews on a Sunday morning because they always have done. I respect that, and have no wish to try and change anybody. I would really like the same extended to me.

→ Posted by: Rachel at August 4, 2003 9:29 PM

I'm an atheist.

I feel about as "intolerant" about that as I'm sure all Christians do for not believing in Thor, Odin, Loki, Shiva, Zeus, Posseidon, Vishnu, Hades, Hera, Ares, Aphrodite, Apollo, Hermes, Antiope, Dryope, Eros, Gaia, Phoboes, Nepherite, Indus, Ghanes, Atlas, Fyr, Balder, Tyr, Skade, Vidar, Njord, Heimdal, Allah, Dionysos, Arthemis, Hestia, Belgarath, Morpheous and Midir. Etc, and so forth.

→ Posted by: Tomas at August 4, 2003 9:30 PM

That rubbish is supposed to prove that god exists? Wow, i'll make one.

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (II)
(1) I can conceive of a perfect shit.
(2) According to the bible perfection doesn't exist.
(3) Therefore, shit is completely imaginary.

I thank you.

→ Posted by: Lukey at August 4, 2003 9:39 PM

I dislike this whole debate because everybody's definition of the key words varies incredibly. There is too much ambiguity. I consider myself somewhat atheistic, mostly agnostic and a little bit theistic, simply because I can find a definition of any of those words that encompasses my belief system without contradicting the others.
However, I call myself an agnostic, because that is what I identify with the most.
I think that certain forms of atheism give too much credence to that which they deny.
(Given: I am somewhat of an atheist when it comes to the god that has time to have an immediate effect on my daily life.)
You have X, which is a cultural fairy tale of sorts, which may or may not have some basis.
Christians are defined by their belief in X, some are defined athiests by their explicit denial of X. My brand of agnosticism doesn't give it any particular thought. I've placed it completely outside of the scope of the things I need to form an opinion on. Do I beleive that there are invisible porno monkeys dallying about all around us? Not particularly, but I have really chosen to not give it any thought, because I can't so much find out and it really doesn't matter to me much.
I don't want a culture based on the explicit denial of X, because then the trueness or falseness of X is still at the forefront of modern conciousness and it will remain there. I prefer to encourage the growth of thought about other subjects and let X just slide out of scope.

→ Posted by: J.S. Nelson at August 4, 2003 10:34 PM

Personally, I am not out to prove whether God exists or not. In actual fact I am an atheist, yet I have a passion for religious education and theology. Many say that the two don't go together, but I can't see why not. These 'proofs' for Gods existence obviously do have some basis - I'm not trying to say which is right and which is wrong, I just really enjoy studying them.

→ Posted by: pilkington at August 5, 2003 12:29 AM

Re: Agnoticism

Here is why I am agnostic and not atheist: Atheism requires a belief that there is no god. That would presume that I know how the universe got here, which I don't.

God may have created something, which in turn created the universe, which in turn I arose out of due to various natural forces. I don't know, and don't care, because in either case it does not affect my reality and my place in existence.

Note that my concept of God here is a completely detached and uninvolved entity, which, if there _was_ a god, is the only form I could see it taking. Any god that actually interacts with humans is completely beyond the bounds of reason IMHO.

To you atheists: how can you prove, or even comfortably ignore the possibility that there is something behind the origin of our universe?

Perhaps at the core of the distinction is the difference between what atheists and agnostics consider 'god'. I am athiest with regards to Christian, Muslim, or any other religion which advocates an interested god that cares about what we are doing.

But I am agnostic with regards to the general idea of god, as the (accidental?) creator of our universe, because I have no way to prove one way or another, and have no desire to do so.

→ Posted by: coderman at August 5, 2003 12:42 AM

I am deliberately NOT reading the comments, so that they don't taint my initial reaction to your entry. After I post my comment, I will go back and read the comments.

First of all, you make an INCREDIBLY well thought-out and well-articulated post. I wonder how many comments I'll be reading in the next few minutes that will be reactionary to your first paragraph or two; the authors never taking the time to read and objectively weigh your arguments.

Second: If I were a bettin' woman, I'd wager EVERYTHING on the fact that if there IS a "God" (which, for the sake of fairness, I should disclose that I believe there is) He/She is ABOVE human nature. Which means He/She is ABOVE anger, judgment, revenge, wrath, and ego.

The whole problem with the Bible and with religion is that RELIGION SEEKS TO ASSIGN HUMAN QUALITIES (AND FRAILTIES)TO A DIVINE BEING!

Let's logic this out.

There are humans on this earth who are capable of some incredible amounts of forgiveness. I'm not one of them *snicker*, but we've all seen the news where some mother forgives the person who murdered her child, or similar scenario. If HUMANS are capable of that, then please tell me how "God", a divine being who is above human nature, will send someone to eternal torment for things like premarital sex (or any sex for that matter), choosing the wrong religion, not believing in Jesus when He is divine (or VICE VERSA, believing in Jesus and being wrong, thus worshipping a "false god").

It doesn't make SENSE that God is MORE hateful and vindictive than our sorry asses.

It doesn't make SENSE that God has assigned one religion as the "true" religion, and everyone else is going to hell for "guessing wrong".

It doesn't make SENSE that God has a bigger ego that requires more feeding (through worship and belief) than the most narcissistic human can ever dream of.

Bottom line: If God does exist, He/She could care LESS if we believe in Him/Her. He/She can see our hearts, and the harm we cause, and the good we bring to this earth. That's all that matters.

→ Posted by: Mary at August 5, 2003 1:32 AM

Oh Migawd! (no pun) ...

Every one of your commenters are intelligent and actually read what you wrote.

I feel like I'm in the blog equivalent of the twilight zone! ("The Idea Commenter BlogZone!)

I'm impressed, and think everyone deserves a big hug.

→ Posted by: Mary at August 5, 2003 1:41 AM

I simply wanted you to be aware of this extremely minor typo: proselytizing (z not s). I merely inform you because it distracts from the essay. And I only noticed it because, while I was able to theorize that the word has some relationship to "advertising", I had to look it up to find its actual meaning.

→ Posted by: Neo Godless at August 5, 2003 1:45 AM

That's not a typo. Both spellings are acceptable in British English. Check the OED if you want.

→ Posted by: earththing at August 5, 2003 3:36 AM

I suspect that when people decalre themselves to be agnostic they are really making a public display of piety. Agnostics seem to value humility and open-mindedness above anything else when it comes to the argument about god. Either that or they are just hopelessly pedantic.

"There's this thing called being so open-minded your brains drop out." - Richard Dawkins

→ Posted by: earththing at August 5, 2003 3:53 AM

Okay, I think after reading your interesting view on athiesim. I think that you are bashing christianity all together. I was raised as a christian, and at this point in my life I find christianity to be questioned. Although I find that particular religion to be undeniably one that is restricting the lives of many, with the thoughts, ideas on the way one should live, I think that we all have a purpose in life, and that is why we are blessed to be able to have our existence. With that said, I believe that there is a God, but to follow by the rules of a particular religion is also ones own decision. to believe that you were created for a purpose, a reason, is left in the hands of a higher being,

→ Posted by: Cat at August 5, 2003 4:32 AM

I suppose it's pointless to tell you that in the Letters, it seems the Apostles had exactly the same qualms with organized religion as you do.

It's probably also pointless that your entire anti-God argument doesn't disprove the existance or reality of any God, it only discredits those religions who claim to have a mainline connection to the Supreme Being. I thought intelligent people were able to discern such differences, for example, I may not like GWB, but does that mean America is evil?

If I were you, I would seperate religions from the divine, and rewrite the article because, if you can do that, your reasoning might be worth some serious debate. As it is, all I know is that you take exception to a few humans who just so happen to rest their arguments on precepts that do not exist. That's not a disproof of God, that's just a disproof of the excuses given by powerstructures.

→ Posted by: mrG at August 5, 2003 6:42 AM

It's funny fanatsism polarizes into as many sides as imaginable.

Mr. Plasticbag is trying to rationalize and defend his own choices in life by taking apart the ideals followed by others.

Sad, just like the little boy with a hammer trying to open things and figure them out by smashing them...

Dude, your not an atheist you are a weak attempt of being a destuctionist to the Tao of humanity itself.

Nice 5 page rant, tweaker...

→ Posted by: Reverse Entropy at August 5, 2003 7:40 AM

I'm an atheist for the same reason those above have said they are atheists. I don't believe in God for the same reason I don't believe the walls of my house are inhabited by intangible purple monsters that come out at night to play Twister in my living room. Agnostics say, "We can't know if there's a god or not." But this shows they've been prejudiced by prevailing cultural beliefs. They might as well say, "We can't know if there's intangible monsters in the walls or not. How arrogant and illogical of you to say otherwise." That's what they'd be saying if the world was populated by wall-monster believers. My belief that God doesn't exist requires no more faith than my belief that there are no intangible monsters in the walls. I'll allow that maybe something(s) caused the universe. But if so, there's no reason to call it "god" or to think it had any of the attributes that anybody ascribes to god.

→ Posted by: John Franson at August 5, 2003 8:57 AM

Consciousness is all in your head.

→ Posted by: yafujifide at August 5, 2003 9:41 AM

Reasons for agnosticism: There is a god & it created the universe - who created the god? This is a false question. "Creation" presumes a before & an after state, a timeline of events. Physics has proven that time & space are linked and that both were created at the instant of the big bang, as far as I understand it. Therefore when posing questions about entities that might or might not exist outside the universe, you can't rely on "universe-centric" concepts like time, or apply reasoning that only makes sense within the universe (never mind applying human traits to a god, like gender or fingernails, or biological traits to supposed non-corporal heaven-based entities, such as sight, happiness, memory, etc.) Not that time and whatnot don't necessarily exist outside the universe, you just can't know they do. Therefore all questions posed about entities outside the universe are ultimately unanswerable, though proposed answers vary in their plausibility. Therefore agnosticism. Therefore overuse of therefore and incoherent waffle.

→ Posted by: redking at August 5, 2003 4:00 PM

I consider myself agnostic in the sense that I believe What I see, hear, touch, taste, or have some tangible evidence of its existence, but just because I haven't had proof of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist, after all, I've never met any of you guys, but you all could exist somewhere (unless all theses comments were written by one lonely guy/girl, with nothing better to do)
so therefore god COULD in all possibilty exist, Its just that we've never seen proof.

NB for all the christians who say that there are 'miracles'like statues crying blood and all that hokey, go see a good illusionist magician and I bet even an indepent research team have great difficulty proving his tricks are fake!

→ Posted by: Ross at August 5, 2003 4:54 PM

I consider myself agnostic in the sense that I believe What I see, hear, touch, taste, or have some tangible evidence of its existence, but just because I haven't had proof of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist, after all, I've never met any of you guys, but you all could exist somewhere (unless all theses comments were written by one lonely guy/girl, with nothing better to do)
so therefore god COULD in all possibilty exist, Its just that we've never seen proof.

NB for all the christians who say that there are 'miracles'like statues crying blood and all that hokey, go see a good illusionist magician and I bet even an indepent research team have great difficulty proving his tricks are fake!

→ Posted by: Ross at August 5, 2003 4:55 PM

OMG im liek a chistian and i love jesus and i cant believe u wuld say these thingz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111

ur gonna rot in hell u kow dat???????!!?!?! god will puniish u 4 not belieeiving!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

its not 2 late to turn 2 god!! he wil 4give u n u can join me in heaven!!!!!

→ Posted by: Mary at August 5, 2003 7:29 PM

Gawd you are sexy to me right now!

→ Posted by: filchyboy at August 5, 2003 9:42 PM

::sighs:: This argument is still pedantic. While I currently maintain no specific religious affiliations, I believe in God. Having said that, if you take a good look at history...atheism as a concept is VERY new, especially if you're atheist and you believe in the evolution from dinosaurs to present day. Thus, one simply derives that God must exist...because the ancient records have numerous accounts of talking with God(s), and none of atheism.

→ Posted by: Dragon at August 5, 2003 11:14 PM

I don't agree that atheism requires a belief that there is no god or god. A means without (roughly), theism means a belief if a god or gods. Without a belief in a god or gods, is not the same as believing there is no god. I've seen descriptions of strong atheists and weak atheists. Strong atheists seem to believe there is no god, but I do feel that people can call themselves an atheist when they have NO belief IN a god or gods. I say I am an atheist, but I do not believe there is no god or there is a god. I am without belief either and this seems to fit with the true meaning of the word atheism.

→ Posted by: trigger at August 5, 2003 11:54 PM

"That's why orthodox Jews can't wear Polyester and Cotton, or trim their beards."

We can't? Holy shit!

*rips off shirt, throws away shaver*

(Er, Tom... I think you may have it *slightly* wrong... it's combinations of wool and linen in the same garment, and use of a naked blade to shave. Close, though...)

→ Posted by: Yoz at August 6, 2003 12:11 AM

Thanks for the posting, Tom. It summed up how I feel about religion better than I could ever hope to do. I was raised Catholic. Did the whole bit; communion, confession, etc. And then I terminally lapsed one day when I was 15, for reasons I'll never fathom. It's the rank intolerance of so many innocuous, harmless things (not just homosexuality, but a thousand other things too) that really burns me... as you say, based on bastardised interpretations of ancient texts. I posted on a mailing list recently saying, 'Progress is an illusion.' I was thinking of things like this, and the apparent hold it still has on society. Here we have a PM who often speaks in sickeningly pious terms about stuff that has nothing whatever to do with religion. I despair. I love the idea of progress, but lately I don't see much of it. The Iraq business got me into this frame of mind, partly. I do aspire to respecting other people's views, but I'm finding it real hard to respect anyone who buys into this rubbish... I hate myself for feeling that way (i.e. being intolerant myself!), but I can't help it... excuse for rambling...

→ Posted by: chrissie at August 6, 2003 2:44 AM

First there is the issue of how we, as humans, relate to the possibility of knowledge. I agree with Tom that we ought to limit our truth-claims to what can be supported by logic in conjunction with empirical observation. That said, the claims of the atheist, the agnostic and the theist *all* violate that principle precisely because logic and observation cannot be combined in any way that proves or disproves the exisitence of god... (interestingly, they can't really be combined in a way that proves or disproves physics, either.) Then there is the issue of how our knowledge bears on our relationship with others: do my beliefs about X entitle me to go around limiting the actions/rights of others, who don't share those beliefs about X? Well, no, they don't: but that is a statement about what the proper political relationship between people ought to be, and not a statement about gods or pixies or porn monkeys. This is what I understood Tom to mean when he said that, silly as it is, theists are quite entitled to go around believing in fairies, as long as they don't interfere *politically* with his rights..

→ Posted by: dragonthief at August 7, 2003 4:05 PM

Dunno if you still read these now, but Tom, I would heartily recommend the Douglas Adams discussions on Atheism and the debunking of the "shoulder-shrugging" Agnostic positions. For example there are a few chapters in his posthumous (and fantastic) book, the Salmon of Doubt.
His arguments are very similar to yours so maybe you already have read him! :)
Otherwise, I wholeheartedly agree with you!

→ Posted by: Matthew at August 9, 2003 3:46 PM

I believe that the idea that homosexuals are born that way is completely untrue and the evidence you speak of is almost entirely prepared to promote a thesis rather than seeking truth for truth's sake. Take this gay bishop recently voted upon. He had a wife and two kids and then decided to live another life. To argue that he'd always been gay and only "realized" it later is an unprovable hypothesis. There is no gay gene as much as gays wish there to be.

Re: God, it's impossible (with science) to prove or disprove his existence but it seems to me, to take more faith to believe that the ultra-complex universe came into being by accident than to believe some thing out there has(had) the ability to create it.

→ Posted by: td at August 11, 2003 8:01 PM

Actually I think you'd find there's a considerable amount of debate about whether or not gay people were born that way or not - and that happens within the gay community as much as it does outside. The one thing that does appear to be clear is that it doesn't appear to be possible for them to choose not to be gay and it's not something that people would naively chose to be, given the fact that gay people have a pretty difficult time of it.

As to the issue with the creation of the universe - atheists don't believe that the universe came into being 'by accident' at all. They're just saying that out of all the options that we know of and all the ones that we can't possibly know of as well - that it was created by a beneficient almighty God is no more likely than that it was sneezed into being or crapped out of a super-dimensional yak.

→ Posted by: Tom Coates at August 11, 2003 8:49 PM

I agree with you there there is debate, but what I haven't seen is any evidence. Continuing on I would argue that it is possible for people to choose not to be gay. There are groups who've worked with individuals who've wanted to leave that lifestyle. I think one is called Exodus or something. Another thing I find odd is that if someone was born a homosexual, why is it that they (generally men) speak with normal diction until later in life when they change the way they speak to fit in? The behaviorial change is most puzzling.

Here's a theory, that I've only rarely heard. In the gay lifestyle there are fewer guidelines, boundries or restrictions. It's more of an "I'll do what I like" mentality, which I would say agrees with a great number of people, and others not so much.

This relates to God in that, any 7-year-old will instinctively bristle when told to do something they didn't want to do. We're all just older versions, not wanting to do the things that God is telling us. The ironic twist is that, as far as I can tell, the things God commands are actually in our own best interest. The 10 Commandments are truly homo-sapien health and wellness tips.

→ Posted by: td at August 12, 2003 7:51 PM

Well TD, there is actually quite a lot of evidence surrounding sexuality - it's just not totally conclusive, and a lot of researchers stay away from the area because research can easily be abused. Let's put it this way - if gay people are 'born that way', then it could be genetic, and if it's genetic then it's possible that a test for homosexuality could be created that might make it possible for people to chose not to have gay babies. Being 'born like it' could be an argument for saying it's natural, and just as much of an argument for saying that it's a defect that needs to be cured. In fact, the fact that knowing if you're 'born like it' doesn't actually help anyone's arguments particularly means we have to look in a different direction - firstly whether or not gay people feel themselves to be cursed with a disease they'd like cured, and secondly whether or not their existence does anyone else any harm. Now, the first question is hard to demonstrate conclusively either way - certainly there are gay people who would rather not have been gay, but there are also lots of gay people who would not want to be straight and are proud of who they are. Certainly it's quite likely that gay people would be affected by the social stigmas attached to homosexuality in many parts of the world and be the presumption of heterosexuality - so that suggests that if the world were less censorious, then more gay people would be content with their sexuality. This leaves us with a range of options: (1) many gay people are happy with their sexuality and (2) those that are not may feel that way because of the way society treats them. That seems like a case for more tolerance. Secondly, we asked whether or not gay people were a threat or a danger to other people - there's no evidence whatsoever that gay people are 'recruited' into the lifestyle - it doesn't appear to be in any way contagious. Most child abuse happens inside families and there's no disproportionate representation of gay people in any figures I've seen (and I've seen a lot). So if it doesn't hurt anyone and it can't hurt anyone mentally, all you're left with is 'spiritually' - which frankly should be left up to the conscience of the person concerned - and aesthetically - which frankly is a pretty spurious argument for arguing against a kind of person...

   Now as to your statement about people choosing not to be gay - frankly, you might want proof, but that's really your problem. As a gay man, I've never made any choice to be gay, and I can't even conceive of finding a woman attractive sexually or falling in love with a woman - and (like pretty much every gay person - it's not through want of trying! So to me, it's absolutely self-evident that if you're gay, you're pretty much gay forever. That's not to say that gay men and women haven't been in marriages and had children, because they have - normally when not being married was a horrific stigma. Although many of these marriages are based on a profound respect and friendship, they don't tend to end well - because, fundamentally, the gay partner is trying as hard as they can to be something they're not. Hopefully, as the pressure not to be gay starts to evaporate, less people will find themselves in tragic situations like that...

   Now - with regard to gay men talking with funny lisping accents - frankly, you're about twenty years out of date, mate. That's not to say that there aren't gay people who fulfil stereotypes, because there obviously are. I don't know why that is - I don't know if it's genetic or cultural or a symbol of rebellion or whatever, just as I don't really know why some people become football hooligans or astronauts - with their respective ways of behaving, cadences and specialised language. But there are many many more gay people who aren't like that. I'm not like that. Which frankly shouldn't get me a prize or anything - I'm not better than them in any way. But it is important for you to realise that gay people aren't all the same, they're not all clones who listen to disco music and do interior design. And frankly, your stereotyping isn't helping your case here...
   Now as to your thing about the 'gay lifestyle' - frankly I don't think you know what you're talking about. There are nightclubs where people go to pick up people and get drunk. Heaven forfend that should happen! I mean, it's not like any straight people do that! I mean - get drunk?! Have sex with people!? Only complete deviants could do that! Well - surprise, surprise, straight people DO get drunk and have sex with each other, they DO go to nightclubs and take drugs. And on any given day of the week, I can pretty much guarantee that more straight people are doing all of those things than gay ones. Other straight people are having relationships, going to see movies and having dates, being completely gutted when a relationship goes wrong, playing sport and building things. Some are even Christians. And you know what - gay people do all those things too. They just do it with members of their own sex.

   Now - finally - I want to make this clear to you - there is nothing about gay people in the Ten Commandments, there are a lot of rules for life that are important that are outside the ten commandments, and a good few (don't worship graven images and "You shall have no other god but me") that are nothing whatsoever to do with health and wellness. You have to learn to accept that other people in the world do not believe in or agree with your religion and yet we don't interfere in your ability to do what you want in relation to it. Could you please afford me the same courtesy...

→ Posted by: Tom Coates at August 12, 2003 8:49 PM

1) The Ten Commandments are not the extent of Judo-Christian law. Which you kind of almost said...but then switched topics completely so I'm not sure where you were gonna head with that. 2) Good point that we can't hold you responsible for living our beliefs. And I'm with you in getting pissed off at the idiot fanatics who don't understand that. 3) You still haven't addressed the fact that atheism as a concept is new as hell and by logical deduction is unable to be true.

→ Posted by: Dragon at August 13, 2003 11:53 AM

Can some one explain this to me? Even if there were a creator-god, why would that mean I was obliged to obey him/her in moral matters? In fact: what has it to do with the difference between right and wrong at all? I make a table, I don't expect it to worship me and do as I say. In fact, the impulse to worship, (and perhaps especially the impulse to need to be worshipped) are pretty human, if you ask me, and rather tawdry at that. Arguments that religious sensibility is a question of love I can (vaguely) respect; but arguments that it is a question of *obedience*... s'cuse me while I roll my eyes and sigh.

People like td make the (entirely false) point that gay people choose their sexuality, and that this is what makes them culpable. This is such a crock that I hardly know where to start. Leaving completely to one side the issue of whether it is nature or nurture, or even whether it is wrong, I'd like you to think about the role of choice in moral judgement. We think it is important. We think that autonomy is important because it is through deciding for oneself that one attains responsibility for one's actions. Of course, it is also to be fervently hoped that such choice can, at the same time, discover the difference between right and wrong. Even for Christians, it must be more important to choose Good than to choose God, and to fail to choose at all is the worst sort of moral negligence.

Our access to moral judgement is provided by reason, not revelation, because it is reason that is bound-up with meaningful choice. Reason, in fact, tells me that it is not moral to do something just because it is "Written" or "Commanded": in such cases I am chickening out of responsibility for my own moral decisions. A judgement is moral only when one has issued the moral principle to oneself as a result of careful reasoning, even if this means, in the end, just endorsing a principle like those in the Ten Commandments. The point is that each conscience must do the work itself, and understand the nature of the Good and how it manifests itself, (if it does) in religious principles. This, you will kindly note, means that it is completely arse-to-front to point to "Written" and "Commanded" principle to explain why things are good or bad: if those principles are correct, then they are correct in virtue of something other than the fact that they were written down, or the fact that a rather cool carpenter stated them 2000 years ago. It's not even that I'm suggesting that they're wrong: I'm saying that the blind following of heteronomous laws is contrary to moral conduct. Religious texts, and even the existence of God, taken on their own, fail entirely to establish moral obligation or moral certainty.

So there.

→ Posted by: Michael at August 13, 2003 12:40 PM

I suppose, then, that you also consider any child that you create free from obeying you? A table and a child are much different - in that a table can't learn, grow, or develop. The child can. That's not done by doing whatever the heck it wants - hence our still more-or-less intact family structure that humans have been using for millenia. God gave us rules for the same reason parents give their children rules. So there.

→ Posted by: Dragon at August 13, 2003 7:16 PM

Dragon - look the argument is simple - if there's no evidence for something whatsoever and there are an infinite number of possible explanations (some of which we can detail but just as many that we're unable to articulate at the moment), then it's not reasonable to assume that your one possible explanation is obviously right. I don't have an explanation - I'd like to have one but I don't - but in the meantime, without evidence, the odds of your position being right are so infinitesimal as to be irrelevant. And while we're here, when you talk about the more-or-less intact family structure that humans have been using for millenia, then I assume you're also talking about those kinds of family structures that seem to exist quite successfully in non-Christian countries and before the coming of either Christianity or Semitic religions. I'm not prepared to argue the same points over and over if you're unable to push them in any direction other than asserting that you're right.

→ Posted by: Tom Coates at August 14, 2003 12:37 AM

My point was that there is historical evidence of the existence of God: A) All ancient peoples believed in a diety of some sort, evidenced by Atheism being developed in the last few centuries. B) Since many of the historic records account for various people(s) talking directly to God, they were either all universally insane, or maybe they actually knew what they were doing with their belief in God. That's really all the evidence you should need, unless you can point out how it's unreliable. And I was talking about the general family structure - nto the Christian or Semitic. Families have held societies together for a long time. Whether the societies were all that great (heck - I don't even like most of the Christian societies) isn't the point so much as that survival without rules of some sort in isoloation is not really done all that often.

→ Posted by: Dragon at August 14, 2003 4:52 AM

Dragon - I'm afraid ancient people's also universally believed in lots of other things that were demonstrably untrue - like the idea that the world was flat. All their belief in some kind of divinity demonstrates is that (i) the human imagination wants an explanation for these things and (ii) is predisposed to think about things in terms of human-like agency. I don't think that's a surprise at all - after all most of us talk about our computers being in 'moods' or 'conspiring against us' even though there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that would make us believe that. And as to 'historical accounts' - there's two things going on there - firstly many of these things were written after the fact many generations after the events apparently described, which had been passed down oral traditions - these are hardly the most accurate of 'historical documents', and secondly all they record is that people in history believed in these things. Which is not a shock. Lots of people today claim that god tells them to do things - they are either called evangelists/'born again' or they're consider paranoid schizophrenic, depending on whether or not they're dangerous or not...

→ Posted by: Tom Coates at August 14, 2003 9:13 AM

Re: Bill Russell and your post on determinism. I've been through this argument in my head many times before. You may or may not be right: I am usually inclined to think you are; Roger Penrose thinks quantum mechanics will prove you wrong. Either way, though, you have clearly thought deeply about it. I would say that you have hit upon the most important conclusion yourself and overlooked the importance of it: "The result is that although a human feels personal choice [that feeling is illusory]."

Seeing as you accept that we feel personal choice -- and frankly, who is going to disagree with that? -- then I hope you will agree that we have no choice but to kowtow to the illusion. The question of whether we have free choice or not becomes worthless, because whether we do or we don't, we cannot help but feel that we do. This almost warrants a 'QED'. It is simply impossible to live life any other way.

* * * So no; as an atheist, I'm not going to surrender my devotion to 'the random workings of a chaotic universe.' Quite the opposite: I'm going to disregard these workings in order to get on with my life as best as I can. If I'm ultimately not in control, I damn well feel as though I am, and I am going to take advantage of that feeling to spread goodwill and alleviate suffering.

Do you do any different?

→ Posted by: grim at August 14, 2003 3:59 PM

Great civil discussion btw. :)

>a lot of researchers stay away from the
>area because research can easily be abused

True, a valid point.

>but there are also lots of gay people who
>would not want to be straight and are
>proud of who they are

Not that I can step inside these folks and validate their answers, but of course, a portion of the sample would state this to be true, whether it's true or not.

>there's no evidence whatsoever that gay
>people are 'recruited' into the lifestyle

This is a completely untrue statement, which makes me question the honesty of some of your other points. You may not want to admit this is true, but there are many examples of this, even in some of the homosexual literature I've read. I used to work with a guy who tried to convince me I was gay, merely because he wanted me to date me. I'm not making this up.

>funny lisping accents - frankly, you're
>about twenty years out of date, mate.

My point in bringing this up is not to villify or put down but to merely cite this as an example of learned (chosen) behavior vs. innate (genetic) behavior. Homosexuals tend to begin speaking (consciously or unconsciously) in this manner once they've entered the gay lifestyle, not as children, which is what the genetic argument would lead you to believe. That was my only point, not to offend anyone.

>Now as to your thing about the 'gay
>lifestyle' - frankly I don't think you
>know what you're talking about.

I'm sure I don't know as much as a homosexual person, I merely used to term to describe the range of activities that homosexuals tend to prefer. These activities, I would argue, fall into a more "boundry-less" category. You didn't speak to this aspect of my theory. Does it make sense that some individuals would be more inclined towards a certain lifestyle if that lifestyle had fewer rules and more freedom of choice? That's my presupposition.

>there is nothing about gay people in the
>Ten Commandments

That's a good point that is a major discredit to people claiming to be followers of Christ. In my experience, homosexuality, while clearly described as sin in Bible, is not said to be any worse (nor better) than any other sin. The only sins that are given more weight are blashemy against the Holy Spirit; another discussion for another time. But many Christians today treat homosexuality as the worst of all sins and that's shameful and completely unloving, thereby un-Christlike. To me, it's a problem like alcoholism or a gambling addiction. Please remember, this is not my opinion... it's God's command that I'm merely citing. People rail against the person who says "This is wrong." calling them judgemental and holier-than-thou but they are only referencing a resource, much like a footnote. Only God can identify what is wrong and what is right, our job to to honestly look to see what He's saying.

Bottom line: I understand you don't share my religious beliefs. But I would be less than loving to not point out what I believe to be facts of the utmost importance. Nothing is more important than the meaning of life. I don't so much want you to adopt my beliefs as I desire for all people to investigate and honestly ask themselves, which of all these worldviews resonates best with my true heart. Not what worldview allows me to do whatever I like, but which one seems true.

This discussion has been good but the medium has grown small compared to the number of thought threads we've hit on. I won't be posting here again, but please take care.

→ Posted by: td at August 14, 2003 4:01 PM

While I admit you have a point about the oral tradition, you must also consider that there must be a base of truth in their somewhere for it to happen all that many times. And comparing the world being flat to talking with God is not a valid comparison. Talking to God == going into space and *seeing* that the world is round. Saying the world is flat is simply saying that God doesn't exist. There's no evidence to be relied on their except a limited scope.

→ Posted by: Dragon at August 15, 2003 5:32 AM

A recent discussion between my friend and I, prompted by this post, led me to understand that a person's belief in the existence of god is dependent upon his or her definition of god. Given that god is a supernatural entity, the proof of its existence cannot be determined, since all we humans can utilize to tangibly prove something are our empirical senses. Otherwise, god is bound by the rules of its own creation, and should therefore be tangible in some scientific way. I leave out the Christian concept of god because it's too involved in the abstract.

Just because the (irrelevant) idea of "intangible monsters in the walls" is ludicrous does not make it untrue. Example: the belief then versus the knowledge now of the shape of the Earth. Humans in the past didn't have the tools needed to accurately describe this property, but now we do. Perhaps we just don't have the tools now to describe (prove) god. Maybe it's not new tools we need, but new states of mind; but that's too abstract to talk about now.

The existence of god is a probability; a belief in god's existence or nonexistence is a gamble, the winnings of which are to be cashed in at some indeterminate time. I for one hope that there is a god because its existence, according to my definition, will give the Universe some sort of unified purpose. I neither believe nor disbelieve in god because I can't, and that used to be frustrating; but now I understand that absence of proof does not necessarily mean unexistance.

The atheistic point of view is too simplistic, and the theistic point of view is too convoluted (no proof, no god vs. god is supernatural, yet I know it exists). None of us have known god, therefore we cannot know of its existence.

I think I'm done. Critique, please.

p.s. Food for thought about the Cosmological Argument: our laws of time and space break down at singularities (i.e., the initial state of our Universe as proposed by the Big Bang Theory).

p.s.s. I'm a heterosexual male, but it is my female homosexual roommate's understanding that she's always known that she was gay. Maybe it was in infancy that she went from being a "breeder" to being gay, but the converse could be said of us heteros. Frankly, I don't care.

→ Posted by: Shane at August 15, 2003 5:53 AM

Dragon - I'm afraid that makes no sense. The differences between the oral traditions are too vast to see anything but a desperate need to find 'an answer'. You might as well argue that there are mystical spirits in trees and rivers, since almost all human cultures have believed in that at some point. There's a really interesting book by Walter J Ong called "Orality and Literacy" that talks about how pre-literate cultures conceive of things, memorise things and transmit culture that has a lot to say on this point. Well worth a read.

As to your point about the relationship between the flat earth theory and believing in god, I simply don't understand your argument - you'll have to exaplin it in greater depth.

→ Posted by: Tom Coates at August 15, 2003 8:29 AM

As far as the 2nd part goes - Saying that the world is flat is the same as saying that you do not believe in God. Both are based on a limited perspective, since the people who said the world is flat had not actually seen the world itself (just a minute part of it). Those that do not believe in God generally have not seen him either. Now, I for one have not seen God. However, there have been people who have. They are much the same as the astronauts that have been in space and have seen that the world is round. They come back and tell us. I've got some paranoid friends who say that the whole space program was faked anyways, and still don't believe that we've seen that the world is round. I, however, believe them, as I do those who have seen God.

As for the first, I'll have to hunt down that book and check it out.

→ Posted by: Dragon at August 15, 2003 2:24 PM

Please allow me to speak on behalf of the confused who haven't decided what they believe yet.

I do believe that there is something more intelligent, and unearthly than me. We are not here by accident. I'm not sure what all of that means though.

However, I despise Christianity because my years of experience with it have continually led me to believe that it is a crutch for the weak-minded. It's like drugs, which separate your brain from the reality of life. I can barely believe what humans wrote 10 years ago let alone 2000 years ago. How can anyone follow another human's writing like that to define their lives?

→ Posted by: Brad C at August 15, 2003 2:30 PM

I believe in God. There is a lot of energy on this page (and attitude and effort) confronting a being you claim you don't believe exists. If you truly believe this, then I think you should consider why a being with no power needs such an intense attack to discredit it. To believe in God requires faith. No religion I know of claims you will be able to study and verify and PROVE the existence of God. They all require this element. People make up their minds fairly early in life to either be able to commit to believing in things we cannot prove, or not. If you cannot believe in anything you cannot prove, you are unlikely to take anything/anyone on faith. With this being the main requirement for religious belief systems, the rest seems really pointless to debate and anyone who needs to think about it in such detail appears to only have a need to prove they are right and that the other viewpoint is wrong. This doesn't smack of taking the high road intellectually, it has the distinct flavor of evangelical campaign, only the candidate is the self proclaimed superior intellect of the non-believer. I wonder if the once a month debate you find yourself in is because you feel the need to set the world straight on their "mistaken beliefs" and cannot abide allowing others the freedom to make these arguments for themselves and decide they disagree with your viewpoint. Acknowledging and respecting different points of view certainly make the day to day interaction with others a bit more challenging than simply charging into the faith/no faith battles and quieting the opposition.

→ Posted by: Believer at August 21, 2003 3:04 PM

noticed a group of athiests are debating god @ http://www.philosophyforums.com -in the philosophy of religion forum. it looks like they need help.

→ Posted by: help at August 21, 2003 10:46 PM

Thanks for writing in. I do - of course - disagree. Personally I
completely understand that people feel a need for some kind of meaning in their lives that they feel they need enforced from outside, and I think it's completely plausible that people would try and make a god roughly in their own image, with roughly comprehendable motives who they could give a part of themselves up to. These are the reasons I think it's difficult to convince people - because they don't WANT to be convinced fundamentally - they'd rather believe in something in complete opposition to all other evidence than give up these comforts. And when I talk about adherence to a religion as a comfort, I don't say it because it's requirements are easy, but it's comforting because people often feel uncomfortable with responsibility for determining what to do with their lives, how to live their lives and why they do the things they do - they'd rather give themselves up to something larger than themselves - even if it's a lie - than feel exposed and alone.

You don't have to agree of course.

Now, in my post itself, I don't make anything even resembling an intense attack - and - let me make this clear - the intensity of an attack can NOT be considered obviously in inverse proportion to its validity. That makes no sense whatsoever!

The problem with your position - which is a relatively recent one, I might add, once religious people themselves gave up looking for proof in the behaviour of the world around them - is that it's self-supporting. The argument, fundamentally, is that you have an experience of something and therefore it must be true. The fact that other people also claim to have an of god that is radically different to yours, that just as many of those people are bad people who do terrible things than among atheists and hindus (etc) and that a vast number of people believe that they were abducted by aliens or that they've physically seen aliens in their everyday life - these things apparently mean nothing! That your experience of god is so historically contingent, so different from so many other religions - monotheistic and polytheistic or even animist - *should* concern you. What makes what you believe different from those who see spirits in trees or who worship Lions?

→ Posted by: Tom Coates at August 22, 2003 9:01 AM

I do believe in God(as a Christian) and I am very impressed by many comments on this topic, even though they are mainly athiest and agnostic.
I whole heartedly agree that reaseach and learning, not only about your particular belief, but of others is crucial.
I'm interested in talking about many things here and hope to come back for more later(I'm at work). But I'm noticing the notion with a lot of comments here, is that once you choose a particular religion and believe there is a divine being, that you no longer care how the world works and science doesn't matter.
There are hundreds, of world renowned scientists, bioligists, chemists, etc. that have done amazing things in understanding the world and still have complete faith that god exhists.
I don't have multiple PH-Ds, Masters, or Doctorates but I do read a lot of science(Quantum Physics, Biology, etc.) books and articles and have yet to come across any real reasoning why science and religion cannot coincide.

→ Posted by: Dan at August 23, 2003 1:17 AM

It seems to me to require a lot of faith to
believe in evolution. Scientists know but won't admit that it's impossible for matter
to create living organisms without information subjected into the mix i.e. DNA
& messenger RNA. Where did this highly complex info. come from? For me its easier to believe in a God than that matter somehow developed the "brains" to make a computer out of itself and then follow the millions of instructions required to develop
living animate tissue. After all, Bill Gates does hire software engineers--Windows
didn't make itself (although there may be some that would debate that too!).

→ Posted by: Brian at August 27, 2003 5:30 PM