An Awful List of ’7 Things That Prove God Is Real’

67

Writing for Charisma, J. Lee Grady has a list of 7 things that prove God is real.

Seven?! And they PROVE God is real?! Man, this list should be really good. (Hell, I only need one reason!) But let’s see how he plans to convince atheists he’s right…

1) Babies

How can anyone deny the reality of God when they see a baby?

I’ll just let The Onion rebut this one

2) Thunderstorms

I love to sit on my back porch in Florida and listen to the rumbling of thunder. It reminds me of God’s majesty and power.

Yeah… thunder. Which, scientifically speaking, is the sound made whenever God goes bowling. Thunderstorms have nothing to do with God. I know this because I did what Grady didn’t: I looked it up.

3) Flowers

There are more than 400,000 species of flowers in the world, and most of them are not edible. Their job is to simply make the world beautiful. Did they just haphazardly evolve over time, or did a loving God create each individual shape and color scheme for our enjoyment?

Entire books have been written about how and why flowers evolved as they did. Needless to say, making the world beautiful is a pleasant byproduct but not the main purpose of how flowers came to be. This is just another example of willful ignorance on Grady’s part. He could learn about this stuff, but he chooses not to because making up stories is much more entertaining — and doesn’t conflict with his faith.

4) The Bible

There is nothing like the Bible because it carries the same consistent message throughout all of its 66 different books.

Right… except for a couple of contradictions here and there

Written By: Hemant Mehta
continue to source article at patheos.com

67 COMMENTS

  1. Seven reasons why God does not exist;

    1) Parasites

    2) Harmful bacteria

    3) Harmful viruses

    4) Motor Neuron disease

    5) Disease carrying insects

    6) Natural disasters killing hundreds of thousands

    7) Poverty, warfare, social strife and despair about which the Almighty does nothing.

    Just to be mischievous I add an 8th.

    8) Christians, Jews and Muslims. Surely proof certain that there can’t be a God !

    • I wouldn’t mind adding:

      9 – Spontaneous Abortions
      10- Fatal Genetic Diseases
      11 – Genetic Abnormalities
      12 – Child Leukemia

      And then add “God works in mysterious ways”

      In reply to #1 by Mr DArcy:

      Seven reasons why God does not exist;

      1) Parasites

      2) Harmful bacteria

      3) Harmful viruses

      4) Motor Neuron disease

      5) Disease carrying insects

      6) Natural disasters killing hundreds of thousands

      7) Poverty, warfare, social strife and despair about which the Almighty does nothing.

      Just to be mi…

  2. Instead of a bunch of comments saying how dumb this E. L. Wisty guy obviously is, how ’bout we list our own reasons why God must be real, in the author’s own style. Just for the craic.

    A copy of An Appetite for Wonder… can be purchased from all good bookshops.

    My own submission: Puppy dogs. How could these delightful creatures not have been placed here by a benevolent deity? It’s impossible.


    Edit: Ooh, and ice cream.

    And all this stuff, of course.

    • In reply to #2 by Katy Cordeth:

      Instead of a bunch of comments saying how dumb this E. L. Wisty guy obviously is, how ’bout we list our own reasons why God must be real, in the author’s own style. Just for the craic.

      A copy of An Appetite for Wonder… can be purchased from all good bookshops.

      My own submission: Puppy dogs. How…

      Ok, now Ice Cream is worth praying to. I can see it. I can taste it. I know how it made and I know where it came from.

      It’s almost as good as spaghetti. (the flying type)

    • In reply to #2 by Katy Cordeth:

      Instead of a bunch of comments saying how dumb this E. L. Wisty guy obviously is, how ’bout we list our own reasons why God must be real, in the author’s own style. Just for the craic.

      A copy of An Appetite for Wonder… can be purchased from all good bookshops.

      Don’t forget chocolate, dancing, music, sex, wine… Thank you doG!

    • In reply to #2 by Katy Cordeth:

      Instead of a bunch of comments saying how dumb this E. L. Wisty guy obviously is, how ’bout we list our own reasons why God must be real, in the author’s own style. Just for the craic.

      Certainly wouldn’t classify myself as a ‘great brain’, but here goes …

      /engage simulated creationist mode

      8) Stars!
      How can you doubt the existence of God, when you contemplate the sheer scale of the observable universe? And every time our technology improves, and we build better telescopes, what do we see? Even MORE stars! This is obviously his way of showing us that, no matter how clever we think we are, his creation just keeps on unfolding before us, to remind us how much greater than us His glory is.

      /disengage simulated creationist mode

      Now I need to shower. In bleach. :-)

  3. My personal relationship with Jesus? The fact is that great numbers of Evangelicals have been converted to Christ for years but are still racists, war hawks, homophobes, hostile to the poor, and by and large not concerned to do much more than promote the narrow interests of their own class.

  4. God exists because:

    1. I prayed that my team wins and it did
    2. I feel good now and I don’t know why
    3. Einstein did not clearly state that it does not exist
    4. The two crosses suddenly showing on my computer screen (or is it C++?)
    5. The magic of reality, which is both real and magic
    6. Someone important in opera attire in an old city said so
    7. The Ham book clearly explains why
  5. Dear Mr J. Lee Grady,
    God told me that you would you like to buy some shares in a company that I am setting up in Nigeria.
    God will triple your money in four days. Please send a cheque to …

    • In reply to #5 by old-toy-boy:

      Dear Mr J. Lee Grady,
      God told me that you would you like to buy some shares in a company that I am setting up in Nigeria.
      God will triple your money in four days. Please send a cheque to …

      The great part of this deal, Mr. Grady, is that you can’t lose! If you get all that money then God surely knows that you need it – isn’t god great!? However, if you lose all of your money it’s because God knows that you didn’t really need it and he has other great plans for you. Isn’t God wise?!!!

  6. The day I found God. When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bike. Then I realised that Jesus doesn’t work that way, so I stole one and asked him to forgive me. Praise the Lord…..Praise the Lord…..Praise the Lord.

    • In reply to #6 by Bob Springsteen:

      The day I found God. When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bike. Then I realised that Jesus doesn’t work that way, so I stole one and asked him to forgive me. Praise the Lord…..Praise the Lord…..Praise the Lord.

      Isn’t that an Emo Philips joke, Bob?

  7. As lists go for proving god’s existence not exactly the most convincing. Where is all the smiting, disease curing and other such bollocks that the god botherers claim? Fact is there will never be proof of existence or not so we will carry on with these witless claims about god’s majesty when we all know that these so called items of proof are always rationally explained.

  8. Flowers:

    The (hermaphroditic?) genitals of some plants which use gaudy advertising with a sticky reward (which when it comes to bees, we (after the bees have vomited it up) will spread over toast) to attract others to carry their male gametes to hopefully another flower on the same species of plant but as often as not spreading it to the next flower over resulting in incestuous mating of the plant with itself which let’s face it a good breeze will often result in the same, or resulting in depositing it on another plant of another species.

    If this is God he is one sick puppy.

    Best think about what you are really saying when you give loved ones a bunch of plant genitals. “to prove my love to you I cut off this plants genitals”, “I’m so sorry your Grandmother died here, have some plant genitals”.

    • In reply to #10 by Reckless Monkey:

      Best think about what you are really saying when you give loved ones a bunch of plant genitals. “to prove my love to you I cut off this plants genitals”, “I’m so sorry your Grandmother died here, have some plant genitals”.

      Bugger, new coffee-proof keyboard please.

  9. I was once asked by a catholic why I didn’t believe, to which I replied “Lack of Evidence”. She laughed in my face and said, “But there is love”! Then she went on to say she’d been raised as a catholic and encouraged to question everything. She must have missed the ‘whence cometh evil’ dilemma of Epicurus and Kant’s demolition of the RCC’s so called ‘intellectual’ arguments.

    Now for god to be real? One or two of the following might be persuasive but I urge caution, Satan can also perform miracles. (It says so somewhere in the bible)

    How’s about appearing and freeze frame stopping the next tsunami as it roars up the beach?

    A few spectacular resurrections perhaps?

    A rewind to 1900 so we get a chance to do the last century right?

    Turning up and saying exactly who is right and which fuktards got it wrong so that there are no more petty misunderstandings resulting in millions of deaths.

    None of the above? Ah well we’re back into the burning bush, Allah inscribed in a rib eye steak, My daughter passed her exams after lighting a candle stuff which is enough proof for those who are brought up to question everything and get the answers wrong.

  10. Tony Blair illegally invaded a foreign country, leading directly or indirectly to hundreds of thousands of deaths, because God told him (and Bush) to do it. Then he converted to Catholicism so Pope Benny could absolve him after he said three Hail Marys, so his place in heaven is assured.

    Praise the Lord!

    • In reply to #12 by Stevehill:

      Tony Blair illegally invaded a foreign country, leading directly or indirectly to hundreds of thousands of deaths, because God told him (and Bush) to do it. Then he converted to Catholicism so Pope Benny could absolve him after he said three Hail Marys, so his place in heaven is assured.

      He’s so crooked that when he dies they won’t bury him, they’ll just screw him into the ground …

  11. I never heard of this person. Why are we wasting our time making fun of some unknown person on the internet? Richard’s birthday is around the corner; maybe we can start a Happy Birthday post instead of this worthless nonsense.

    • In reply to #13 by QuestioningKat:

      I never heard of this person. Why are we wasting our time making fun of some unknown person on the internet? Richard’s birthday is around the corner; maybe we can start a Happy Birthday post instead of this worthless nonsense.

      Hey, … don’t be such a downer.

      But yeah, not exactly news worthy, is it. Not when compared to the glorious days of the Almighty Falcon Argument, or the Banana Controversy.

  12. Flowers – make the world beautiful

    Andie McDowell, the actress, once asked (at TED?) why an orchid has such a lovely form, if not to to be appreciated by humans. Rudimentary answer should of made perfect sense for her – instead, she gave a look of unbelief, tinged with a hint of suspicion. Dig in their heels, they will – akin to horses refusing a jump.

    people who choose to deny god – magnolias

    Mr. Grady, it is not a matter of choice, or denial. Just simply the acceptance of physical laws. Would it surprise you – the other day, with “plant passion” emotion, I bought a beautiful magnolia specimen. Not a deity in sight, but thanks for offering.

  13. Christianity? A religion based on a family more dysfunctional than the Simpsons: He was sure his mother was a virgin, his mother was sure he was God, and poor old Joseph never got his end away.

    • In reply to #17 by Bob Springsteen:

      Christianity? A religion based on a family more dysfunctional than the Simpsons: He was sure his mother was a virgin, his mother was sure he was God, and poor old Joseph never got his end away.

      This one is sailing pretty close to the wind in plagiarism terms, too.

  14. Fleas, ticks, lice, rats, etc. can also be considered a miracle of birth and the offsprings of these creatures are also a beauty of nature though we tend to forget God when we contemplate them with absolute disgust.
    Flowers are beautiful but they have another purpose in nature. What about bacteria, viruses, and other littel creatures that cause terrible illnesses in humans? Aren’t they beautiful too?
    The Bible? What about the Koran, the Arabian nights, the Greek mythology, the Scandinavian Sagas, etc, etc, etc, Don’t these books prove the existence of an endless number of gods?
    Jesus? What about Muhammad, Lord Krishna, Osiris, Zeus, Wotan, etc, etc, etc,?
    His personal friendship with God? And the personal friendship of other people with different gods?
    Why is there so many naive and deluded people who are so fallacious?

  15. Grady needs to forget about prayer and read some poetry, as it is often wonderful and insightful too:

    Reality Rules…

    Come to the realisation

    no “next life” myth for me,

    the gravity of the situation,

    eternal death is guaranteed.

    To sacrifice my primal life

    It’s just not in my nature,

    moral instincts dominate

    my primitive behaviour.

    Ignore those impositions

    ship of fools will set to sea,

    reality rules the nation

    freedom and equality!

    Live this life and live it well,

    there aint no heaven, aint no hell,

    reality rules are left unbroken,

    life with the lot is for the taking.

    Amen

  16. One’s argument is fatally flawed the moment one quotes an unverified publication for any claim. To then claim that one’s chosen deity is true because a book says so is an impossible claim.

  17. Sure, Love is ever so beautiful But humor and laughter are right up there with it. I thank everyone who put so much of it on this thread.

    There is a line somewhere in the Bible that says, “Jesus wept.” Doesn’t say a word anywhere about him laughing. The whole world would have been better if he had laughed even once.

    • In reply to #33 by 78rpm:

      Sure, Love is ever so beautiful But humor and laughter are right up there with it. I thank everyone who put so much of it on this thread.

      There is a line somewhere in the Bible that says, “Jesus wept.” Doesn’t say a word anywhere about him laughing. The whole world would have been better if he…

      Jesus obviously had a depression problem………

  18. In reply to comment [removed] by Loudguitr:

    Yeah, sorry, what I was getting at, although I didn’t explain myself very well, was to see if the great brains at RichardDawkins.net could, as an intellectual exercise, place themselves in the shoes of creationist types and offer their own reasons whey evolution cannot be true and the universe might be under ten thousand years old. It’s easy to laugh at young-earth, evolution opponents, but I don’t think it can be denied that they are, no pun intended, a creative lot; it must take a good deal of effort and inventiveness to keep all their plates spinning all the time.

    The atheist movement doesn’t require any creativity because it has the facts on its side. Whether this accounts for its dullness and failure to capture the public imagination is debatable. What is or at least should be true is that if people like that Mr. Ham and his ilk are capable of formulating theories which have the ring of truth for so many, then all you clever-clogs non believers here at the website of the planet’s atheist numero uno should have no trouble coming up with your own explanations in support of ideas like the one that posits humans and dinosaurs were contemporaneous. Don’t worry, you won’t be giving succor to the enemy — or perhaps you will. If their ideas are wrong it shouldn’t matter, as no amount of cleverness will make a dent in the plain facts.

    Orville and Wilbur Wright when having an argument used to switch sides and argue the other’s point of view in exactly this manner.
    As I say, though, New Atheists often seem singularly lacking in creativity, so maybe you lot don’t have it in you to be as inventive as those on the other side. It’s possible that it requires an entirely different skill set.

    P.S. I agree that my original comment was pretty dumb, and I am appropriately shamed.

    • In reply to #35 by Katy Cordeth:

      The atheist movement doesn’t require any creativity because it has the facts on its side. Whether this accounts for its dullness and failure to capture the public imagination is debatable

      I don’t think that’s the reason. I think part of the problem is, as the movement is structured now, there isn’t much of a compelling case for why atheism (as opposed to say environmentalism, or a peace movement, or human rights,…) I get much more enthused about doing something that will really impact people and the planet. To me the atheism movement, at least as exemplified by this site, is just a bunch of people who — while I agree with them on most things — are fairly boring since they mostly spend their time comparing themselves to theists and laughing and mocking about how much smarter they are. That appeals to some people, mostly men I think of a certain age group with time on their hands, but for me, and I think a lot of people like me it’s just boring.

      As an example, I read a great book recently called The Burglary. It was about very ordinary people who took very big risks in order to break into an FBI office in the 70′s and release the files they found about how the FBI was illegally spying on Americans. Now THOSE people were interesting! Here’s a video that describes the group: It Was Time to Do More Than Protest”: Activists Admit to 1971 FBI Burglary That Exposed COINTELPRO

      Those people had some balls, they weren’t all talk. And those people were all Christians. When you have the moral courage to do things like this you don’t need creativity. Although oddly enough the two often seem to go together, another more recent example are my new heroes: Pussy Riot.

      Actually, I think I would amend what I just said to: when you have a truly compelling moral purpose, that tends to attract the kind of people like Pussy Riot who are also highly creative and good at doing things that get people’s attention. When all you do is whine about how stupid some group you don’t like is, then you pretty much get whiners who tend to not be all that creative (witness people like Victoria Jackson or Dennis Miller).

    • In reply to #35 by Katy Cordeth:

      In reply to comment [removed] by Loudguitr:

      Yeah, sorry, what I was getting at, although I didn’t explain myself very well, was to see if the great brains at RichardDawkins.net could, as an intellectual exercise, place themselves in the shoes of creationist types and offer their own reasons whey ev…

      Hey Katy,

      Aw, that’s not fair, atheists can be a creative bunch when they set their minds to it – just look at the first comment on the Patheos article itself:

      “Frank Mitchell • 6 days ago

      All those things prove the truth of MY beliefs:

      1 The caterwauling of infants reveals the blind idiocy of Azathoth, to whom the death of suns is music.

      2 Thunderstorms echo the voice of Yog-Sothoth, who exists throughout all time and space and in the Spaces Between, and the eventual vessel through which It will gain access to this world.

      3 Flowers reflect the unstoppable fecundity of Shub-Niggurath, Black Goat of the Woods with a Thousand Young.

      4-6 The Christian religion arose through the seductive lies of Nyarlathotep, the Crawling Chaos. From behind a thousand masks the Messenger of the Great Old Ones seduces humankind along a path of ignorance and mindless adoration.

      7 Above all, I fear Great Cthulhu who whispers in my dreams, warning of the day when he rises from R’lyeh to spread madness and death.”

      On the other hand, I completely agree with you on the issue of some of the posters here being a little too stifled and predictable in their responses. Yes, we can all list 7 counter reasons which show that God must be a nasty piece of work if he exists, by citing Harlequin babies, Ebola, tsunamis etc., but that doesn’t take much skill or creativity really, there’s too much suffering to choose from.

      I’m not creative enough to come up with another 7 original head-scratching reasons why God exists (that haven’t already been done to death by every religious apologist in the history of mankind), but here’s 3 lame attempts:

      1. Transubstantiation –
        Wafers and wine can be turned into flesh and blood of the Christ – who else but God could do that?
      2. Numbers/mathematics –
        The universe and all of creation can be understood by numbers and mathematics alone. How could anything other than a God have implemented such a simple yet powerful system of Universe creation?
      3. Manure –
        All animals ingest living things and excrete waste products which are absolutely required to re-grow living things at the upstream end of the food chain and continue the cycle of animal life – how could that possibly be a consequence of evolution rather than a deliberate design by God in order to perpetuate animal life?
  19. Katy Cordeth 35:

    Yeah, sorry, what I was getting at, although I didn’t explain myself very well, was to see if the great brains at RichardDawkins.net could, as an intellectual exercise, place themselves in the shoes of creationist types and offer their own reasons whey evolution cannot be true and the universe might be under ten thousand years old.

    Well I certainly can’t speak for the “great brains” here, but I regard my own contributions as an attempt to dispel ignorance and to attack those who promote false ideas. Witness the OP re reasons for God. IMO dispelling ignorance is a useful exercise, would you disagree ?

    Unlike you and Red Dog, I generally find the discussions here to be of pretty high level, usually polite and nearly always interesting. Also the level of animosity between posters is far less than on many other discussion sites.

    I find Katy’s idea that we should in some way try to emulate the YECs by being more “creative” to be an interesting one. How does it manifest in practice ? Do we have to “sex up” the facts ? How do you “sex up” the fact that the purpose of a flower is to attract pollinators, and therefore stand a chance of passing on its seeds and therefore genes to the next generation ? Flowers try to attract attention to themselves for that reason alone and not to appear pretty to us.

    Boring stuff, Katy ? Too bad, I find it fascinating, as did Richard Feynman.

    • In reply to #39 by Mr DArcy:

      Katy Cordeth 35:

      Yeah, sorry, what I was getting at, although I didn’t explain myself very well, was to see if the great brains at RichardDawkins.net could, as an intellectual exercise, place themselves in the shoes of creationist types and offer their own reasons whey evolution cannot be true and the universe might be under ten thousand years old.

      Well I certainly can’t speak for the “great brains” here, but I regard my own contributions as an attempt to dispel ignorance and to attack those who promote false ideas…

      Good for you, Fitzwilliam, but you are rather preaching to the converted by doing it here, don’t you think? I find it hard to believe that any regular contributor to this site agrees with R. Lee Ermey’s assertion that thunderstorms, flowers and the Bible represent proof of God’s existence.

      It is boring when everyone essentially agrees with everybody else. You only have to look at what happens when someone of a religious persuasion comes to the site to chinwag: their comments are never ignored. The sense of relief that finally there’s someone to disagree with is palpable, even if, like Lenny in Of Mice and Men, some users’ touch is so ham-handed, perhaps because they know they”ll be backed up by other regulars, that the visitor rarely survives to become a regular contributor himself.
      I think it’s this back-slapping attitude that annoys CC, as it does me, recalling this sort of thing.

      Unlike you and Red Dog, I generally find the discussions here to be of pretty high level, usually polite and nearly always interesting. Also the level of animosity between posters is far less than on many other discussion sites.

      There’s plenty of animosity between posters here, it’s just tightly controlled by the moderators. Trust me, if they announced that for one day it was a free-for-all and people could say whatever the hell the liked, you’d see some comments that would turn your hair white; many of them from me, plenty directed at me as well, I’m sure.
      I find the site interesting, too. I wouldn’t stick around if I didn’t.

      I find Katy’s idea that we should in some way try to emulate the YECs by being more “creative” to be an interesting one. How does it manifest in practice ? Do we have to “sex up” the facts ? How do you “sex up” the fact that the purpose of a flower is to attract pollinators, and therefore stand a chance of passing on its seeds and therefore genes to the next generation ? Flowers try to attract attention to themselves for that reason alone and not to appear pretty to us.

      I think you may have misunderstood what I meant. My fault, I’m sure. I was proposing that RDnet members use the superior intelligence many of them seem to think they possess to argue in favor of Creationism and Young-Earth Theory, as a simple intellectual exercise. Just for the craic. Or to exercise the little gray cells, more than many — not all, certainly, but many — do usually when they log in to post comments that consist of little more than “Theists are so stupid… I hate theists… Theists are so stupid.” 25 likes.

      You don’t need to “sex up” facts, but any educator will tell you it’s necessary to excite and inspire your audience, and this
      can’t be done just by drily reciting facts; it requires a certain showmanship which many preachers seem to have in spades. Heck, even Glenn Beck has this. As does Neil deGrasse Tyson, moptop astrologer Brian Cox, the late Carl Sagan, but precious few New Atheism luminaries.

      Boring stuff, Katy ? Too bad, I find it fascinating, as did Richard Feynman.

      I’m sure your Mr. Fenyman did find it fascinating. That’s not what I was saying though.

  20. Katy Cordeth :

    ….moptop astrologer Brian Cox,

    Oh dear, Katy, I find him pretty dam good, immaculate teeth n’ all ! And of course you know he hates astrology. Just plain bloody mischievous, u is innit ?

    If theists don’t hang around this site for long, it’s probably because their ideas have, rightly, taken a pounding. I used to post regularly on William Lane Craig’s Reasonable Faith site. Guess what ? I never insulted anyone, nor made any personal remarks, but suddenly and without any warning, – I was barred from posting. It appears such is the Christian way. At least on this site, opposing views are expressed as long as they conform to the house rules. ISTM that Christians just don’t want to know about any opposing views.

    Brian Cox an astrologer, dear oh dear !

    (Poetic overkill or somesuch ?)

    • In reply to #41 by Mr DArcy:

      Katy Cordeth :

      ….moptop astrologer Brian Cox,

      Oh dear, Katy, I find him pretty dam good, immaculate teeth n’ all ! And of course you know he hates astrology. Just plain bloody mischievous, u is innit ?

      If theists don’t hang around this site for long, it’s probably because their ideas have, rig…

      You picked up on the Foxy-Coxy astrology thing but not the subject of the OP being the drill sergeant from Full Metal Jacket?

      I tend to be mistrustful of those comments which assert the author used to post on another website and was unceremoniously banned despite having committed no infraction. I regard them the same way I do those that recount how a Jehovah’s Witness or similar turned up on a user’s doorstep and was outwitted and sent away with a flea in his ear by dint of the sheer cleverness of the one telling the tale.

      I mentally file such things under this category.

  21. BABIES are proof that God is real?!? BABIES?!? Has this person never spent any time around a baby? They are among the most evil, disgusting, heinous things in existence. Babies are an incredibly STUPID way to reproduce–anything capable of expelling vast quantities of foul fluids from multiple orifices simultaneously, multiple times per day, are not something any sane person wants to be around. And then to have to spend a significant percentage of one’s life having to pander to the ungrateful little monsters…? Babies are not evidence of intelligent design; they are clear evidence of Sadistic Design.

    • In reply to #45 by geologami:

      BABIES are proof that God is real?!? BABIES?!? Has this person never spent any time around a baby? They are among the most evil, disgusting, heinous things in existence. Babies are an incredibly STUPID way to reproduce–anything capable of expelling vast quantities of foul fluids from multiple orifi…

      I’m guessing you’re a man, geologami. All the things you mention pale into insignificance when compared to the way babies come into the world — from the perspective of those of us on our species’ distaff side anyway.

      Only a supreme being that held human females in utter contempt would have devised a means of parturition so painful and injurious to women. This is, howmever, consistent with what we know about God from a reading of any of the Abrahamic holy books: He really does not like us girls.

      Therefore, J. R. Hartley’s assertion that babies represent proof of the veracity of the Bible cannot be so easily dismissed.

      That leaves, what, thunderstorms, flowers and whatever else he mentions.

  22. Katy Cordeth 46:

    I tend to be mistrustful of those comments which assert the author used to post on another website and was unceremoniously banned despite having committed no infraction. I regard them the same way I do those that recount how a Jehovah’s Witness or similar turned up on a user’s doorstep and was outwitted and sent away with a flea in his ear by dint of the sheer cleverness of the one telling the tale.

    My goodness Katy, what am I to make of you? You don’t like the uncreative “great brains” who post here and who state facts, you don’t like Brian Cox, and you are suspicious of my true story. OK if you don’t believe me, go over to Reasonable Faith and try to be “creative” over there. Oh, and I don’t think anyone “outwitted” me over there, – they just didn’t like me knocking on their door ! As they dwell in a house of cards, I suppose they had good reason to bar me.

    • In reply to #48 by Mr DArcy:

      Katy Cordeth 46:

      My goodness Katy, what am I to make of you? You don’t like the uncreative “great brains” who post here and who state facts, you don’t like Brian Cox, and you are suspicious of my true story. OK if you don’t believe me, go over to Reasonable Faith and try to be “creative” over there. Oh, and I don’t think anyone “outwitted” me over there, – they just didn’t like me knocking on their door ! As they dwell in a house of cards, I suppose they had good reason to bar me.

      I love Brian Cox, and regularly post comments informing anyone who might not be in the know that forty nine episodes of his and Robin Ince’s excellent The Infinite Monkey Cage are available to download free from the BBC website, or from the iTunes. That’s hours and hours of witty sciency programs, with guests including Stephen Fry, Richard Dawkins, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Alan Moore, Tim Minchin, Richard Wiseman, Dara Ó Briain and more.

      There are plenty of people I like here as well. Is it wrong to expect higher standards from this site than I would from other forums?

      I’ll take you at you word that what you said is the truth if you like. I don’t really care one way or the other to be honest.


      Edit:

      There are plenty of people I like here as well…

      Present company included. :)

      • In reply to #50 by Katy Cordeth:

        I love Brian Cox, and regularly post comments informing anyone who might not be in the know that forty nine episodes of his and Robin Ince’s excellent The Infinite Monkey Cage are available >

        And his “Wonders of…..” programs are almost as good as NdeGT ‘s “Cosmos”

        • In reply to #51 by Nitya:

          In reply to #50 by Katy Cordeth:

          I love Brian Cox, and regularly post comments informing anyone who might not be in the know that forty nine episodes of his and Robin Ince’s excellent The Infinite Monkey Cage are available

          And his “Wonders of…..” programs are almost as good as NdeGT ‘s “Cosmos”

          I don’t really like remakes, and haven’t seen the new Cosmos. Foxy’s documentaries are good, and I love how his globetrotting on the license-payer’s dime gets under the skin of Daily-Mail, disgusted-of-Tunbridge-Wells types.

      • In reply to #50 by Katy Cordeth:

        In reply to #48 by Mr DArcy:

        The participants on this site tend to be rational thought focussed. Rational thought is mainly a filtering mechanism, it is rarely the origin of thought, IMO. That’s why many creatives dislike it, because it can interfere in counter-productive ways with the creative process. I’m not saying psychological (as opposed to ontological, IYSWIM) rational primacy means one is not creative, more that creativity is necessarily limited by it, which is unacceptable, repulsive or unsettling (at times) for people with other primary modes of thought, particularly when it’s applied for its own sake (c.f. competitive pedantry).

        • In reply to #61 by PERSON:

          The participants on this site tend to be rational thought focussed. Rational thought is mainly a filtering mechanism, it is rarely the origin of thought, IMO.

          It requires a greater capacity for creativity to produces a wide range of ideas from which to rationally sort and test ones which match reality. This is demonstrated in the best science fiction writers who also write on evidenced science.

          That’s why many creatives dislike it, because it can interfere in counter-productive ways with the creative process.

          I would see this as a defence mechanism for those lacking rational capabilities to exaggerate their undisciplined imaginative activities. The small minded irrational, would indeed have little or nothing left of their ideas, if they subjected them to rational criticism!

          I’m not saying psychological (as opposed to ontological, IYSWIM) rational primacy means one is not creative, more that creativity is necessarily limited by it,

          I would see the opposite. Greater creativity is required to have sufficient material on which to test with experiment and rationality. Rationality reduces the volume of original creative material generated by an individual, as its “quality control actions” remove and discard, flawed concepts from the classification as models of “reality” so helping to un-clutter the mind,

          This does not mean that those who inflate the volume of their imaginings by leaving them untested and unsorted, have greater capabilities.

          It simply means that they disparage the rational thinkers as a way of covering-up their own inadequacies in the reasoning department.

          Both rationality and inspirational lateral thinking in individuals, will improve with regular mental exercise in these areas.

          • In reply to #64 by Alan4discussion:

            In reply to #61 by PERSON:
            In reply to #61 by PERSON:

            The participants on this site tend to be rational thought focussed. Rational thought is mainly a filtering mechanism, it is rarely the origin of thought, IMO.

            It requires a greater capacity for creativity to produces a wide range of ideas from which to rationally sort and test ones which match reality. This is demonstrated in the best science fiction writers who also write on evidenced science.

            Much SF starts with something irrational, then constructs an ad-hoc premise. Writers do something similar, where they conceive of a situation which the history of a character doesn’t really allow, then add to it to justify the thing they want to do. It’s called retroactive continuity or retconning, and it’s pretty common. It’s an inventive process that does involve rational thinking, but that is subsidiary to other kinds of thought. That’s pretty much what I’m talking about.

            That’s why many creatives dislike it, because it can interfere in counter-productive ways with the creative process.

            I would see this as a defence mechanism for those lacking rational capabilities to exaggerate their undisciplined imaginative activities. The small minded irrational, would indeed have little or nothing left of their ideas, if they subjected them to rational criticism!

            Certain kinds of small-minded people are irrational so they can hold on to their little beliefs, yes. But not everyone who is not primarily rational is small-minded. I’m not talking about people opposed to reason (e.g. for political or religious reasons), but those whose thought is not initially or usually constrained by reason-thinking, even though they are capable of applying it. Actually, I think that one can’t really survive without some level of rational thought– people who want to limit their world limit the contexts in which they apply it. Even they are not completely irrational. To achieve that would require considerable resources, and I suspect is actually not possible. Dealing with things like cause and effect in objects, inference from assertions, and so on require the application of reason. Again, I think what happens is that the contexts in which it’s applied are limited, or it is ignored or rejected when the conclusions and beliefs of other types of thought contradict logic. Reason-thinking is present but subdued.

            I’m not saying psychological (as opposed to ontological, IYSWIM) rational primacy means one is not creative, more that creativity is necessarily limited by it,

            I would see the opposite. Greater creativity is required to have sufficient material on which to test with experiment and rationality. Rationality reduces the volume of original creative material generated by an individual, as its “quality control actions” remove and discard, flawed concepts from the classification as models of “reality” so helping to un-clutter the mind,

            I don’t think we disagree entirely. But necessarily there is less material that is acceptable, and thus less to work with. You assume that only rationality can determine what is worthwhile. I don’t think that’s true. Not all ideas unfiltered by reason (which does not mean opposed to or seeking to contradict the findings of reason, which is what I suspect you are thinking of) are bad, and working outside those constraints, one can (or others can) return to them later.

            This does not mean that those who inflate the volume of their imaginings by leaving them untested and unsorted, have greater capabilities.

            No, it means they have different capabilities. I suggest that there are other methods of discernment than reason.

            It simply means that they disparage the rational thinkers as a way of covering-up their own inadequacies in the reasoning department.

            Do you think that’s the sole cause of preference non-rational thought? What adaptive utility do those modes of thought have in that case? If they have adaptive utility, do they not have utility of some kind? Are you confident that you know what that is in every case, and can show that in the modern context they are no longer useful?

            Both rationality and inspirational lateral thinking in individuals, will improve with regular mental exercise in these areas.

            I agree again, but I don’t think this is the same as being primarily a rational thinker.

          • In reply to #65 by PERSON:

            Not all ideas unfiltered by reason (which does not mean opposed to or seeking to contradict the findings of reason, which is what I suspect you are thinking of) are bad, and working outside those constraints, one can (or others can) return to them later.

            I think we are actually agreeing on this. My point was that lateral thinking and creativity initially work outside those constraints, coming before the rational evaluation process, which discards flawed notions. In SF or art, self consistency is all that may be required. In the practicalities of the real world applications, consistence with science is required.

            This does not mean that those who inflate the volume of their imaginings by leaving them untested and unsorted, have greater capabilities.

            No, it means they have different capabilities.

            The processes of exploring imaginative lateral thinking, and critical evaluation, are certainly quite different processes.

            I suggest that there are other methods of discernment than reason.

            Psychology has many forms of discernment, of varying merit or effectiveness. If matching reality is an objective, objective observation, scientific testing, and rational comparisons with other evidence, are proven to give the most reliable results.

            Even where “discernment” is based on other emotional responses, objective science (psychology and neuroloscience) and rational or statistical examination of these, can quantify and qualify these reactions and responses. Even gods are being progressively understood in terms these mental “discernment” brain processes.

            I don’t think we disagree entirely. But necessarily there is less material that is acceptable,

            That is only so, where the imagination is limited and the shortage of ideas is a problem. That was my point about the “irrational small minded”, whose shortage of ideas makes them reluctant to discard poor ones!

            and thus less to work with.

            A lot of irrelevant clutter, will not improve the vision or the response. That is why I made the point about sorting as you go from an initially more extensive view.

            You assume that only rationality can determine what is worthwhile.

            Imaginary fiction where we suspend judgement, can be very stimulating, entertaining, and worthwhile, but one should guard from confusing fact and fiction by lacking a critical scientific view of probability.

            I would quote the authors Arthur C. Clarke and Douglas Adams as imaginative masters of these fiction and NF skills.

            Where artists often fail in their criticism of rational evaluations, is their limited understanding of the range of science.

            When evaluating the scientific understanding of painting or music, the science not only covers the chemistry of the paint, or the physics of the sound. It also covers the psychology and neuro-chemistry of evolved emotional triggers and responses in observers – (Golden rectangles?) which may well in themselves, have nothing to do with rational thought, but which can be rationally studied.

  23. There are more than 400,000 species of flowers in the world.

    Surely he means Kinds of flowers, where is he coming from with this species crap, next he will be trying to tell us the Earth is more than two weeks old.

  24. In reply to NUMBER 37 by Katy Cordeth : Hi Katy, Thanks for bringing this fact about the joke to my attention. I know nothing about Emo Philips, but he sounds like a very funny guy and I will definately check him out. I can’t remember where I first heard the joke.

  25. 7 reasons why God doesn’t exist:

    1. He/she/it was invented by donkey nomads
    2. He/she/it was invented by sub-intellectuals
    3. He/she/it was invented by humans who knew nothing other than their goats
    4. He/she/it was invented by humans who were scared by things like god farts (thunder) and how the sun was replaced by the moon every night and came back in the morning
    5. He/she/it was invented by humans who couldn’t possibly believe that they were going to die and be eaten by worms and would never see their loved ones again
    6. He/she/it was invented by Romans who could see an amazingly good business model.
    7. He/she/it is obviously a reflection of the grossest characteristics that human beings possess
  26. My mother already proved that there is no intelligent design. “The baby’s head is THIS big, and the hole it comes out of is this big, At least we have to admit that if there is a god, it is a man. A woman would have put a zipper in.”

  27. God exists because:

    1) Gherkins. How could gherkins exist if not for God?

    2) Bricks. It is inconceivable that they could be quite so rectangular without a divine creator who had a weird thing about middle eastern tribesmen.

    3) Hailstones. Where do they come from? God, duh.

    4) The phone book. Who else could know everyone’s name?

    5) Some thing that happened to some guy that some other guy told me about

    6) Paul Daniels

    7) That weird feeling someone is looking at you. It’s God looking at you. HE IS LOOKING AT YOU RIGHT NOW. He can do that, it’s entirely not just a story that happens to fit a common experience that has unrelated causes rooted in how perception of other people works.

Leave a Reply