1. Comment #57958 by Munger on July 22, 2007 at 4:09 pm

An interesting rebuttal. While I didn't agree with many of his counter-arguments, I thought they were well presented. Then he goes off the deep end and says that the church doesn't ask for "blind faith."

Of course, it all adds up to a rather meek counter-attack. All the good Reverend does is redefine terms to fit his particular point of view. Suddenly, evolution is fine and not contrary to the bible (though ask a fundamentalist who reads the bible literally if that's true) and faith can be as reasonable and well-thought out as scientific observation.

The Reverend is clearly another person who doesn't really know what it is to believe in his own religion.

Other Comments by Munger

2. Comment #57961 by drive1 on July 22, 2007 at 4:25 pm

On the positive side, he does use plain English. But it's the usual fare, with the speaker misunderstanding the 'god of the gaps' argument, claiming RD lacks humility, and that belief in the christian god is not 'evidence free' (yup, he refers to the Bible for the evidence). Love the bit at the end of part 1 where he correctly states that RD's position is that we can not conclusively prove god doesn't exist. But, of course, the rev is convinced god does exist (in part 3 he refers, several times, to the 'historical truth' of the resurrection of JC). Yet he doesn't see the irony of stating a scientist with an open mind lacks humility but a total believer, with no 'evidence' beyond a compendium of ancient texts, has humility.

Part 3 is just total testes. Sadly, despite talking at length about the 'writer' of Genesis, he doesn't offer us a name. All I learned from this section is that when JC came back to life, he wasn't wearing a dinner plate on his head. I do worry about the symbolism of green curtains, though.

Other Comments by drive1

3. Comment #57962 by DV82XL on July 22, 2007 at 4:26 pm

The usual drivel that passes as rebuttal. Well presented perhaps, but by no means anything more than an ad holmium attack dressed up as a dissenting opinion.

I have yet to hear or read one critique that addresses the central tenets of TGD and provides a reasoned rebuttal of the ideas presented therein.

The Revd. Steve Midgley is only trying to sandbag the flow of reasonable doubt that is beginning to grow in the minds of the many that have been paying lip-service to some church or faith. Every time someone like him attacks the book they are probably creating more doubt about the bible than they are of TGD.

Other Comments by DV82XL

4. Comment #57963 by Nails on July 22, 2007 at 4:57 pm

15 minutes in and I have lost interest.
Too many examples of incompetant arguments.
Why must life be either a supernatural event or scientifically explained:

Why does it have to be an either/or?

*sighs*
Phenomenon of radical theory change - McGrath's argument that science is weak because it is constantly changing and improving?
*shakes head in dispair*
C- Steve, must try harder.

Other Comments by Nails

5. Comment #57964 by LeeLeeOne on July 22, 2007 at 5:03 pm

Had to stop listening to it... literally had to STOP. When the speaker mentioned the "watch in a box" and "designer for this watch."

Come on, this is pathetic. I could take a crushed sea shell, put it in a box, shake it around and come up with the same results! An "alleged designer's creation" - the sea shell, and in the box, mixed around as the watch is, come up with the same results!

Is this all they can come up with to refute "supernatural design, power, etc.)?

Pathetic.

Other Comments by LeeLeeOne

6. Comment #57965 by mjwemdee on July 22, 2007 at 5:07 pm

Oh dearie dearie me. I'm still listening to the good Revd. and I'm afraid I want to smack him and say 'stop being so silly!'

His definition of the word 'evidence' is pitiful. 'See, it says Jesus invited Doubting Thomas to look at his wounds - plenty of evidence, so there, Mr Dawkins, nur-nurny-nur-nur, not so clever now, are you?'

Excuse me. I must now go and smash a few plates.

Other Comments by mjwemdee

7. Comment #57968 by Nails on July 22, 2007 at 5:25 pm

Part 2 - Genesis is written more like a poem in the first instance and based upon the number seven so we shouldn't take it literally.
Because god made the universe in an ordered way, he paved the way for science.... BS
I wish the Rev. would join in on here, I'd love to ask him why god created life over 3 billion years ago and waited until recent times to speak to his creation - unless the dinosaurs had a bible after he revealed himself to them that is.
Then, when it went tits-up why did he drown 99.9% of everything?
Why not just a click of the fingers or whatever he did in the first place?
And when we evolved (under his guidance?) into aggressive beings, why did he not just tinker with the DNA to make us a little less murderous or inquisitive?
Why then change tactics and have your own son betrayed and murdered so that we can be happy?
Crazy, just crazy.
But check out the prayer at the end:

we know that there is much that we do not know... it is not wrong for us to enquire and puzzle.... we know that knowledge will never be a saving knowledge... where we yet doubt your existance, give us the courage to enquire

Unless any of the above contradicts the ancient fairy stories that is.

Other Comments by Nails

8. Comment #57970 by VinceMcD on July 22, 2007 at 5:35 pm

This "rebuttal" is simply the rehashing of quasi arguments.

Midgley gives 4 basic argumets:

1. Dawkins is seting up a 'Straw Man' since the story of creation isn't the only reason to belive.

What RD does in TGD is lay out why there is no reason at all to believe in god. He illustrates the overwhelming evidence for evolution versus absolutely none in favor for design. His thesis is not however that religious belief hinges only on this point. The good reverend missed that I guess.

2. Dawkins gives us a false choice. Why can't god be not only in the gaps.

Hmmm....OK but this doesn't offer any more reason to subscribe to religion. If you want to tell me that water boils at 100 degrees because god deemed it to be so, OK fine, but you still give no REASON to believe this. This falls under the infinite regression column.

3. Dawkins has a lack of humility. Throughout history many theories we believed to be true were later overturned through 'radical theory change'. Dawkins should be more humble.

The reverend would almost have half a point...EXCEPT RD is not proffering a theory AT ALL about god. Dawkins et al are merely saying that there is no reason WHATEVER to believe in god. If Midgley was referring to evolution then first I would remind him that Dawkins did not actually come up with that one.

4. Dawkins falsely accuses religious faith as being 'blind faith'. Christianity has never advocated belief in the absence of evidence.

WWWWWWHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAATTTTTTTTTTT?????
Clearly reverend Midgley was suffering from some sort of hypoglycemic event here having droned on for such a long bit. He even cites the story of Jesus allowing Thomas to probe his wounds as encouraging a healthy sense of doubt. The fundamental problem with this argument is that Thomas had the benefit(according to the story) of being provided with physical evidence to assuage his doubts and give him a reason to believe that his good buddy was indeed resurrected. Lucky him. The rest of us BY DEFINITION are expected to have faith since no evidence has been so presented to us and nor is any forthcoming.

Midgley states that "Dawkins admits science will never be able to disprove the existence of god".

Someone tll the poor reverend about the FSM!

He fails to see that the burden of proof is on THEM to prove what they claim not on us to disprove it.

In all, none of the "arguments" are new, or particularly cogent.

Other Comments by VinceMcD

9. Comment #57976 by PeterK on July 22, 2007 at 6:06 pm

Just another bloke preaching to his choir; a choir who he presumes is familiar with TGD and needs some theistic voice of authortity to reassure their pleads of "Say it isn't so, Joe!"
He again simply pounds home the same arguments
that have always convinced the choir that theism indeed remains a valid worldview.

"Let us pray."

..Organ blares in all its diatonic splendor.

..small, proud grins of reassurance fill the congregation

Other Comments by PeterK

10. Comment #57978 by PeterK on July 22, 2007 at 6:14 pm

Other Comments by PeterK

11. Comment #57982 by Henri Bergson on July 22, 2007 at 6:39 pm

"I am ... appalled by football hooliganism, but it doesn't make me doubt the existence of David Beckham."

- The 'analogy' being that Dawkins is appalled by religious terrorism and therefore doubts the existence of God.

- What a stupid, false analogy. This is not why Dawkins, or any thinking person, doubts God's existence. Therefore the 'analogy' is fake, but prima facie sounds solid as hooliganism doesn't disprove Beckham.

If you're going to use logic, make sure it's logical.

Megatron must be stopped, no matter the cost.

Other Comments by Henri Bergson

12. Comment #57985 by VinceMcD on July 22, 2007 at 6:48 pm

Comment #57976 by PeterK
Just another bloke preaching to his choir;

Courtesy of Monty Python:

Let us praise God.
O Lord...
Ooh, You are so big...
So absolutely huge.
Gosh, we're all really impressed down here, I can tell You.

Other Comments by VinceMcD

13. Comment #57986 by Chayanov on July 22, 2007 at 6:55 pm

Seriously, why don't the theists just say they have total, unquestioning, blind faith in their religion, they have no evidence beyond their beliefs, they don't want any evidence, and if any of it appears to contradict reality that's just because God can perform miracles and do whatever he wants precisely because he's God?

I would have absolutely no way to respond to that (beyond derision, that is, but what should they care? Supposedly they have faith).

Yeah, I know -- they worry deep down that faith isn't enough and they don't have any evidence to support their beliefs, but they don't have to let the atheists know that.

Other Comments by Chayanov

14. Comment #57993 by automath on July 22, 2007 at 7:38 pm

From the Steve Midgley talk

Part 1

11:20 First I'd like to suggest that this is a strawman.

11:32 You see, Dawkins seems to think that belief in the existence of god rests almost entirely on the argument from design.

12:29 The truth be told, paleys argument was never terrifically persuasive. Within 50 years a theologian of the day was exposing what paley was writing. Even before Darwin had come on the scene this theologian had exposed that his argument wasn't a powerful one for the existence of god. For that reason it's never been a main stay in defending the case for gods existence.

13:06 But Dawkins seems convinced that it is, he seems to think that if he can undermine paley, well then, he can eliminate god. But it is a strawman, everything doesn't hinge on the argument from design in the way Dawkins seems to think.

13:23 So, firstly, he is setting up a strawman...

Q.E.D

(Q.Er.Doh)

Other Comments by automath

15. Comment #57998 by Friend Giskard on July 22, 2007 at 8:20 pm

Comment #57962 by DV82XL

Well presented perhaps, but by no means anything more than an ad holmium attack dressed up as a dissenting opinion.

As DV82XL points out, this lecture is just another sad case in the rising tide of attacks against the lanthanide community. When will it end?

[smirk]

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

Other Comments by Friend Giskard

16. Comment #58001 by petermun on July 22, 2007 at 10:58 pm

So red herrings beat "alleged" straw men do they?

Other Comments by petermun

17. Comment #58003 by He-man Daunted World on July 22, 2007 at 11:47 pm

Dawkings?

Other Comments by He-man Daunted World

18. Comment #58007 by Ben Hope on July 23, 2007 at 12:58 am

It is particularly amusing how in Part 1 he dismisses the design argument as unimportant and hardly used by theologians anymore, and then proceeds to use it implicitly when talking about order in Part 3!

Other Comments by Ben Hope

19. Comment #58008 by sbooder on July 23, 2007 at 1:08 am

I love the way in part three that he uses language to interpret Genesis as he feels he wants it to be... and then says at the end of that bit, "this dose not mean I can make it mean what I want it to mean"...you just did.

Other Comments by sbooder

20. Comment #58013 by doodinthemood on July 23, 2007 at 1:57 am

The question is: Assuming this guy has read and understood Dawkins work, why did he remain this illogical? and, What would be able to make him think logically about the matter?

Other Comments by doodinthemood

21. Comment #58017 by mikebreed on July 23, 2007 at 2:55 am

It's extraordinary. Every attempt by a religious figure to 'rebut' scientific critiques like Dawkins' ends up once more simply in unsupported statements about Jesus Christ, or quotations from the Bible. At the end, this sermon does the same thing: degenerates once more into "This is the way it is", with support only from the Bible. Perfect circular arguing, meaningless as a response to scientific approaches. Surely there must be a clergyman - or woman - out there who at least understands *why* this is so unsatisfactory, even if they can't offer a solution.

Other Comments by mikebreed

22. Comment #58027 by pewkatchoo on July 23, 2007 at 3:32 am

PeterK
Why are you behaving like a total bampot in the Ali thread and yet are quite normal and lucid here? You are confusing me, please stop at once!

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

23. Comment #58028 by Vinelectric on July 23, 2007 at 3:34 am

On Genesis: the first two sentences have word counts as multiples of seven. But this does not hold true for the following verses and there are 143 of them.

Also the claim was made that the word 'God' was mentioned 35 times (a multiple of seven). I started counting the word 'Elohim' in Bere'shit (Genesis) but stopped counting at 37.

Other Comments by Vinelectric

24. Comment #58029 by Vinelectric on July 23, 2007 at 3:44 am

I have to say that the more I listen to Christian sermons the more I wish RD/CH would spend more time engaging with muslim apologists instead.

Whether it be the linguistic structure, numerology, quasi-scientific referrences or other arguments used to persuade people into believing the divinity of the Quran we are still some way ahead of the Judaeo-Christians. Even the theology sounds more 'intact'.

Other Comments by Vinelectric

25. Comment #58032 by VinceMcD on July 23, 2007 at 3:56 am

Comment #57998 by Friend Giskard
As DV82XL points out, this lecture is just another sad case in the rising tide of attacks against the lanthanide community. When will it end?

[smirk]

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

Too funny. Please allow me to retort:

I was magnetically drawn to your argument at first but in light of the obvious typo am repelled by it now.

We should be more noble and not go on ad caesium ridiculing someone's keyboard miscue.

Other Comments by VinceMcD

26. Comment #58037 by BicycleRepairMan on July 23, 2007 at 4:49 am

First he claims Paley is irrelevant with this whole silly "design" argument..

Then he attacks Dawkins for seeing design as the only God-argument , a direct lie, since Dawkins address all the known arguments, atleast 8 different ones, (ontological, scripture,bayesian etc..) That all of these arguments are rather silly and/or variations of the same, doesnt exactly make Dawkins position weaker..

Then comes the exciting moment when the Rev. prepares to present his argument, presumably a new, good one.. And it turns out to be Paley all-over. intermixed with evolution and God hiding in the gaps, badly re-phrased and he even mentions beauty.

He also shows a lack of understanding of evolution, which not only works without God, but it works precisely BECAUSE there is no God, no "guide" to it, had there been one, the process would not work, and the fossil records etc would look all together different, and less wasteful, for instance. Because of the sheer amount of "waste", non-surivors, failed and extinct species, we KNOW that evolution works without Gods interference. At best God is a wishful addition, at worst, he destroys the process itself..

Then, as a last act of complete ignorance, he attacks science for its ability to change its mind, which of course, to the reverend, mean that what you think is true is more uncertain.

For instance, if I say that "I dont think there will be a war here in Norway in the next five years, it seems extremely improbable given the current peaceful situation here now, but of course, I could turn out to be wrong" VS "I know, for sure there WILL be a war in 5 years, and even if the situation is just as stable and peaceful in 4 years and 11 months, there is no way in hell I will change my mind!"

It seems obvious to me, that the first method is almost infinitely superior, and atleast as likely to be true.

He also, as all theists, disregard the difference in certainty that exist within science, there is no way that evolution by natural selection can be wholly disregarded for instance, the evidence is in, and we know it like we know the earth is sphere-shaped. New evidence wont make the earth banana-shaped.

Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan

27. Comment #58055 by RascoHeldall on July 23, 2007 at 7:26 am

"Seriously, why don't the theists just say they have total, unquestioning, blind faith in their religion, they have no evidence beyond their beliefs, they don't want any evidence, and if any of it appears to contradict reality that's just because God can perform miracles and do whatever he wants precisely because he's God?

I would have absolutely no way to respond to that (beyond derision, that is, but what should they care? Supposedly they have faith).

Yeah, I know -- they worry deep down that faith isn't enough and they don't have any evidence to support their beliefs, but they don't have to let the atheists know that."

Quite. Accepting there is no reason for them to hold the opinions they do would be the first step to admitting to themselves that they know their religion isn't true. And taking that step alone is a step out of the comfort zone too far for many theists. On some intellectual level, that they don't quite allow themselves to acknowledge, intelligent people such as Midgely probably do know they're wrong. But their investment in the fantasy is so ingrained that the ordeal required to reject it is too great for them to overcome. Hopefully as we non-theists grow in number and voice, secure in our lack of supernatural attachment and the confidence with which we accept the world for the way it is, we can demonstrate to theists that their attachment to this ancient silliness really, really isn't the be-all-and–end-all they obviously feel it is.

Other Comments by RascoHeldall

28. Comment #58088 by Thrall on July 23, 2007 at 11:08 am

This guy, as a logical thinker, is pretty piss poor... A couple of rebuttals to his points

1) "Dawkins gets into things he doesn't know enough about"... See the new introduction of TGD, and the PZ Myers "emperor has no clothes" analogy.

2) "For dawkins, the sky crane only brings up the fact of who made the sky crane." Exactly. If a building was built on Dawkins property, he would like to know where it came from. Religous people would point to the sky crane and say "see, it came from the crane". Dawkins would say, "yes, but who OWNS the crane!? Get this off my property", and they would say "you doubt the crane? You can't question the crane. You can't even question where the crane came from, because I believe in the crane. It's proposterous to ask where the crane came from!"

3) "god is BOTH the stones and the gaps, not just the gaps". Is this even an arguement? Or is this just saying "i'm right."

4) "Dawkins designed a computer program to simulate evolution, so evolution must be designed." Bad logic there bud. that's a bad if:then statement if you ask me. Humans can design =/= god designed man?


More as I listen..

Other Comments by Thrall

29. Comment #58092 by Thrall on July 23, 2007 at 11:25 am

5) "genesis isn't literal, more like a poem, but it should be taken seriously" So, that's the ONLY thing wrong with the bible... it's account of evolution. Um.. yeah. I don't need to go further. Everytime they use the "figurative" explaination of the bible, they are only hurting themselves.. "lets take this as figurative, and then take this part as literal."

This is just like every other "rebuttal" by a religious figure, where he sets up dawkins arguement, and refutes it with the bible. You cannot use an Invisible clothing tag to prove that you are wearing invisible clothing...

Other Comments by Thrall

30. Comment #58096 by phil rimmer on July 23, 2007 at 11:52 am

Got to the Beckham bit. He was trying to make a joke. It died on its feet.

Why is it that religites can't do humor? I've just come from the Marcus Brigstocke thread and tried to figure out why the audience thought that so funny.

Humor works when it reveals a (suppressed) truth.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

31. Comment #58100 by j42lewis on July 23, 2007 at 1:06 pm

I have come across the rebuttal that R.D.'s "central argument" posed in chapter 4 of TGD (Why God almost certainly does not exist) as being logically invalid (premises don't lead to the conclusion "god almost certainly does not exist"). But I realize R.D. did not explicitly list the premises or logical steps to his argument, and that he may have been mis-characterized here.

I've been re-reading the chapter trying to tease out the true premises and logical steps of the argument to rebut the rebuttal, but is anyone else in possession of a firmer grasp on the argument than I am and willing to provide insight?

I think it goes something like this but am not exactly sure:

P1 - God is complex (sky-hook)
Modus Ponens - If an explanation is complex, then a simpler (crane-like, step by step) explanation is preferred. God is complex. Therefore, a simpler explanation is preferred (such as natural selection to explain life, or multiverse to explain fine-tuning).

Any help would be appreciated!

Other Comments by j42lewis

32. Comment #58121 by perkyjay on July 23, 2007 at 2:54 pm

Certainly in the KJV, or whatever version of the bible the C of E uses these days, the numbers of the words used 'coincided' precisely with the magic number in the Jewish whatever, but did it match up in Hebrew or whatever language Genesis was written in originally. It infuriated me listening to Midgley pronouncing Dawkins as DAWKINGS all through his pathetic diatribe

Other Comments by perkyjay

33. Comment #58134 by TinyRobot on July 23, 2007 at 3:46 pm

"For dawkins, the sky crane only brings up the fact of who made the sky crane."

You know i've thought about this one for a while. The problem is that people arguing in favour of theism like to 'prove' god by saying that everything must have a cause (or a designer - as Kant pointed out some time ago the cosmological and design argument often end up being the same thing). But they end up shooting themselves in the foot by positing something that doesn't need a cause, hence by the logic of their own argument the argument must fail.

In reality most theists don't care about the logic, they'd be happy to arrive at god by whatever means possible. Hence, the subsequent question of what caused him (the sky-hook) wouldn't bother them.

This, in a sort of response to j42lewis, is where TGD Chapter 4 comes in. I think Dawkins argument demonstrates (reasonably effectively) that, even if we ignore the logic of God needing a cause, God wouldn't be a good causal explantion of what exists in the world because he'd be infinitely more improbable than a simple naturalistic explanation. This also leads into the anthropic principle and the brute-fact or multiverse explantion (i think Dawkins, like myself, favours the brute-fact version) as being alternative explanations to that of god. Looking at the Anthropic principle it leads one to question why the laws of nature (or physics or whatever you want to call them) are fine-tuned for life. The brute-fact hypothesis is favoured because a fine-tuned universe is compatible with a naturalistic explantion (i.e. the brute-fact of the fine-tuning explains the existence of life so we don't need anything additional). Adding God (in a Christian or religious sense) is problematic because he/she would demand more than just fine-tuned natural laws.

I know that doesn't answer j42lewis's question of the logic of chapter 4 (in a more formalised sense) - i'd have to sit down and work that out but i think you have a good handle on it.

Other Comments by TinyRobot

34. Comment #58139 by MakingBelieve on July 23, 2007 at 4:09 pm

Seems Midgley is actively demonstrating my namesake concept - he uses rhetorical devices to trick his audience into accepting his assertions - no evidence, no logical argumentation, no substance.

There is something of theater in his sermon with careful pauses and an almost pleading tone.

Others have amply addressed the flimsiness of this rebuttal but notice how it almost 'seems reasonable' because it is cleverly crafted and delivered. It is more of the same nonsense but to those with the god-desire and let's say a limited commitment to critical thinking, it can be effective nonsense.

This is what were up against.

Other Comments by MakingBelieve

35. Comment #58152 by Canuck#1 on July 23, 2007 at 5:37 pm

The speaker is of course re-iterating the accepted line, somewhat cloaked in a coat of mysterious numbers and extended ideas. For a different take on Genesis plus other opinions on Christiamity, its foundations and its role in the 20th century, visit.....http://canuck12.blog

Other Comments by Canuck#1

36. Comment #58158 by pw201 on July 23, 2007 at 6:08 pm

I used to attend Rev Midgley's previous church back when I was a Christian, so it was interesting to see him featured on the Dawkins site. It's like being vicariously famous (vicariously, geddit?).

I've written about what I thought of the sermon on my own blog over at http://pw201.livejournal.com/78754.html

Other Comments by pw201

37. Comment #58191 by Bonzai on July 24, 2007 at 1:23 am

Comment #58037 by BicycleRepairMan

He also shows a lack of understanding of evolution, which not only works without God, but it works precisely BECAUSE there is no God, no "guide" to it, had there been one, the process would not work, and the fossil records etc would look all together different, and less wasteful, for instance. Because of the sheer amount of "waste", non-surivors, failed and extinct species, we KNOW that evolution works without Gods interference. At best God is a wishful addition, at worst, he destroys the process itself..

WONG!, this doesn't prove that there is no God. Logically this doesn't rule out an incompetent God who guided evolution with a shaky hand and screwed up royally and often along the way.

There is ample evidence for a stupid God.

Well think about it, God created animals and destroyed them with the flood(what did the poor animals have to do with people's sin?), then regreted it and promised he would never do it again. Then he realized the OT was a bit crazy and sent Jesus over to rewrite his words.He then had his son tortured into a pulp and nailed on the cross in order to correct some cosmic imbalance caused by our sin,--watch Mel Gibson's movie if you doubt this! Clearly God the father is not a very bright God (or Guy), according the bible he was constantly cleaning up the mess that he himself created and only ended up with an even bigger mess, kind of like the family guy.

The rev. skewered Dawkins. If RD was more humble to have actually studied theology he would know about the cutting edge theory of the incompetent God and wouldn't have come out like an ass. Bravo rev.! "GOD IS DUMB!" will be the new slogan that replaces the tired "God is great".

Other Comments by Bonzai

38. Comment #58200 by Ben Hope on July 24, 2007 at 2:23 am

> Comment #58094 by heatheretic

> Last time I looked David beckham wasn't hiding > in the sky…

> I could go on, but I'll spare you, suffice to
> say that has to be the very worst analogy,
> the most nonsensical attempt at a comparison
> that I have ever seen/heard.

Although I agree it wasn't very funny, in Midgley's defence, it was a perfectly good analogy for the point he was making, namely that the bad actions of followers does not impact on the question of the existence or non-existence of central characters of a religion.

What was wrong with that part of his talk was the insinuation that Richard Dawkins argues that it does impact on the existence claim, which of course he does not (the two points being entirely separate in TGD).

Sorry to be a pedant, but if you give 'em an inch and all that.

Other Comments by Ben Hope

39. Comment #58206 by Bonzai on July 24, 2007 at 2:32 am

What was wrong with that part of his talk was the insinuation that Richard Dawkins argues that it does impact on the existence claim, which of course he does not (the two points being entirely separate in TGD).

While it doesn't perse impact on the existence claim it does have implication on the competency of a God who does not know human nature well enough to send us "revelations" couched in terms that at best confuse the hell out of us and at worse can be construed as instructions to hurt, maim and kill others.

Other Comments by Bonzai

40. Comment #58278 by j42lewis on July 24, 2007 at 8:18 am

Well, thanks TinyRobot I think I understand. I think the guy in question merely misinterpreted the summary and list of numbered points at the end of chap. 4 as a list of logical premises, I answered similarly to what you say in that R.D.'s argument is that a supernatural explanation for anything, like "God did it", is going to be infinitely more complex than a plausible naturalistic explanation.

Just as when I find broken pieces of pottery on the ground I would sooner conclude that someone had dropped it than a mischievous goblin had stitched together the atoms of the pot shards in place, even if I did not see anyone around or know why someone would bring pottery to the location.

Other Comments by j42lewis

41. Comment #59191 by stevencarrwork on July 28, 2007 at 3:44 am

'Although I agree it wasn't very funny, in Midgley's defence, it was a perfectly good analogy for the point he was making, namely that the bad actions of followers does not impact on the question of the existence or non-existence of central characters of a religion.'

Matthew 7:15-20

15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. 18 A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will know them by their fruits.

What would Jesus do?

Cut Christianity down and throw it into the fire.

Other Comments by stevencarrwork

42. Comment #61150 by flowerpotman on August 4, 2007 at 12:41 am

Having got bored after reading the first 20 or so posts on this page, it seems to me:
1. You guys are looking for a reason to doubt the existance of any God. I hope, nay pray that one day you will look for or experience a reason to believe in the existance of one (be it Christianity or other). I also hope that you'll speak to someone who _does_ have a reason to believe, and soon.
2. You fail to realize that the Bible isn't intended to be taken literally - after all, it's a translation of an ancient text. Yes, evolution and creation can coexist. Yes, God does make bad things happen.
3. This forum is self-perpetuating in atheism. Have any of you found a good church and spoken to any of the people there about your beliefs for a more two-sided argument? Or have you tried to contact Steve?
4. I find the ability of some of you to jump to conclusion astounding; yes, lets take everything at face value. According to my Email inbox, I've won the lottery, can buy a new dream pill and am entitled to everything I could ever want. I think not.

Why not properly explore the possibility that Richard D is wrong and there are very good reasons to believe in God, just as I have. It may change your life. Or is that what you're afraid of?

Other Comments by flowerpotman

43. Comment #61187 by Northern Bright on August 4, 2007 at 4:36 am

43. Comment #61150 by flowerpotman on August 4, 2007 at 12:41 am

Flowerpotman, I think you're making a few assumptions there - starting with the one that we don't know what we're rejecting.

It is clear that many of the posters on the various forums on this site have experienced deep belief in God, but have for various reasons come to reject that belief. But I don't want to put words in anyone else's mouth, so I'll just answer you from my own experience. For years I was a deeply committed Christian who was absolutely certain that God existed, and that certainty was without doubt the most important and sacred part of my life at that time and influenced everything I did. Now I realise that the standard response to this is to say that I can't really have been a Christian if I have since come to reject Christianity blah blah blah, and I can't complain really: I used exactly the same line on ex-believers when I was still inside the bubble, and I used it with complete sincerity, as those who now use it on me no doubt do too. However, I trust you won't quibble when I suggest that I'm in a stronger position to know what I believed and the intensity and effects of that belief than you are.

You guys are looking for a reason to doubt the existance of any God. I hope, nay pray that one day you will look for or experience a reason to believe in the existance of one (be it Christianity or other). I also hope that you'll speak to someone who _does_ have a reason to believe, and soon. [SNIP]
Have any of you found a good church and spoken to any of the people there about your beliefs for a more two-sided argument?

I can assure you that at the time I came to realise that Christianity just wasn't credible, I was NOT looking for reasons not to believe. Quite the reverse, actually. And I'm still not looking for reasons not to believe: it's just that I simply don't believe. I know all too well what I am rejecting. I don't need to check out my assumptions with someone who still feels "a reason to believe" or with a good church. Been there, done that. More than that: I WAS that person, and I was a PART of that church. I repeat: I KNOW the arguments in favour of Christianity and I no longer find them remotely convincing.

You fail to realize that the Bible isn't intended to be taken literally - after all, it's a translation of an ancient text.

Speaking as a linguist, I'm intrigued by your suggestion that a document should not be taken literally if it is a translation of an ancient text. A decent translation will render the original faithfully, no matter how ancient the text. If the original was meant to be taken literally, there is absolutely no reason why the translation of it should become figurative. Now clearly, we would no longer BELIEVE references to Neptune having caused a mighty storm at sea - but that's not because the ancient text that DID believe that has been translated, it's because we don't believe in Neptune any more and we have a good understanding of what DOES cause mighty storms at sea and know that references to supernatural agency are completely unnecessary. It's not that the original text has lost anything in the translation, it's that our knowledge of the world means that we no longer BELIEVE what was written in the original text. And the same is true of much of the Bible.

By the way, are you suggesting that none of the Bible is intended to be taken literally? The miracles of Jesus, for instance, or the resurrection, or claims of eternal life? If you think some of it is intended to be taken literally and other bits are intended to be taken metaphorically, how do you decide which is which? And why do so many Christians disagree with you? I myself have known plenty (though still the minority) who insist that every word in the bible is literally true.

Yes, evolution and creation can coexist

I had no difficulty with that concept either when I was a Christian, and I suspect it's really not an issue for the majority of Christians (certainly in the UK). In that respect I am sympathetic to the view that atheists put too much weight on this issue in their rebuttal of Christianity. HOWEVER, when I was a Christian my understanding of the processes of evolution was incredibly superficial. Don't get me wrong, I'm still no expert, but of late (thanks to the splendid Richard Dawkins) I have been reading more and more about it and I have to say that it throws up more than enough examples of the utterly bizarre, the utterly unnecessary and the sometimes downright unhelpful for it to be a remarkably unlikely, even warped, way for a loving creator god to proceed.

Yes, God does make bad things happen.

Again, I recognise where you're coming from. When you're in the bubble this doesn't feel like an objection. You are so convinced of the overall rightness and goodness of your god that "God does make bad things happen" can just be accepted as one of those things and simply not sufficient to outweigh your personal convictions. You're happy to accept that there must be a reason for God making bad things happen and you don't know what it is but you trust that it's a good, loving reason and that one day, if God's willing to let you into the secret, you'll know what it is.

It's another of those arguments that carry great weight with those inside the bubble, and none whatsoever with those outside it. A bit like when anorexics claim they're fat.

Why not properly explore the possibility that Richard D is wrong and there are very good reasons to believe in God, just as I have. It may change your life. Or is that what you're afraid of?

Again, I can only speak for myself. I agree with Richard Dawkins on the topic of religion because he expresses what I already think on the subject. Let me say that again: I agree with him because I agree with him, not because I HAVE to agree with him or because I have been brainwashed into agreeing with him, or because I don't think it's possible that he could ever be wrong in any respect. I agree with him the way a Socialist might agree with Tony Benn, or a Conservative might agree with Margaret Thatcher - not because there is any obligation or foregone conclusion about it, but because our views coincide.

More importantly than exploring the possibility that Richard Dawkins may be wrong, I have spent a lot of time exploring the possibility that I may be, including taking part over a number of months in a Christian Beliefs forum where I rigorously tested whether my atheism could stand up to the arguments of a devout Christian community. It did. In fact, I emerged from the experience MORE convinced that Christianity was hollow and that I was right to reject it.

But I do agree that believing in God changes your life. I've experienced it. But then, all sorts of things change your life: getting a hobby, learning to read (if you didn't already), learning to drive, getting a dog, taking up exercise, climbing a mountain, getting married, getting divorced, becoming ill. There is story about one of the earliest astronauts whose life was changed entirely by seeing Earth from the moon - seeing how flimsy and vulnerable and inexpressibly tiny it looked. It just blew away all the assumptions he'd grown up with.

NOT believing in God changes your life too - and I would argue for the better. Here are just a few reasons why:

1. When you truly understand that there is nothing special about humans, that we are not the ultimate purpose in ANYTHING, that we don't occupy any kind of divinely favoured slot in the universe, then you truly understand how incredibly lucky we are to be here; that there is no reason why we as a species should go on for ever and that we should therefore treat the world around us with a bit of respect, so that we can enable it to go on sustaining us (and other living beings) for as long as possible. The bit about other living beings is also hugely important - they, too, have evolved over countless millions of years and are not divinely ordained to be less important, less worthy of our care and respect and consideration than humans are.

2. When you truly understand that you die one day and that's THAT, you damn well make sure that you live your life to the full whilst you've got it. If you live to be 80, you'll have had the grand total of 700,800 hours of life (give or take the odd leap year). You don't have all eternity to make up for any time you waste now - you have to get on with it now. Kind of focuses the mind, doesn't it? (Some Christians claim that knowing that all of eternity depends on how you spend this life focuses THEIR mind - but I would argue that it focuses it on the wrong things, especially given that there isn't the slightest shred of evidence in support of the concept of eternal life anyway. This obsession with denying the reality of permanent death dominates too many Christians' lives and leads to a squandering of the one life they really can be sure of. Believe it or not, accepting that we die - full stop - is a very liberating experience.)

3. The knowledge that each and every living being has one life and that's it necessarily leads to the greater valuing of that life. If I don't rely on some kind of supernatural counterbalancing act after death, then I feel a greater responsibility to help create a better life for everyone in the here and now. Maybe you think that all humans need the prospect of Judgement Day to keep them on the straight and narrow. If so, I can assure you that you are wrong.

4. The world and the universe are truly fascinating places and science is what unlocks their secrets. Not yet all of them, thank goodness - imagine how sad it would be if there were nothing left to discover. But the more you delve into how things really work, the more awestruck you become and the more you want to learn. You may argue that there is no reason why belief in God should get in the way of that, but it does: because the religious start with the answer (Goddunnit) and try to twist all the evidence to shore up that answer. Where you are confident of your answer, there can be no genuine enquiry. The non-religious start with the question and build up tentative answers on the basis of the evidence and so open up a learning experience that is genuinely invigorating and genuinely satisfying - and, incidentally, far more likely to be accurate, not least because previously held conclusions that are no longer supported by newer evidence are discarded or amended.

5. Christians commonly claim that religion answers questions that science can't: that science explains "what" and "how", but that religion explains "why".

Whilst it is true that religion claims to explain "why", it cannot be stressed enough that there is absolutely no evidence to support the explanations it gives. The answers are a story, a parable, an allegory, call them what you will: they are NOT supported by empirical evidence. The answers may contain a certain amount of elegance, of beauty; they may contain a certain amount of internal logic; they may inspire some people and they may capture some people's imaginations and hearts and, as you suggest, change their lives. None of this for one moment constitutes proof of their veracity, any more than someone who is enchanted by Grimms Fairytales and finds that they contain much that is enlightening about human nature would be justified in claiming that Rumpelstiltskin really exists. An answer is not necessarily the same as a true answer. Even a convincing answer is not necessarily the same as a true answer.

Over and over again during the last few hundred years, science has revealed the truth behind phenomena that pre-scientific societies could only attribute to a god or gods: earthquakes, hurricanes, droughts, floods, volcanoes. And this march of reason is advancing on all sorts of areas also once considered the preserve of religion: why humans love, why humans commit atrocities, why humans are altruistic. "Sin" as an explanation for destructive human behaviour is losing credibility in the face of genetics, psychology, sociology in the same way as angry earthquake gods lose credibility in the face of plate tectonics.

Over and over again the questions for which religion claims to have the answers are answered more convincingly and with far more supporting evidence by science and other forms of rational, naturalistic thought.


None of this will make the slightest difference to you, of course, because ultimately faith is subjective, not grounded in logic or reason and therefore not easily dislodged by them. But faith, being subjective, is something that will convince you but no one else. Even other Christians will disagree with you about the nature of your God because their subjective experiences of their God will by definition be different. I've gone into this issue on another forum and unpicked why subjective experiences can never constitute proof, and I've wittered on long enough here, so I'll just refer you to that if you're interested: it's the Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk strand, 184. Comment #59050 by Northern Bright on July 27, 2007 at 4:08 am

Other Comments by Northern Bright

44. Comment #61194 by epeeist on August 4, 2007 at 5:35 am

Comment #58100 by j42lewis

I have come across the rebuttal that R.D.'s "central argument" posed in chapter 4 of TGD (Why God almost certainly does not exist) as being logically invalid (premises don't lead to the conclusion "god almost certainly does not exist").

You have to distinguish between deductive and inductive logic.

For the former you can make an hypothesis - no member of the class of gods exists. This is a valid scientific hypothesis since it can be tested and falsified. All the theists need to do is find a critical experiment where the hypothesis predicts one result and you get a different one. Of course, if the hypothesis predicts correctly then it corroborates the hypothesis, it does not prove it true.

This is because you cannot reason inductively from a set of particular cases to a general one in a non-axiomatic system. You can only produce a probabilistic estimate of the likelihood of your hypothesis being true.

Given that the theists have not been able to produce the critical experiment or, equivalently, produce any evidence of the existence of any god then the probability of a personal god must be low.

P1 - God is complex (sky-hook)
Modus Ponens - If an explanation is complex, then a simpler (crane-like, step by step) explanation is preferred.

My explanation uses Modus Tollens rather than Modus Ponens

Oh, by the way Northern Bright - congratulations on an excellent post.

Other Comments by epeeist

45. Comment #61195 by _J_ on August 4, 2007 at 5:36 am

Nice post, Northern Bright.

Other Comments by _J_

46. Comment #61311 by flowerpotman on August 4, 2007 at 2:38 pm

Northern - I'm glad someone has risen here with more than a "how can the bible really talk about 7 days of creation" argument. I'm very pleased to have met you, and am very sorry that you now feel as though there is no God. Interesting though that someone of your apparent resoluteness in this issue still feels the need to read these forums. I wonder what someone with such a clear, decided view could find here.

Before I continue, I should say that "yes, I see your point of view" to many of your comments, because I really do (key: faith is subjective and very personal).

I feel slightly hard done by because I didn't put down into words exactly what I meant - I don't have that knack. Some of the skeptics on this forum will say "ahhh - you're just saying that to backtrack", but irrespective of what you think of me right now it does bring me to a major point, which is that communication is also subjective - every person witnessing the conversation forms their own judgment on whether it's literal, figurative and more to the point what the underlying meaning is behind the words. In the small example demonstrated today, it was my words, but the issue holds true for the bible too. That is why so many Christians disagree with the exact meaning (whether it's literal etc.), because we are all human and have to decide ourselves, but the underlying message of Christianity is the same.

Now I realise that the standard response to this is to say that I can't really have been a Christian if I have since come to reject Christianity

Why? Christians turn away from Christianity all the time – it doesn't mean they were never Christian. Christianity in some respects can be thought of as a friendship. Just because you don't talk to your buddies from school any more doesn't mean you were never friends to start with.

I was NOT looking for reasons not to believe

Ok, I was being generalist. You hadn't even posted by this point.

By the way, are you suggesting that none of the Bible is intended to be taken literally?

Ok, back to the bible-translation-literal-or-not thing. I agree my point was not well made, and I hope that I clarified what I did mean above (about people deciding what is actually meant behind the words themselves). I do not think that the whole bible shouldn't be taken literally – where's the sense in that? To further strengthen my previous statement: Remember that the new testament of the bible was written in the region of 2000 years ago – the old testament even further back. Even if they managed to write into words exactly what they meant at the time, the meaning of those words will change over time, and thousands of years is a long time for language to develop. So, if we translate word for word an ancient text and then try to understand in our language, are you 100% sure we'd get the right meaning behind the words?

Don't get me wrong, I'm still no expert, but of late (thanks to the splendid Richard Dawkins) I have been reading more and more about it and I have to say that it throws up more than enough examples of the utterly bizarre, the utterly unnecessary and the sometimes downright unhelpful for it to be a remarkably unlikely, even warped, way for a loving creator god to proceed.

Interesting that this should through you away from God, because hearing about the "bizarre", "unlikely" and even the "unnecessary" and "unhelpful" things actually does to me two things:
1. Strengthen my faith that there is a God, since each of these that I've encountered seems even more far fetched to have "just happened".
2. Makes me realize that there's no point trying to fathom "what God was thinking" when He made those things. Maybe He has a sense of humor. Maybe these strange things are somehow required in some way. Maybe I shouldn't use the phrase "It's not how I would have done it".

You are so convinced of the overall rightness and goodness of your god that "God does make bad things happen" can just be accepted as one of those things and simply not sufficient to outweigh your personal convictions. You're happy to accept that there must be a reason for God making bad things happen and you don't know what it is but you trust that it's a good, loving reason and that one day, if God's willing to let you into the secret, you'll know what it is.

You think there's a secret? It says right there in the bible that the bad stuff happens because of us; the way we are. This sort of goes hand in hand with your point about sin being about "genetics, psychology [and] sociology" – We are by the very nature of who we are sinful. Christianity is about saying "Yes, we are. But we are sorry".

taking part over a number of months in a Christian Beliefs forum where I rigorously tested whether my atheism could stand up to the arguments of a devout Christian community. It did. In fact, I emerged from the experience MORE convinced that Christianity was hollow and that I was right to reject it.

Testing your own arguments against other humans – a brilliant back door. You argued against people and got back mixed and possibly conflicting responses – big surprise. Did you try testing your arguments against God? I wonder whether you ever went to someone in your old church and said "I'm doubting my faith. Will you pray with me to ask God to help me make sense of it all?"

I did enjoy reading your reasons why not believing can change your life because for many of them I could spin to read exactly the same thing when you start to believe in God. Christians believe that you die; and from that point of view we live life to the full just like anyone else, only maybe with a different focus. But Christians believe that there is also life after death. It isn't the same as what we experience here as life, so why should we assume that it's an extension of it? Just because I'm a Christian doesn't mean I don't believe in making life here better for everyone else. The world and the universe are fantastic places – I believe that it was the work of a creator, which is why they're so fantastic.

My faith does have some grounding in logic and reason; I've examined the evidence that I've seen and have decided that there must be a God. I do not believe I'm in a bubble; I like to have these discussions because just as you were strengthened by talking to others I find I am also. I find that I can't explain everything, but it causes me to go and look further. The further I look, the stronger I become.

Let me also point out that I don't believe that I can win an argument such as this with every person I meet. I haven't claimed to have won a single one. People are usually stubborn when it comes to blind belief and an unwillingness to investigate. I just hope that everyone else reading this forum has actually done some research, and has actually talked to people who do believe there is a God and why.

Hats off to you Northern for an interesting reply. I'm pleased to have met you.

Other Comments by flowerpotman

47. Comment #61415 by The Krell on August 5, 2007 at 4:56 am

Lets us have more Steve Midgeleys arguing their case for a god. They demonstrate a consistent failure to use the most fundermental tenets of logic in presenting their arguments. But then they do not have a choice. They are compelled to depend upon sentiment, distortion and mass hysteria to explain their beliefs because logic will not.

Other Comments by The Krell

48. Comment #61417 by The Krell on August 5, 2007 at 5:05 am

The more people like Steve Midgeley present their arguments the more widespread will be the awareness of the fallacy of their reasoning. Keep up the good work, Steve, you're dong us atheists a big favour.

Other Comments by The Krell

49. Comment #61423 by flowerpotman on August 5, 2007 at 5:38 am

The Krell; anyone who relies soley on logic and scientific proof as you seem to will never find God, and I'm sorry for you since you miss out on the rather important "other side" of the argument.

Do you really believe that all Christians rely on these things to spread the faith? If so, then they rely on it within themselves to keep the faith. Who'd wish that on themselves, to be perminantly in a state of mass-hysteria?

The more people like you who judge in this way, the more widespread will be the awareness of the fallacy of YOUR reasoning. Keep up the good work, you're doing Christians a big favour.

Other Comments by flowerpotman

50. Comment #61656 by Northern Bright on August 6, 2007 at 6:57 am

47. Comment #61311 by flowerpotman on August 4, 2007 at 2:38 pm

I'm very pleased to have met you, and am very sorry that you now feel as though there is no God.

Thanks, flowerpotman, I'm pleased to have met you too - but I'd pick you up on your phraseology there: this isn't about how I feel, it's about what I think. In my Christian days I would sometimes feel as if there was no God, but my faith kept me hanging on in there and then the feeling that there was would eventually return.

My atheism has not arisen as a change in feeling, but as a change in my thinking. It's not easy to condense the story of how I stopped being a Christian into anything shorter than a book, and I'm not planning to inflict that on anyone, but in the tiniest of nutshells, it started one Sunday in church when I was reciting the Nicene Creed along with everyone else and realised that I simply didn't believe a number of the statements contained within it. At that stage it wasn't that I doubted God's existence at all or felt any less close to him than I had a moment before - it didn't seem like an insurmountable problem that I didn't literally believe that "he descended into hell" and all that stuff, as I just added it to my ever growing list of things that had to be understood as metaphors. But it alerted me to what else I might be professing belief in, in the course of various prayers, hymns and liturgy, without genuinely believing it, and I began scrutinising what I was professing with more attention. And I came to realise that there was an awful lot of it. And as the list of what I was expected to believe but actually didn't, continued to mount up, I decided that I had to sit down and work out what I DID honestly believe. So that's what I did.

I'm not going to bore anyone (myself included) with the details - but this was a thought-based process that took place over a period of time . And my rejection of Christianity took place long before my rejection of belief in a God at all. That came later, when I began discovering that everything that I had previously explained by reference to God (including my very strong subjective feelings of having personally encountered him) could be accounted for perfectly rationally and naturalistically. This part of the experience, too, was a gradual one, part of a process that has taken a number of years.

Interesting though that someone of your apparent resoluteness in this issue still feels the need to read these forums. I wonder what someone with such a clear, decided view could find here.

What I find here is discussion on a subject that interests me with people who share my interest. I find a great deal of wit. I find a challenge, because a number of people post comments that I disagree with, or come at questions from angles that hadn't struck me - so there's always fresh material for thinking about, whether I agree with it or not. It also frequently makes me laugh. It's lively, it's entertaining, it's thought-provoking. That's what I find here. I also frequent forums elsewhere on bird watching and geology - if your implied suggestion were correct, I'd only be doing that to reassure myself that I really am interested in birds and rocks. Oh yes, and I frequent a joke-sharing forum too. To reassure myself that I have a sense of humour, perhaps? ;-)

Before I continue, I should say that "yes, I see your point of view" to many of your comments, because I really do (key: faith is subjective and very personal). [SNIP] .. communication is also subjective - every person witnessing the conversation forms their own judgment on whether it's literal, figurative and more to the point what the underlying meaning is behind the words.

Yes, that's very true. And I also agree absolutely with the point you made immediately following the bit I've quoted, about the same holding true of people's interpretations of the bible. I referred you before to another post I'd submitted on this very subject and I'd still really like you to read it, if it won't bore you too much, because it is such a central topic - after all, subjective experience forms a very large part of the "evidence" that believers feel they have for the existence of God. The post I'm referring to is no. 184 on this page: http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1454,Richard-Dawkins-on-Hardtalk,BBC-Richard-Dawkins,page4#comments

Interesting that this should through you away from God, because hearing about the "bizarre", "unlikely" and even the "unnecessary" and "unhelpful" things actually does to me two things:
1. Strengthen my faith that there is a God, since each of these that I've encountered seems even more far fetched to have "just happened".
2. Makes me realize that there's no point trying to fathom "what God was thinking" when He made those things. Maybe He has a sense of humor. Maybe these strange things are somehow required in some way. Maybe I shouldn't use the phrase "It's not how I would have done it".

Yes, I'm sure that's how you react. It's how believers DO react. It's what happens when you start with the answer instead of the question. But there is certainly nothing inherently in them that requires a God to account for them, and they can all be explained by natural selection. (And on that topic, it's a common misconception that natural selection "just happens". It doesn't. Richard Dawkins' various science-focused books are an excellent way of encountering the subject because he explains it all so incredibly clearly.)

As for God's having a sense of humour, maybe you're right, and maybe he just rolls about laughing when he watches the ichneumonidae that he created eating caterpillars alive from inside their bodies. (Hope he doesn't try posting it in the jokes forum I visit though, because I don't think it'll go down too well.)

You think there's a secret? It says right there in the bible that the bad stuff happens because of us; the way we are.

Oh well, that's ok, then. So long as there's a good reason. But maybe you should point this out to the countless authors of countless books in countless Christian book shops, who still seem to think this needs elucidating.

Testing your own arguments against other humans – a brilliant back door. You argued against people and got back mixed and possibly conflicting responses – big surprise. Did you try testing your arguments against God? I wonder whether you ever went to someone in your old church and said "I'm doubting my faith. Will you pray with me to ask God to help me make sense of it all?"

Hopefully my response above will have answered this. I needed to work out what I believed and I needed to test whether the conclusions I'd reached could stand up to being challenged by people who had come to different conclusions. They did. Your point kind of presupposes that the most important thing was to go on believing and to do everything possible to continue to do that. But to me the most important thing was to decide whether what I believed was likely to be true. Truth was more important than belief. I did not consider the claims of Christianity to be true. I'm not sure of either the logic or the honesty of asking for help to believe something I no longer considered to be true.

The world and the universe are fantastic places – I believe that it was the work of a creator, which is why they're so fantastic.

Sure. I'm not going to argue against that, since we both know there's no point. What I AM going to do is suggest you read Unweaving the Rainbow, by Richard Dawkins. There's one small bit where I found myself floundering a bit with the science (I have no science background whatsoever) but otherwise it's a very accessible, very clear, very beautiful account of how various natural phenomena work. Don't worry - it's not The God Delusion via the back door: in this book Dawkins is arguing against those who claim that science spoils the beauty of the universe in the process of explaining it, and he demonstrates that it actually becomes MORE beautiful, MORE awesome, MORE jaw-droppingly astonishing, the more you learn about it. I can't remember - there may be the odd throw-away line to the effect that the scientific facts are more miraculous than anything posited by religion, but I promise you that this is not an anti-religious polemic. More than anything, it is an ode to the beauty of the universe, as revealed by science. (The bit towards the end, where he writes about how cuckoos choose which nests to hijack for their eggs is just awesome and got me going round for days afterwards telling everyone about it.)

People are usually stubborn when it comes to blind belief and an unwillingness to investigate. I just hope that everyone else reading this forum has actually done some research, and has actually talked to people who do believe there is a God and why.

I get the feeling that a large number of them have - hence the frequent pleas of "But WHY do you believe that?" and "What evidence do you have for believing that?" I think these are usually very genuine questions - the problem is that the answers nearly always come back to subjective experience, which simply ISN'T evidence to anyone who hasn't experienced it (as dealt with in the post I've referred you to!) or biblical authority, which presupposes the answer to the very question that's being asked.

Hats off to you Northern for an interesting reply. I'm pleased to have met you.

You too, flowerpotman. Thanks for the discussion.

Other Comments by Northern Bright