Monday, December 4, 2006 | Reason : In the News | print version

When Atheists Have Their Say (5 Letters)

by Letters to the Editor

Reposted from the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/05/opinion/l05kristof.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Published: December 5, 2006
To the Editor:

Re "A Modest Proposal for a Truce on Religion," by Nicholas D.
Kristof (column, Dec. 3):

Contrary to Mr. Kristof's opinion, it isn't "intolerant" or
"fundamentalist" to point out that there is no good reason to
believe that one of our books was dictated by an omniscient deity.

Half of the American population believes that the universe is 6,000
years old. They are wrong about this. Declaring them so is not
"irreligious intolerance." It is intellectual honesty.

Given the astounding number of galaxies and potential worlds arrayed
overhead, the complexities of life on earth and the advances in our
ethical discourse over the last 2,000 years, the world's religions
offer a view of reality that is now so utterly impoverished as to
scarcely constitute a view of reality at all.

This is a fact that can be argued for from a dozen sides, as Richard
Dawkins and I have recently done in our books. Calling our efforts
"mean" overlooks our genuine concern for the future of civilization.

And it's not much of a counterargument either.

Sam Harris
New York, Dec. 3, 2006
The writer is the author of "The End of Faith" and "Letter to a
Christian Nation."

•

To the Editor:

Nicholas D. Kristof is one of many commentators to find the tone of
the newly resurgent atheism "obnoxious" or "mean."

Ubiquitous as they are, such epithets are not borne out by an
objective reading of the works he cites: Sam Harris's "Letter to a
Christian Nation," my own "God Delusion" and
www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com (I had not been aware of this splendid
Web site; thank you, Mr. Kristof).

I have scanned all three atheist sources carefully for polemic, and
my honest judgment is that they are gentle by the standards of normal
political commentary, say, or the standards of theater and arts critics.

Mr. Kristof has simply become acclimatized to the convention that you
can criticize anything else but you mustn't criticize religion. Ears
calibrated to this norm will hear gentle criticism of religion as
intemperate, and robust criticism as obnoxious. Without wishing to
offend, I want "The God Delusion" to raise our consciousness of
this weird double standard.

How did religion acquire its extraordinary immunity against normal
levels of criticism?

Richard Dawkins
Oxford, England, Dec. 4, 2006

•

To the Editor:

To Nicholas D. Kristof, all I can say is thank you.

Science and engineering provide the technical means, but religion
(and morality in general) acts as the governor of the will. These are
the tools of mankind, and the proper tool should be applied to the
correct questions.

One without the balance of the other would result in the collapse of
civil society; you can see it in human history when one took control
exclusive of the other: the Dark Ages, the Middle East, fascism,
Communism, eugenics.

Larry Louie
Plano, Tex., Dec. 3, 2006

•

To the Editor:

My clinical observations on the role that people's various notions
of God play in their lives support many of Nicholas D. Kristof's
observations.

There are those whose ideas of God provide for them useful
experiences of comfort, structure, authority and inspiration. There
are others who are ostensibly atheist but on deeper psychological
scrutiny are revealed to be similarly committed to constructs endowed
with magical power, now labeled as rationality, nature and so on.

Then there are those whose emotional and intellectual needs do not
incline them toward supernatural considerations.

Harvey J. Schwartz, M.D.
Philadelphia, Dec. 3, 2006
The writer is a psychoanalyst.

•

To the Editor:

Nicholas D. Kristof points out that atheists like Mao and Stalin
committed atrocities. But their atrocities were not committed in the
name of atheism, whereas atrocities committed by organized religious
groups were committed in the names of their religions.

This is a rather important distinction.

Paul R. Waldman
Tarrytown, N.Y., Dec. 3, 2006

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Monday, December 4, 2006 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 76 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #11473 by myxoma on December 5, 2006 at 12:02 am

"Given the astounding number of galaxies and potential worlds arrayed
overhead, the complexities of life on earth and the advances in our
ethical discourse over the last 2,000 years, the world's religions
offer a view of reality that is now so utterly impoverished as to
scarcely constitute a view of reality at all."
- Sam Harris

Wow! Harris is as amazing as Dawkins sometimes, when it comes to articulating things a hell of a lot better than I ever could.

Go Sam, it's definitely your birthday. :)

Other Comments by myxoma

2. Comment #11474 by flashbaby on December 5, 2006 at 12:16 am

"I have scanned all three atheist sources carefully for polemic, and
my honest judgment is that they are gentle by the standards of normal
political commentary, say, or the standards of theater and arts critics." Richard Dawkins

Of course most theatre critics don't threaten you with violence as happened with a play that sikhs disliked or the scenes outside performances of Jerry Springer the Opera.

Just who is obnoxious and intolerant here.

Other Comments by flashbaby

3. Comment #11480 by Skeptic Jim on December 5, 2006 at 12:59 am

Harris and Dawkins are really leading the way to undermining the basis of every default, fallacious christian argument.

I've noticed in debates that it's the theist side that is usually the first to start crying strawman and fallacy (even if they have no reason to)... which demonstrates that they fully understand and are conscious of what they're doing when they hypocritically base all of their arguments on logical fallacies.

Other Comments by Skeptic Jim

4. Comment #11484 by myxoma on December 5, 2006 at 1:07 am

>"which demonstrates that they fully understand and are conscious of what they're doing when they hypocritically base all of their arguments on logical fallacies."

Actually, I think it's more of a pseudo-understanding, or perhaps no understanding at all.

Remember, theists are taught not to think, but they are great at imitation. Often their cries of "strawman!", etc. are fallacious in themselves, in that they point the "strawman" finger at something which isn't actually a strawman, thereby committing strawman fallacy themselves. Oh the irony! yes?

Personally I've noticed that theist pseudo-intellectuals (do theist intellectuals even exist?) consistently copy scientific, logical language and create (to an uneducated, unintellectual observer anyway) "intelligent sounding" arguments and statements which are actually completely fallacious. This type of hollow rhetoric is the ultimate in dishonest pseudo-intellectualism.

I would venture to say that they actually DO NOT understand logical fallacies, but are just playing copy-cat, trying to kick it with the big boys.

Other Comments by myxoma

5. Comment #11487 by Skeptic Jim on December 5, 2006 at 1:29 am

They like to make the strawman accusation when an atheists uses the celestial teapot, pink unicorn, flying spaghetti monster analogy to explain that we have no reason to believe in religion.

I wouldn't see this as a strawman myself but I can see how a person who actually believes there is some credible evidence supporing the existence of god might view it that way.

I don't think it requires a great deal of brain power to understand the concept of a straw man argument and 5 minutes on google can tell you everything you need to know about it.

I do think there are some intelligent theists out there. They waste that brain power coming up with sophisticated rationalisations for their delusion.

Other Comments by Skeptic Jim

6. Comment #11490 by myxoma on December 5, 2006 at 1:38 am

>"I wouldn't see this as a strawman myself but I can see how a person who actually believes there is some credible evidence supporing the existence of god might view it that way.
"

This is exactly the problem. No one with any level of sanity or honesty believes there is actual empirical evidence "supporing the existence of god".

Any honest theist openly acknowledges their belief is based on faith. Thus, when they scream "strawman" at things like the celestial teapot, they are committing strawman themselves, because the teapot is not supported by empirical evidence, and that it why we use it as an example - neither is god.

Other Comments by myxoma

7. Comment #11491 by Skeptic Jim on December 5, 2006 at 1:46 am

>Any honest theist openly acknowledges their belief is based on faith

It's a bit much to expect honesty from someone who actively lies to themselves.

Other Comments by Skeptic Jim

8. Comment #11492 by myxoma on December 5, 2006 at 1:51 am

>"It's a bit much to expect honesty from someone who actively lies to themselves."

I agree!

I'm just making the point that they really don't understand what's going on with logical fallacies. They live in a fantasy world, not the real world.

Other Comments by myxoma

9. Comment #11493 by Skeptic Jim on December 5, 2006 at 1:51 am

Anyway my point still stands. To make the accusation that the celestial teapot argument is a strawman, even though it is not, requires an understanding of what a strawman is.

Therefore when the same theist who demonstrates this is also standing knee deep in straw at the end of a debate, their actions are very hypocritical.

Other Comments by Skeptic Jim

10. Comment #11494 by myxoma on December 5, 2006 at 1:55 am

I think we mostly agree. I think the only thing we don't agree about is whether theists are actually fully aware of how a logical fallacy "works". I think the majority genuinely don't "get it" and are trying to play along with what is generally viewed as "intelligent" language. (people like Kent Hovind, etc.

>"To make the accusation that the celestial teapot argument is a strawman, even though it is not, requires an understanding of what a strawman is."

I disagree. If they fully understood strawman, then would they be so silly as to accuse strawman where there obviously is none? I think it demonstrates a complete MISunderstanding. This is beyond hypocrisy, it's just flat out wrong. Hypocrisy could be pointing out an actual fallacy, when you are guilty of fallacy too. Pointing out and accusing fallacy where there is not a fallacy is just wrong.

It's like if Ted Haggard accused Richard Dawkins of being a sodomite. Well, I don't think there's any evidence of RD enjoying gay sex, but now there is evidence that Haggard does. Do you see how this is beyond hypocrisy? It's lunacy.

I agree with everything else you've said.

Other Comments by myxoma

11. Comment #11495 by Skeptic Jim on December 5, 2006 at 2:05 am

Yeah I think we agree too about most things. I just think you're generalising a bit. I'm not suggesting the pseudo-intellectual you describe doesn't exist. I'd even accept that a great percentage of theists comfortably fit this category but there are still plenty of delusional intellectuals out there.

Other Comments by Skeptic Jim

12. Comment #11496 by myxoma on December 5, 2006 at 2:07 am

I found what I meant!

It's not Hypocrisy, it's Projection

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

Other Comments by myxoma

13. Comment #11497 by Skeptic Jim on December 5, 2006 at 2:19 am

If there actually were strong evidence for the existence of god then the celestial teapot argument would in fact be a straw man.

So when a person who ignorantly believes there is strong evidence for the existence of a god cries strawman in the face of the teapot, that person clearly understands what a strawman is.

Whether or not the celestial teapot is actually a strawman is irrelevant to whether the accuser understands what a strawman is.

If the accuser actually believes the other side has used a straw man and they go on to use straw men themselves then that is hypocricy. If the accuser does not believe the other side used a straw man but they make the accusation anyway, then that would be projection perhaps. Having said that i'm not convinved that hypocricy and projection are mutually exclusive.

Other Comments by Skeptic Jim

14. Comment #11503 by MartinSGill on December 5, 2006 at 3:46 am

Perhaps one day a theist will actually listen to what he says

Why should they... listening is the certain path to hell and damnation, after all.

Other Comments by MartinSGill

15. Comment #11506 by Howay the Toon on December 5, 2006 at 5:17 am

My favourite response from theists when confronted with the teapot (or the FSM / IPU / Leprechaun variants) is that they dismiss it because such things are absurd and the atheist is just being silly.

They seem to think that you can refute a "reductio ad absurdam" argument, which these are by claiming it to be absurd.

Well d'uh!!!

Other Comments by Howay the Toon

16. Comment #11511 by mdowe on December 5, 2006 at 6:05 am

David Mathews,

Myself and probably many others strongly disagree with virtually all your points, but I challenge you to re-examine the one I find most interesting. You mentioned that some of Richard Dawkins ideas would "interfere with parents' rights to raise their kids as they see fit". I doubt you really believe this right is absolute. There must be a balance between the rights of the parents *and* the rights of the child -- a child isn't chattel. Society aims to protect children from many kinds of physical abuse from parents that step over the line. We generally acknowledge education another basic right of children and I believe it is explicitly mentioned in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Is it really such a stretch to maintain that such an education should also be be based on fact and reality (i.e. free from blatant falsehoods) as we can best present them? In many countries, children receive no education, but even rich western countries religious indoctrination is increasingly being passed off as education, merely because it happens to teach children to read as a side-effect. It is certainly not a preposterous suggestion to maintain this a form of abuse.

Other Comments by mdowe

17. Comment #11514 by Stublore on December 5, 2006 at 7:02 am

"Comment #11507 by David Mathews on December 5, 2006 at 5:32 am

Sam Harris is not merely intolerant, he is an anti-religious bigot. He spews slanderous accusations against Islam and encourages his followers to irrationally fear the Muslims. "

What exactly are these slanders that Sam spews?
He merely points out quite correctly in my opinion the danger that Islam represents. Is it slander to point out that islam is intolerant, misogynistic, and inherently violent? Given the modern proliferation of weapons of mass distruction, as Sam said for example a MAD rationale will not work with the religious, as they believe they will be rewarded for killing non-believers and go straight to heaven, therefore they do not care if they wipe out life on the planet. Judge people not on their words but on their actions, islamic suicide bombers consistently target the innocent in their cowardly campaigns, they scream for rights in western countries while simultaneously disallowing the same to those who live in isalmic socitietes, and all seem to think that the only way to solve their problems are with violence, just look at the furore over the cartoons, esp the misrepresentation of adding 3 images to the ones printed and pretending that they were part of it.
Many other religious institutions have accepted to a certain degree that their views are no longer paramount in society, islam still has to make that concession, and until it does, it will remain perhaps the most dangerous of all religious delusions in the world today.
It's not slander to tell the truth, and it's such a shame you cannot tell the difference.

Other Comments by Stublore

18. Comment #11527 by Riley on December 5, 2006 at 10:37 am

#11507: "Atheists idolize to the same degree that Christians idolize their pastors. In doing so the atheists are demonstrating religious inclinations."

I'm most amused when I hear this from a religious zelot because it's really a desperate and childish ranting more succinctly worded as:
"Look! The atheists are just as bad as we are!"

of course that's true - except that atheists are a little more inclined to say "I don't know" where the theists claim inexplicable knowege.

--Riley

Other Comments by Riley

19. Comment #11534 by oj on December 5, 2006 at 12:20 pm

David,

You say a lot in post #25 that make sense and that I personally agree with!

Would it be possible for you to explain what kind of god you believe in?

As I understand it is not the typical "sky-god" from the bronze-age you are talking about, or?

Ole

Other Comments by oj

20. Comment #11557 by Stublore on December 5, 2006 at 1:42 pm

To David Matthews:
My post actually takes the form of LOOK at what is done in the name of Islam TODAY, and provides pertinent examples.
Your defence, frankly is ridiculous, the west was violent in the past, so therefore you seem to be saying, it's forgivable for Islam to be violent today, which is a perfect illustration of my point, Islam is barbarous, backwards and most definitely a threat. Not only that, but it is incapable of learning like the west did, that violence and bigotry is not the answer to those who disagree with you. As regards the WMD, it does not matter who invented them, that genie is out of the bottle, what should be of concern, is how those living TODAY would use them, not those in the past, and let me say, i think that those europeans of the past would have been happy to use them to send the whole world to heaven, just like islam would today.( the good old "kill 'em all and let god sort them out " mentality)
If by any stretch of the word peaceful, you can say that islam is peaceful compared the west, you are worse than deluded.
Just to refresh your memory, 9/11 a deliberate targetting of civilians in the name of islam, the London and Madrid, in Iraq every day carbombs aimed at civilians(not the invaders, which would be at least understandable), the cartoon incident, deliberatley misrepresented by 3? Imams as containing 3 extra pictures,which unleashed a compaign of violence against western targets including the burning of churches in islamic countries, and the rape and burning of a nun, the treatment of women in islamic societies, the list is endless, and that does not include the hideous sterotyping and propaganda published in daily newpapers caricaturing and denigrating the jews, and lets not forget the policy of renouncing islam, the penalty is?...................................................
DEATH(wow, now that is peaceful!!)
On the basis of this evidence, there is NO WAY ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF PEACE. It is a delusion of lies, hypocrisy and medieval barbarity.
In the whole of the koran, there is less than 1%( i cannot find the exact figure, so it may be off) devoted to love and tolerance, the greater bulk of it is devoted to diatriabes against the unbeliever and killing of them.
The no. of christians that use their religions as an excuse to kill is negligible compared to islam, the no. of jews, buddhists,mormons, scientologists( ;) ), etc all have little of no killing in the name of their gods, yet islam stands head and shoulders above these deluded groups for their acceptance and willingness to embrace violence, and more importantly, violence again the INNOCENT.
If after all this you still maintain islam is a religion of peace, then i guess i can see why you are a believer, you have faith that it is the case, and mere facts cannot have any hold on your viewpoint :(

Other Comments by Stublore

21. Comment #11565 by Stublore on December 5, 2006 at 2:36 pm

David:
"Europe has a long history of violence which spans the entire globe ... as such, I find all European accusations against the Muslims ironic. The Europeans have (I would guess) a million-to-one advantage insofar as bloodshed is concerned."

Sorry, i did not realise it was a game where score keeping was being done(PS The Ottoman Empire did it's fair share of atrocites, but because they did not get up to the sum total of all deaths caused by Europeans, this does not count, nor the millions killed by the Chinese, etc), and again i guess, as you seem to be saying, it's ok for islam to kill people until they reach the same total as western society.
Wow, now that just blows me away,just let me restate your case:
because violence was perpetrated in the past, it right to do so now, till the scores are level!

"The Europeans and Americans also invented all of the weapons of mass destruction. The West has a nuclear arsenal numbering into the ten thousands compared to the Muslims who have at most only a few dozen nuclear weapons.

The West also threatened to annihilate all life on this planet in nuclear warfare, too. Mutually Assurred Destruction is equivalent to species-suicide. These nuclear weapons could very easily have vaporized 100 million humans in an instant and they would have done so except for extreme good luck (or Divine intervention). "

And the point of MAD, insane though it was, was that if either side started something, everyone loses, this does not hold as a brake on those of a religoius persuausion, esp those who believe that by killing those not a follower, you assure yourself a place in heaven, and also bypass the whole weighing of sins process, neat eh?! Islamic "scientists" could have also made these discoveries and many of the other ones made in Western culture, if they had embraced a forward looking, reason based society, not a retarded backward one, which views questioning as worthy of death not praise.

"Osama is an evil man for killing 3,000 civilians; George W. Bush and Tony Blair are evil men for killing 150,000 Iraqi civilians."

I have to admit this one has me baffled, just where were those 150,00 civilains you claim were killed by Bush and Blair, or are you deliberately "muddying the waters" as it were, by including the soldiers in that figure, and the key difference that you are missing, or perhaps just afraid to acknowledge, is that the islam deliberately sets out to kill the innocent, whereas the west, will make every effort to target military targets as their 1ST priority. Another point btw, is the number of Iraqi civilains who have died since the war began, have been innocent victims of the indiscrimate carbombings and abductions, which are waged on the basis of religious difference.
Is this policy of violence perpetreated by islam against the innocent not obvious to you, or are you just fixated on misdeeds by todays standard perpetrated hundred of years ago? Were those islamic regimes of the past more enlightened than those of the west at that time as regards human life and values?? I think the answer to that is obvious, NO, but the difference, is that islam is still stuck in that medieval mindset, the West has moved on.
I note that you had no answer to the portrayal of jews in isalmic newspapers, the apostasty issue, the deliberate misrepresentation of facts by the imams in the cartoon fiasco to name but three points i made, why is that? Could it be that islam is not really as peaceful as you would have is believe?

Other Comments by Stublore

22. Comment #11567 by mikejswalker on December 5, 2006 at 2:51 pm

josh, i posted a comment earlier. hav'nt seen it. am i doing something wrong?

Other Comments by mikejswalker

23. Comment #11568 by mikejswalker on December 5, 2006 at 3:03 pm

dave. you keep repeating yourself. your not answering the questions stublore is posing. your just ranting. You are right about some stuff. But it's kind of obvious stuff. London was bombed in the blitz. Horrific. dresden was bombed. horrific. English and German soldiers have embraced one another and spoke thoughtfully about this. I'm not really sure what your trying to prove.

Other Comments by mikejswalker

24. Comment #11571 by oj on December 5, 2006 at 3:12 pm

David said: I believe in all gods including sky-gods.

So, you are a pantheist?

Does this mean that you do not believe in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings?

Ole

Other Comments by oj

25. Comment #11572 by mikejswalker on December 5, 2006 at 3:14 pm

Hello david. Answer stublore's questions because you're beginning to sound like an idiot. I say this with concern for you.

Other Comments by mikejswalker

26. Comment #11574 by Robert on December 5, 2006 at 3:22 pm

It's hardly fair to demonise Islam because of Al Qaeda's suicide bombers. There are over a billion Muslims out there and most of them would regard the murder of civlians as a crime.

Also the West has killed vastly more innocent people than Bin Laden not because we are more depraved but because 'we' - the US Britain and Israel - have better technology. Al Qaeda uses suicide bombers, we fire rockets from a distance and call the results collateral damage. To say there is no moral equivalence is eyewash - the amount of 'collateral damage' we're causing is not an accident but reckless murder.

Another embarassment is that the US trained and financed Bin Laden and his maniacs in a terrorist war against the Soviets in Afghanistan as part of the jihad against Communism known as the Cold War. On 9/11 we were savaged by our own attack dog.

The atrocities in the War on Terror, so called, have nothing to do with whether God exists. Suicide bombing is fuelled by hate, despair and humiliation. It won't be an atheist campaign that gets rid of Al Qaeda but an end to Western policies that are seen as acts of wanton aggression against Muslims.

Other Comments by Robert

27. Comment #11576 by Stublore on December 5, 2006 at 3:26 pm

Hey David, newsflash, the vast majority of muslims in iraq are being killed by muslims. Therefore muslims are responsible for this, not the Americans or British
If you shoot at soldiers on the street, you seem to be saying they have no right to defend themselves, their lives are not worth defending. It's the initiators of the shooting that bear the brunt of the responsibility for the consequences, not the respondents. Yet the no. of civilians as i said before pales into comparison with those killed by carbombs or abducted and tortured.
The infrastructure, and power vacum while caused by the american invasion, are continuing as a direct result of the muslim on muslim violence, therefore they are the ones responsible, not the americans.
And yet again you resort to the tactics of the past, to try and justify your point, another newsflash, smart weapons are designed specifically to destroy a specific target, rather than the carpet bombing that needed in the past to achieve the same result. This is just one example of the shift of tactics that modern Western Armies use, as could be seen in the Bosnian campaign, and in the start of the Iraqi invasion.
I feel sorry for you david, you are still trying use to use the past to justify violent actions perpetrated TODAY by muslims, and it just does not make any sort of sense, and seeing as how you are incapable of actually answering my questions, this will be my last reply. I have i believe shown not once but 3 times that islam is inherently violent, and your only answer seems to be, that until islam reaches the bodycount achieved by the west, throughout all of recorded history, then we cannot criticise islam for using violence today, while also it seems implying that the only killing in the history of mankind was done by westerners, all other societies were what? peaceful beacons of light?

Other Comments by Stublore

28. Comment #11579 by oj on December 5, 2006 at 3:46 pm

David,

What about this then His attention and He?

So, it is a He?

You have, even if you try to escape it an "image" of a god that you call He? Strange.

Btw, here in Norway some female theologians used the word "Gudny" (a she) instead of "Gud" (= God, a he) ;-)

Ole

Other Comments by oj

29. Comment #11597 by Aussie on December 5, 2006 at 9:53 pm

Reading this thread leads one to the inescapable conclusion that David Matthews has an extraordinarily intimate hotline to God that would make GWB green with envy.

Perhaps David should apply for the vacancy of White House Spiritual Advisor made available recently by the sudden departure of Ted Haggard. George could certainly make good use of someone like David who possesses such detailed knowledge of the mind of God.

Other Comments by Aussie

30. Comment #11603 by troyboy on December 5, 2006 at 10:47 pm

MNiT, you are better off ignoring David Mathews. He is a religious nut case who is incapable of seeing his delusion. You ask many 'how do you know?' questions which are all good questions and the best he can come up with is:

"Religion is a complicated subject even when you people handle it simplistically. I cannot possibly hope to teach people who are so devoted to their own ignorance. "

"The whole subject of existence is also a complicated subject which (as I have already demonstrated today) atheists have a difficult time handling. If you don't know why you exist how could you possibly attempt to understand how and why God exist? "

Well I guess he is right about not being able to teach people who are devoted to their own ignorance. David Mathews is certainly one of them. lol.

Other Comments by troyboy

31. Comment #11604 by Roy on December 5, 2006 at 10:49 pm

Comment 11597 by Aussie
http://www.ugandandiscussions.co.uk/1143/

One of Private Eye's best covers ever!

Other Comments by Roy

32. Comment #11606 by Mattkey on December 5, 2006 at 11:10 pm

Lol. After reading all the comments I am surprised that no one has come to what appears to me to be obvious, "David Mathews" is either very adeptly goofing on everyone, or he is actually "God." after all, if one can only find a reason for ones existence in himself alone, how else could he so ably come up with his many deft examples of the proof of the existence of god?
personally, I tend to lean toward the "goofing on everyone" conclusion

Other Comments by Mattkey

33. Comment #11608 by derwent on December 5, 2006 at 11:26 pm

Trip trap trip trap...

Attention-seeking Troll David hijacks another thread. Ho hum.

Other Comments by derwent

34. Comment #11613 by Youssef51 on December 6, 2006 at 12:22 am

Really interesting set of opinions in those letters to the Times.

I noticed a basic contrast between the comments of the atheists and the comments of the believers.

Dawkins and Harris reason carefully. They appeal to the deductive good sense of the reader to help clinch their arguments. They can marshal many telling examples and parallels to their positions. They avoid name calling, threats, dire predictions and absolute assertions of privileged knowledge.

Their theist opponents argue out of positions that they see as being "received" or inherently unchallengeable. They threaten, curse (quite literally), condemn to perdition, evoke ancient traditions that may or may not have existed before the 1800's and generally act with hysterical indignation.

I think the conclusion is a simple one: the theists are losing big time. They know it and are getting very upset about it. That's why what happened in Manhattan on September 11th, 2001 happened.

Other Comments by Youssef51

35. Comment #11615 by StephenH on December 6, 2006 at 12:41 am

Just reading through some of the comments here, caused me to get philisophical for a moment.

It still totally amazes me that we are all having these conversations, with the year 2007 almost here.

Debating whether God exists or not.

It totally amazes me how these sets of ancient religious instructions have persisted for so long. I guess that's fear based indoctrination for you

Perhaps simple, but i use the Loch Ness monster story.

If one hundred years go by, and no Loch Ness monster is found in the Loch, that includes sending boats over the Loch with modern underwater radar technology. Isn't that a pretty good sign, the Loch Ness monster does not exist ?

The God believers of course, have to turn to Spiritual subjects (itself, a controversial subject - the existence of the human soul?)

Making God 'invisible' - in their eyes, then makes God dis-provable

I'm feeling a little disappointed... humanity has not yet come of age

What will it take? Another one hundred years.
Several hundred clones of Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and the rest

Reasons to be cheerful. I think society is gradually moving in the right direction... very very painfully slowly.

But then who said human evolution was quick

Other Comments by StephenH

36. Comment #11618 by ridelo on December 6, 2006 at 1:42 am

"How did religion acquire its extraordinary immunity against normal levels of criticism?"

With a long history of stakes, I suppose. The genes of those who refrained from criticism have been spared. Basic evolution theory. ;-)

Other Comments by ridelo

37. Comment #11622 by Aussie on December 6, 2006 at 3:30 am

If nothing else there is one thing certain that you can say about David Mathews and that is that he sure seems to have an awful lot of time on his hands.

Other Comments by Aussie

38. Comment #11626 by Roy on December 6, 2006 at 4:23 am

There is a good cartoon on page 32 of the latest issue of 'Private Eye' magazine. "It's the ideal gift for Christmas...A damning attack on organised religion" "Thank God for Dawkins!"

Other Comments by Roy

39. Comment #11628 by RWL on December 6, 2006 at 4:49 am

May I ask of the Christian or Muslim theists here, is God all knowing and all powerful? Is there anything that he can not know about the past, present or future? Is there anything he can not do?

If they answer negatively as to the first question, then the problem is resolved. There can not be a limited god.

If the answer is as to be expected, then we are in a quagmire, for we have been informed that the human race is a failed experiment. God has made a mistake. An all powerful, all knowing god, to whom the future is as clear as the past, needs to experiment to see what will happen. Then he has to correct his mistakes. I guess further comment on this is unnecessary.

Then we are informed that mankind's religious thought goes back umpteen thousands of years. How can we question its involved complexity? Well, phrenology is involved and complex too and we all question that. At least I hope we all do.

Then we have long involved arguments as to relative levels of violence between religions. Religion commits no violence, people do. Religion almost always incites to violence but many things do that. It is people that submit to the incitement and do violence. It is basically those people who see that a moral life style is better for all and thus resist the incitement to violence, that civilize us all. Why is Christianity no longer as violent as before? Because decent people brought it under the control of secular government and curbed its excesses. Why is Malaysia a Muslim country which is becoming advanced both economically and technically? Because its religion's excesses are curbed by a strong secular government. It is very simple.

Basically I feel that religion imbues the ridiculous with solemnity. The ridiculous part may not have seemed ridiculous a couple of millennia ago, but it is today. What resists all change is the solemnity part. Once in place, it is sacrilege to question it. I commit sacrilege every day of my life. It is a moral duty that I undertake steadfastly.

Other Comments by RWL

40. Comment #11632 by Comets on December 6, 2006 at 6:00 am

To David Matthews,

Do you believe in an afterlife?

Other Comments by Comets

41. Comment #11633 by RWL on December 6, 2006 at 6:12 am

Cone on now, Comets. An afterlife? For a soon to be extinct species which no one will remember? What's the point? I mean extinction is forever. The question is, "Is there an Afterextinction"?

Other Comments by RWL

42. Comment #11636 by Comets on December 6, 2006 at 7:00 am

Hi David Mathews,

So no afterlife for humans then.

But say us humans hadn't upset your god so much, would there be an afterlife then? Does your god even have a heaven?

I only ask because with your bleak outlook on the future of the human species I fail to see why you bother to invoke any kind of god at all.

Other Comments by Comets

43. Comment #11638 by Kingasaurus on December 6, 2006 at 7:10 am

I swore I wouldn't do this:

Dave astounds me because his views are a mishmash of various religious-oriented concepts. He says he's a "Christian" and believes that "God" exists, but also rejects an afterlife and that nature will continue with it's machinations long after humans are gone - views that are often consistent with atheists. He then pretends to have knowledge of this amorphous god's attitudes, motives, plans, and feelings, despite the fact that his "theology" doesn't resemble anything seen in anyone's Scripture, or any of the traditional cultural ideas of what "God" is supposed to be.

Basically, Dave has invented "Dave's Theology", which is an animal completely cooked up in his own mind, and then has the audacity to complain that atheists won't fight him on his own ground. The fact that you can't fight on constantly shifting quicksand where the vague rules and opinions change everytime a new comment is made is something that apparently eludes him.

It's pointless to argue with someone who thinks that he's aware of the mind of god, and thinks everyone else in the world with their various contradictory god-concepts are simply seeing his god in their own particular way but have screwed up the details. How are you supposed to have a conversation with someone whose beliefs are so ill-defined and lacking in concrete details that they can't be pinned down - and if you do pin him down with a concrete theological statement, he just knows that it's true because, well...just because he knows. He uses the fact that our knowledge is incomplete to give himself carte blanche to believe anything he wants, no matter how outlandish and unsupportable, just because he says so. He's not even falling back on religious traditions and the beliefs they foster, which most theists do. At least they have that going for them.

It's like trying to nail jelly to a wall.

Other Comments by Kingasaurus

44. Comment #11641 by RWL on December 6, 2006 at 7:27 am

Mathews, you are very good on expounding but not very good at answering. You tell us:"

"God is all-powerful and all-knowing and also (evidently) capable of making a mistake. He is also capable of correcting His mistake.

Have you considered that God might have made this mistake on purpose simply to test the capacity of an animal to handle conscious decision making?"

OK, let's grant that we have a mistake making god. But why didn't he correct the mistake before making it? That would save a lot of fuss and bother. And having your god make a mistake as a test is an amusing concept. Did you just make this one up? He made a mistake that he didn't have to make because he wanted to do a test that he didn't have to do. Getting in a little bit deep, aren't we?

Then you inform us:

"Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man wasd great on the earth and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the Earth, and He was grieved in His heart." (Genesis 6:5-6).

Since that time humans haven't changed. Humans have only gotten worse. We have nearly destroyed and depleted the Earth and have burdened the planet was a massive all-consuming overpopulation of Homo sapiens."

WOW! Genesis? Wasn't that right there at the beginning? So what was all the rest of the book about? I can see that He didn't only make a mistake about humans but he made lots of grammatical mistakes too. Oh well, can't expect perfection in a god, can we?

Overpopulation? Another mistake? I mean wasn't there something in there, as a command I believe, about going forth and multiplying? Ah ha! Tricky word, "multiplying". Maybe another mistake. He might have meant "dividing". Yeah, we did that too. Can't win for losing!

Your view of the future of the human race is inspiring. Can I use you in another board as an example of the power of positive thinking?

Other Comments by RWL

45. Comment #11642 by Comets on December 6, 2006 at 7:29 am

Well put Kingasaurus.

Other Comments by Comets

46. Comment #11644 by RWL on December 6, 2006 at 7:34 am

I just plucked this gem out of someone's previous message. This is a shining example of reasoned prose.

"Since that time humans haven't changed. Humans have only gotten worse."

Other Comments by RWL

47. Comment #11646 by heymrrain on December 6, 2006 at 7:56 am

David, it would seem that you reject most of what the average person (whomever he or she is, probably he) considers as religion, or at least the concomitants of believing in the commonest forms of religion.

So, a God that cares about humans is out. A God that is interested in prayers is out. A God that comforts people is out. A God that cares whether people believe in him or not is out. An afterlife is out.

You seem to disagree with mainstream religion on many points, and, presumably (forgive me if I'm wrong) feel that its followers are woefully misguided in many of their beliefs?

It seems we have much in common, although I am an atheist and you are a theist. Indeed it would seem to me that you have more in common with most atheists than with most theists, but I could be mistaken. I accept that the reasons for reaching your conclusions are different to mine, however, in many cases, although by no means all, the conclusions are similar, if not the same.

Do you spend as much time trying to put your viewpoint forward to other theists as you do to atheists?

I must admit that I am intrigued though, by some of, what you put forward as your 'knowledge'. For example, 'God simply has reached an unemotional objective conclusion that the human experiment has failed and has now run its course and must come to an end'.

Now, it intrigues me to know how you are aware that God has reached this conclusion, but intrigues me even more to read that you know that he reached this decision unemotionally.

Can you tell me whether he reached this conclusion standing up or sitting down too?

Now you may consider that to be a facetious question…and you'd be right. But when you claim to know the mind of God, and furthermore claim to know the basis for his reasoning, and how he reached that decision, then I can reach either one of two conclusions:

1) You're guessing or
2) You're God.

Now, I'm in no doubt that it's not the latter, so if it's the former, you may as well guess as to whether God was sitting or standing when he made the decision.

Other Comments by heymrrain

48. Comment #11651 by Yorker on December 6, 2006 at 9:43 am

In one of his blethers, Mathews bleats about parental rights over children.

In the USA, a child can be legally killed by its parents, all they have to do is invoke their "Gawd", and they're off the hook.

The state of Ohio has a law that says the religious beliefs of parents exempts them from criminal charges if a child dies of an illness because no medical help was sought. A total of forty states have laws exempting religious delusionists from prosecution.

Over a hundred years ago, a fanatic named Mary Baker Eddy, invented a religion she called Christian Science, its main tenet is that illness doesn't exist, it's merely an illusion easily corrected by being moral and praying to God.

Over the past thirty years many children have died at the hands of their parents who refused them medical attention. In the 90's, studies showed that the sick children of CS followers were 70 times more likely to die than sick kids of normal people. Many doctors have testified that the lives of children suffering from easily treatable conditions would have been saved, had treatment been sought in time. In one harrowing case, neighbours reported hearing a child screaming in agony for more than 24 hours before one of them called the police, by the time the child reached hospital, it was too late. The praying parents and a bunch of their evil brethren who were "helping" them, escaped prosecution.

Keep in mind this is not Afghanistan; it is modern day America, and not an isolated incident.

The crazed CS delusionist creatures are a perfect example of the evil and utter stupidity of religious fanatics who deny the existence of disease. It would surprise me not a bit if Mathews was a CS member, he certainly talks like one.

Amazingly, these murderers think they're better than us sane people! Does anyone know of an atheist parent who allowed their child to die for want of (scientifically derived) medical treatment?

Other Comments by Yorker

49. Comment #11652 by pr126 on December 6, 2006 at 9:44 am

David Matthews,

You sound very familiar.

I used to know a fellow called himself Asana Bodhitharta. Also, he posted here for a while.

I think I met him here before:
http://www.atheistforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=26hp

But of course, I could be mistaken.

Other Comments by pr126

50. Comment #11659 by Yorker on December 6, 2006 at 11:22 am

62. Comment #11615 by StephenH

Don't you dare suggest our Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist! Good God man! You'll be telling us next that the loch is less than 12K years old and pleisasaurs died out millions of years ago!

How are we canny Scots going to continue fleecing tourists if you put notions like that in their heads?

Other Comments by Yorker