Monday, January 28, 2008 | Reason : Wingnut News | print version

'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

by Wold Net Daily

Thanks to Carl H. Silverman for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59905

Editor's note: WorldNetDaily exclusive columnist Vox Day's new book, "The Irrational Atheist," scores a direct hit on atheism's most well-known practitioners. Using reason, science and historical documentation — not theology — Day argues the atheists into an inescapable corner.

WorldNetDaily Editor Joseph Farah recently interviewed Day about the new book, which is available at WND's online store.

Joseph Farah: The title of "The Irrational Atheist" refers to the Unholy Trinity of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, while Dawkins.Net is advertising the Four Horsemen of Atheism, which includes Daniel Dennett. Given that you wrote a chapter about Dennett, why didn't you include him in with the other three?

Vox Day: Originally, I intended to do just that. But after reading four of his books, it became quite clear that for all his atheism, Dennett really doesn't deserve to be lumped in with the other three. Despite his occasional problems with logic, Dennett is a respectable intellectual. He is seriously interested in the scientific questions, and he is very willing to ask hard questions about his own assumptions and core beliefs too. This is totally different than Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens, who are entirely occupied with making groundless assertions when they aren't busy drawing errant conclusions from incorrect data.

Farah: Why have we seen this explosion of atheist titles?

Day: It's a bit strange because the so-called New Atheists are really not new at all. There is very little that Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens say that was not already said by Jean Meslier prior to his death in 1729. If Sam Harris didn't talk so much about Islam and make so many egregious errors, you'd think that he was Bertrand Russell's parrot. I suspect the reason is related to the current state of physics and the increasing uncertainty scientists feel about the universe based on the very, very low probability that the universe randomly happened to turn out the way it is now observed to be. Atheists have felt that science was on their side ever since the Enlightenment, and now they see it slipping away from them. So, this recent explosion of atheist books is not a sign of strength; it's a sign of desperation.

Farah: Are atheists becoming more militant? Extreme? Why?

Day: The outspoken ones are certainly becoming more desperate and shrill. Part of this is because they've got such terrible front-men. They've got these spokesmen who are demonstrably incapable of making a sober and rational case for atheism, so they have to make up for it by setting off rhetorical fireworks and making outlandish statements — for example, Dawkins's stupid assertion that a religious upbringing is worse than sexual child abuse. If I were an atheist, I'd be deeply embarrassed to have these clowns as the public face of my religious identification. I think the end result will be more atheists identifying themselves as agnostics, which is a much more reasonable perspective.

Farah: What are the consequences of widespread atheism?

Day: There are none, because atheism will never be a widespread phenomenon. Like socialism, it's a parasitic phenomenon that can't survive on its own. As Chesterton pointed out long ago, atheism rapidly mutates into paganism and diverse forms of spiritual absurdity. And we're already seeing signs that the post-Christian West is returning to paganism; it's not transforming into some sort of shiny, super-rational, post-superstitious science fiction society.

Farah: Why do you refer to Richard Dawkins as Darwin's Judas?

Day: He only finds Darwin useful insofar as his theory of evolution by natural selection can be used to eliminate the basis for a belief in a Creator God. As Dawkins states in his own words, he's "a passionate anti-Darwinian" with regards to the proper conduct of human affairs. Dawkins thinks humanity should follow Darwin just long enough to cast off Jesus Christ, then ditch Darwin in favor of following Richard Dawkins' opinion on life, the universe and everything. Just like philosophers, you can always count on a scientist to come around eventually to the concept of rule by scientist-king.

Farah: You compare Sam Harris to Michael Bellesiles, who was convicted of academic fraud and lost the Bancroft Prize awarded to him. Is that a fair comparison?

Day: It's probably not fair to Bellesiles. He may have made stuff up, but at least he can handle elementary school division. I also suspect he knows the difference between difficult concepts like "counties" and "states." Harris demonstrably does not.

Farah: What are the most common mistakes made by Christian apologists when dealing with atheism? How is "The Irrational Atheist" different?

Day: Too many Christians forget that their basic assumptions are not shared by the atheist with whom they're talking. Christians always want to quote the Bible to try to prove a point, but to the atheist, that's no more meaningful than reading Shakespeare at them. And Christians often want to talk about the way God makes them feel, forgetting that the atheist's feelings are equally relevant. My book doesn't rely on the Bible or theological gymnastics or emotional appeals; it simply makes use of detailed historical and scientific evidence in order to expose the logical and factual flaws in every atheist argument you're likely to encounter. "The Irrational Atheist" isn't a defense of God or Christianity; I assume the Creator Lord of the Universe can defend Himself. He doesn't need my help.

Farah: Are you considering an apologetic sequel making a case for Christianity?

Day: Not at the moment. Right now, I'm more interested in the philosophical implications of biotechnology. Cross some of biotech's more questionable developments with globalism and post-Christian paganism, and it's not hard to see that we're looking at some crazy days ahead.

Farah: I've heard the book has gotten off to a great start. So why are you making the entire book available as a free download from your blog?

Day: Yeah, it's already on its second print-run ahead of the official release date. As for the download, my theory is that the main problem from which most books suffer is that too few potential readers have heard about them, so I figure that word of mouth from someone who's read the ebook is just as important as that from someone who's read the hardcover. Also, if people like a book that they've read, whether it's a download, a library book or just one they borrowed from a friend, they want to have it. I must have four or five copies of Eco's "The Name of the Rose" myself, not counting translations. But "The Irrational Atheist" ebook isn't a free download per se. It's a Radiohead-style pay-what-you want setup, which includes the option to pay nothing. Various formats including PDF, PDB and LIT will be available starting on the official publication date of Feb. 1.

Farah: Or they could buy it right here at WorldNetDaily today.

Day: That would be even better.

Farah: One last question, and it's an important one. When are you going to lose that ridiculous mohawk and grow a righteous mustache like mine?

Day: The hawk is gone, I'm sad to say. But I'm not sure I've got what it takes pull off the Magnum P.I. look.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Monday, January 28, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1351 - 1400 of 1994 | | View Alternate Comment Thread

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1351. Comment #120483 by Andrew Brown on February 1, 2008 at 7:06 pm

He doesn't make mincemeat of RD.

The fact he's a video game designer, used to conjouring whole worlds within his imagination. I think he's done the same here!!!

Other Comments by Andrew Brown

1352. Comment #120491 by Luis_Cayetano on February 1, 2008 at 7:57 pm

"Atheists have felt that science was on their side ever since the Enlightenment, and now they see it slipping away from them. So, this recent explosion of atheist books is not a sign of strength; it's a sign of desperation."

You have GOT to be joking, sir. If it's a sign of desperation, it's because these authors are anxious that the world not revert to pious stupor at humanity's crossroads.

Other Comments by Luis_Cayetano

1353. Comment #120492 by BAEOZ on February 1, 2008 at 7:57 pm

OK. I've read the first few chapters. It's pretty standard fare. High on smug insults and low on facts.

Atheism lead to the excesses of the French revolution, and all the world's major masacres. Dawkins doesn't follow the scientific method and thinks Vox telling his children that God loves them is worse than child abuse. Hitchens is a drunk. Sam is an "ectasy-popping" type who thinks it's ethically ok to comtemplate wiping out Vox (difficult one that ;P). Dennet's wrong but not as bad as the rest. Vox can out think those intellectual types cause he's thought deeply about AI in computer games.

There's three churches of atheism:
High-church, the intellectuals, middle aged, suffering from Asberger's (he got this from PZ's blog.) That's why Richard is apparently so annoying (at least to Vox.)
Low-church atheists, who are over represented in prisons and very materialistic.
And agnostics who aren't so bad and upset the autistic high church types.

The second chapter tries to define science. Vox grabs a definition from the OED highlighting the point that it must contain systematic observation and experimentation. He rejects any Popperian definitions of science based on this reasoning:

Let's begin with postulating that a study of the language of the gods is not proper science, whereas a study of the color of swans is.
I base this premise on the classic example of a falsifiable proposition, the statement that 'all swans are white.' The fact that one could prove this proposition to be wrong by observing a black swan makes it falsifiable and therefore a proper scientific matter. It is not the truth or untruth of the proposition that is important, only the fact that the truth or untruth could be determined by observation. The problem here is that the proposition 'all gods speak Aramaic'
is equally falsifiable, given that the theoretical observation of a monolingual Greek-speaking god would suffice to falsify the proposition. This would therefore make divine linguistics a legitimate matter of science, the current difficulty of observing gods notwithstanding.
And however impossible it might seem to credit, divine linguistics has indeed been an object of serious contemplation throughout history by some of Mankinds greatest minds, including Dante and
Leibniz.

I can imagine all sorts of weird and wonderful things. Imagination doesn't confer existence. His example is a hypothetical about a falsifiable fiction. - He also uses an argument to authority (Leibniz and Dante) to back up his argument. In the previous chapter he said authority didn't mean much. - Science deals with what it can observe. What exists. If you can't falsify a hypothesis, everything's in. All the metaphysical bunk you want. He redefines science to suit himself. Those pesky scientists are wrong about what science is. Take that PZ and Richard! Let's study invisible pink unicorns! Oh wait, we can't observe them.....

Anyway, this definition allows Vox to think that religion and science are compatible. By the way, the dark ages weren't Dark, and the church didn't persecute scientists. :)

Vox mentions that Christianity is easy to falsify. What he means by this is unclear. He's so proud of the fact that we can't prove that God and Jesus don't/didn't exist*. How would we falsify it?

The third chapter attacks science. Apparently science is bad. It's done some positive things but has created many evils. Scientists are bad too. I guess it's sciences' fault that governments want bigger bombs. Damn that methodological naturalism and it's need to bomb, rape and pillage. Religion has been around for yonks and never threatened the world. Science in a few hundred years has. Science indirectly caused Global warming. Religion good, not responsible for anything, not even overpopulation. We gotta get rid of science. So that religious types can't kill us with the products of science. I like Vox, he sees that it's the method, not the usage of its products that's the problem.

I'm done for now. May look at more later. It's already failed completely on logic, was just nasty in that smug way and was very light on the truth. So, I don't expect it to improve.

*He says the usual thing about not being able to prove a negative. Funny, I can prove the law of non-contradiction, that 5 is not less than 4 etc, etc, etc. Vox might need to rethink that one.

EDIT: This post is poorly structured. You have an idea of the book that inspired it. I felt myself loosing intelligence reading it. That, and I was too tired. :P

Other Comments by BAEOZ

1354. Comment #120495 by Diacanu on February 1, 2008 at 8:05 pm

So, it's not a work of art like Blacknad said?

Or, is it a work of art, in the sense of poo smeared on a canvas put up in a gallery?

Other Comments by Diacanu

1355. Comment #120496 by BAEOZ on February 1, 2008 at 8:06 pm

Diacanu, it's a poopy variety.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

1356. Comment #120497 by Andrew Brown on February 1, 2008 at 8:22 pm

You remember when a zoo sold paintings by one of its orang utans for huge wodges of cash? It's like that only with a particularly untalented and dull witted orang utan.

Other Comments by Andrew Brown

1357. Comment #120517 by righton on February 1, 2008 at 9:50 pm

This guy makes video games. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

What a pile of garbage.

He makes a book that ANYONE could have written. Puts a cover on it to copy SH. Talks shit mostly, some crappy arguments that ANYONE could have come up with. Tries to get publicity through this site. And yet he doesnt want to make money off it.

Even though he claims to be a christian dont you get the feeling he is a serious D and D player.

Nice try buddy. Its been entertaining.

Other Comments by righton

1358. Comment #120524 by Kardashovel on February 1, 2008 at 10:23 pm

Corylus said: I don't think that Kardashovel is crazy (not a word I like BTW) Merely deeply mistaken and giving an internal dialogue the status of an external one.

Like everyone here, I conduct internal dialogs, in order to sort through problems; analogous to playing oneself in a game of chess. Usually I don’t articulate them, but even if I did that does not make me crazy.

So… am I schizophrenic? Let’s go to the Mayo Clinic: http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/library/DS/00196.html

Signs and symptoms of schizophrenia may include:

1) Delusions �" personal beliefs not based in reality, such as paranoia that you're being persecuted or conspired against
2) Bizarre delusions �" for example, a belief in Martians controlling your thoughts
3) Hallucinations �" sensing things that don't exist, such as imaginary voices
4) Incoherence
5) Lack of emotions or inappropriate display of emotions
6) A persistent feeling of being watched
7) Trouble functioning at work or in social situations
8) Social isolation
9) Difficulty with personal hygiene
10) Clumsy, uncoordinated movements

Generally, schizophrenia causes a slowly progressive deterioration in the ability to function in various roles, especially in your job and personal life. The signs and symptoms of schizophrenia vary greatly. A person may behave differently at different times. He or she may become extremely agitated and distressed, or fall into a trance-like, immobile, unresponsive (catatonic) state, or even behave normally much of the time. Signs and symptoms that occur continuously and progressively may indicate schizophrenia.

Let’s go down the list.

1) I doubt it. I would screw up a lot more if I did not have a basic grasp of reality. I’m managing to maintain a family of four in decent health and comfort. I’ll educate my kids to be loving, tolerant, free-thinkers, regardless of what obstacles arise. I’m not deluded, I’m just confident that I can survive and flourish.

2) Bizarre delusions? Well I just said that I wasn’t delusional. Even if you thought that I was delusional, at least you can take comfort and say “no” here, because I believe that neither the Martians, the FSM, nor God Himself are controlling my thoughts. I am in control of my thoughts, and I am responsible for my actions. When I meet God upon judgment day, I will take responsibility for my choices. So will you, I believe.

3) Hallucinations? First of all, prior to, and since these two episodes, I have not heard any voices. These two episodes were unique and unprecedented events. The first time I came begging to God… the second time He came coaching to me. I would also state that this was something very different from what I would expect if it were a hallucination. For that matter, it was also nothing like the typical conversation between the internal voices in my head.

The most immediately apparent difference was the lack of any delay whatsoever, on the part of the new voice. I am accustomed to a certain delay between my internally conversing voices, while my mind moves the “conversation” forward. But, in this case, the responses were instant, authoritative, and didactic. During this second conversation, which lasted around half an hour, I was aware that the voice that was speaking was attached to a vastly more knowledgeable and clever person than myself.

I had a friend like that in grad school; at least, he was like that about physics. It was clear that he was thinking ten times faster than any of us, with command of massive wisdom on every subject and their interrelations. Granted, he was a bit focused on work. So the voice in my head had the same, immediate answer, and the follow-up explanation, that invariably got me over any obstacle to understanding.

The conversations were quite different from my own typical internal discussion about a technical, logistical, or inter-personal problem... For my part, I took my time, reflected, and gave my best responses. But the Answer came back, in my own internal voice, instantaneously and without my intention, almost before I spoke my piece or assembled my question… much like a well organized lecture. Occasionally, it waited for me to process and to provide answers to its questions, walking me through what I needed to understand. There was no sign of impatience, which is a bit of a weakness of mine; and though this voice had my accent and timber, it definitely was not me.
~~~

4) Incoherence? Well I certainly feel like I’ve been misunderstood many times in this thread, but I’m somewhat willing to work with those that would discuss matters of faith honestly.

For example, do you all think faith really stops with yourselves? Have you no faith in the fellow that’s driving the truck towards you on an icy single-lane highway in Ohio? Or faith in the ecstasy that you’ll experience from one of those pretty blowjobs that you keep discussing? What other faiths do you have, that inform your methods of thinking? What do you call on, inside of yourself, when you have a gun in your face? What about your faith in logic?

Anyway, have a look at my collected comments and tell me if you think I’m incoherent.
~~~

5) Lack of emotions or inappropriate display of emotions? Well, it should be reasonably clear from this thread that I do exhibit a few emotions, but I’m simply trying to engage you in an honest discussion about religion. And unlike in science, where no one would ever dream of being emotional, religious discussions can get heated; how else can we explain the frantic antics around here? Is it my fault?
~~~

6) A persistent feeling of being watched? Well who doesn’t these days, really? Unless you’re so boring that you have nothing to hide and no red flags. You’ve heard that silly rumor about Project Echelon, right? What about the PATRIOT Act, or wiretaps of “internationally originated” phone calls? If you live in Europe, do please tell me if you are being watched right now? Not security cameras, not TIA, nor the eye in the sky, no they never, ever lie, comrades. But your home is your castle, right?

Oooohhh. You mean being watched, like being stalked, or staked out, or hunted? Or do you mean that only crazy folks think God is watching them, like Santa Claus? Just like only crazy folks ever worry about Project Echelon, the PATRIOT act, “extraordinary” renditions, etc…

Anyway, aside from human mechanisms, I actually don’t think that I’m often being watched. I think that God has better things to do than chase all of our every thoughts. God gave us free will for the same reason that He exploited evolution: He has better things to do than worry about every atom or every nose-picking that goes on in the universe. He cares about results: Works. If you’re not part of the solution, then you’re a part of the problem.
~~~

7) Trouble functioning at work or in social situations? Well, I’m getting ready to hire my fourth employee; my billables are better than ever; and my company achieved all four internal goals I set last year, with a B grade in my opinion. As for me, I’ve gotten sales, and knocked out solutions to complex technical problems, and at the same time I’ve had my second child (a daughter), and learned the meaning of anchor vs. anvil. Overall, I’m doing fine, which means that I am willing to put up with your insults at a cost of a few thousand dollars worth of time. But hey…I love you folks; even the bile soaked mushroom, Diacanu. You remind me of me.
~~~

8) Social isolation? Sometimes I wish. My wife is the queen bee. You could totally nail Vox on this one, though. He lives in an underground bunker.
~~~

9) Difficulty with personal hygiene? Do I smell?

At one point the guy who often sat in front of me for Italian II had some sort of cobweb-like fungus growth in his ears. He always wore the same clothes, five days a week. He struggled in that class, but he was a savant about math; multivariable calculus and set theory in the 10th grade. He was awesome. He had prominent cobwebs growing in his ears. I don’t.
~~~

10) Clumsy, uncoordinated movements? Maybe if I drink too much…but, usually, no.
~~~

As for the summary of symptoms, all I can say is that running a business, while dealing with the challenges of fatherhood, is just tough. I do “behave differently at different times”, and I occasionally “become extremely agitated and distressed”. But fortunately I do not experience “trance-like, immobile, unresponsive (catatonic) states”.

Nevertheless, I think the most damaging evidence is that I “behave normally much of the time”. So you can’t possibly trust me; I mean, you don’t have any faith in me… or my testimony.

So, am I schizophrenic? Probably not; I got one out of ten symptoms if I grant you that “hearing voices” counts. But note that I have only ever heard one external voice; in my head. And that voice was not in control of me. I could have blocked the communication at any time, by worrying about some appointment, or simply refusing to listen. And the controller of the voice was nothing like me.

So, go back to google, you pop-psychologists, and do your best to find a fig leaf to cover your unclothed nether regions. Find a list of psychological ailments that I might have that would induce me to hear a voice, twice?

Or perhaps you would prefer not to talk about psychology any more, you feeble minded pedestrians... Because if you continue on that front, I get to fight back. It might get ugly, fast, now that I have already turned my other cheek. Do you want to strike me again?

Other Comments by Kardashovel

1359. Comment #120525 by Diacanu on February 1, 2008 at 10:28 pm

Ka-Ka Shovel-

Because if you continue on that front, I get to fight backâ€¦It might get ugly, fast;

Oboy, threats!
Something different from the religion brigade!
Not.
Par for the course.

Other Comments by Diacanu

1360. Comment #120528 by LorienRyan on February 1, 2008 at 10:44 pm

Kardashovel,

There's a great video on the front page of this site under 'latest news' it's called 'There are no ghosts in your brain' by PZ Myers.

I would encourage you to view.

Regards.

Other Comments by LorienRyan

1361. Comment #120531 by righton on February 1, 2008 at 10:58 pm

holy defensive. Thats not gonna help your case bud.

Other Comments by righton

1362. Comment #120533 by Kardashovel on February 1, 2008 at 11:06 pm

Defensive? It's an indictment.

You folks decry sexism and homophobia... but you have no trouble mocking those that you e-diagnose to be mentally ill? How twentieth century.

Other Comments by Kardashovel

1363. Comment #120534 by righton on February 1, 2008 at 11:10 pm

Oh stop we were just kidding, calm down.

Other Comments by righton

1364. Comment #120536 by Kardashovel on February 1, 2008 at 11:11 pm

The point, for the lazy among you, is that calling me schizophrenic is your immediate response, based on next to no evidence, in support of your forgone conclusion. How rational.

Y'all are hopelessly amateur.

Other Comments by Kardashovel

1365. Comment #120537 by righton on February 1, 2008 at 11:16 pm

We called you schizophrenic because you are annoying and didnt want to listen to you anymore.

have you ever been given shit before?

How did you make it through middle school?

Other Comments by righton

1366. Comment #120539 by Kardashovel on February 1, 2008 at 11:22 pm

have you ever been given shit before?

Ha. Yes.

If you don't want to listen, then don't pay attention, nit wit. I was engaged in discussion with your betters.

Don't tell them I said so, because they'll think it's damnation by faint praise.

Other Comments by Kardashovel

1367. Comment #120540 by Diacanu on February 1, 2008 at 11:36 pm

Climb down off the cross, Ka-Ka Shovel.
You're not among Christians, the sniveling will only earn more contempt.

Other Comments by Diacanu

1368. Comment #120545 by LorienRyan on February 1, 2008 at 11:46 pm

I detect a definite Becomethearrow tone in Kardashovel's posts, the same type of grammar and phrase also.

Other Comments by LorienRyan

1369. Comment #120546 by Robert Maynard on February 1, 2008 at 11:51 pm

It's a little hard to believe this book was written by a forty year old.. he's only a year younger than Harris, but it's remarkable to compare their control of language and their ability to communicate ideas.

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

1370. Comment #120548 by Goldy on February 2, 2008 at 12:06 am

Y'all are hopelessly amateur

Dis youse tawkin or is dis Gawd? Y'all knows we cain't tail. When one sweet Jaysus fuckhaid tawks, we looks on him an' taiks puty. When this swait Jaysus tawks agin, we sees the Daivul. Boy, youse Saytan! Youse Saytan, I say agin!
Sweet proverbial, Kardi, you're a sweet guy - but a fuckwit. Your humour is as a crap, enjoyable when it's happening but forgettable one the arse is wiped. Tell me, you travelled much? Seen other cultures?
Been away for a wee while folks, doing the house, taking daughter swimming etc. Anna, I think you can really hold your own - you're cute (if the picture is a representation of you) and feisty. Fucks' Folks would have problems with you (eh, Kardi et al [that means "and all" - have to take into account you are probably Cretinists and ergo ["therefore"] stupid - as your posts show....though Pretty Lady was a good gobbler by all accounts...).
OK, Kardi, this latent schizo persona of yours - you still "hear" God? I bet you do really - you sound like the prime fuckwit what would. Maybe not personally, but you follow Fucks, you one of his disciples as it were, you listen adn you are a-feared of death, of going to Hell, ain't ya? Bet you are, pussy! Guess what, there isn't Hell - nor Heaven! When we die, we'll be in the same place as you - dis cowd dawk eath! Uh huh! So we don't care what you think. In fact, us athiest showed more concern for you that any of you Sky Pixie folk, we actually worried about you. Yo would just look down in scorn and say "Begone, varmint!" Tsk, tsk - what would sweet baby Jaysus say?
So, bumfodden, where does that leave you? Looks like a one way ticket tot the Red Guy witht eh pitchfork. And us, guess we've got a cushty number up above, listenig to your screams of pain :-)
Man, you folk are so stupid - even when you're smart ;-)

Other Comments by Goldy

1371. Comment #120549 by Goldy on February 2, 2008 at 12:16 am

You folks decry sexism and homophobia... but you have no trouble mocking those that you e-diagnose to be mentally ill? How twentieth century.

Oh yeah, becuz youse Christians were sooo good to them too! Oooh, yeah, fucking them small boys behind the choir stall, that'll cure them! Drowning the afflicted in baths, oh yeah, that cured them too! I have to say theat Christians have cured them all - they're curing them in Africa for witchcraft by burning them - in your gawd's name! Ummmmmm, yeah, must make you feel sooooooo good! I'll bet you come when you read the papers, telling you about the latest sacrifice, I bet you do! I'll be you're with Gobble Lady in church, I'll bet she's telling you all about her latest blog and you're hot and excited and thinking about then sinners (us athiests) and how we're going to burn in hell....open your eyes, Boyo, a seat's all reserved for you :-)

Other Comments by Goldy

1372. Comment #120554 by Goldy on February 2, 2008 at 12:56 am

Or perhaps you would prefer not to talk about psychology any more, you feeble minded pedestrians... Because if you continue on that front, I get to fight back. It might get ugly, fast, now that I have already turned my other cheek. Do you want to strike me again?

Yeah, c'mon, let's. Gis the best you got. Ooooh, I'm so quacking now I think...nah, who am I kidding. You have nothing. Pedestrains have a purpose, they're going somewhere. You....? You are a pathetic little shit. Sure as hell can't convince anyone to read a badly written (as far as initial reports go) diatribe againts the athiest thinking. Must be great to be a xian - wish I had your faith, be as butch as you.
Fucking pussy. I say that in the most demeaning way I possibly can - shame you can't hear me.

Other Comments by Goldy

1373. Comment #120564 by Corylus on February 2, 2008 at 2:37 am

Kardshovel

So, go back to google, you pop-psychologists, and do your best to find a fig leaf to cover your unclothed nether regions

Well, one of my degrees is in psychology so I believe I have a passing knowledge of the subject.
Actually, I don’t think you have schizophrenia (as indicated in my posts).

Find a list of psychological ailments that I might have that would induce me to hear a voice, twice?

Have you heard of the Hearing Voices Network? It is self-help group for those people who hear voices. Some of these people are schizophrenic some are not. While, I don’t buy into their anti-psychiatry element, it is an interesting movement that has helped people stay off the ward. Why not do some research on them? You might hear about some experiences that strike a chord.

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

OK, some evidence that is quoted in the article linked above:

70% of voice hearers reported that their voices had begun after a severe traumatic or intensely emotional event, such as an accident, divorce or bereavement, sexual or physical abuse, love affairs, or pregnancy. In a recent study, Romme et al (1998) found that the onset of voice hearing amongst a 'patient' group was preceded by either a traumatic event or an event that activated the memory of an earlier trauma. There was a high association with abuse. These findings are being substantiated further in an on-going study with voice hearing amongst children (Escher, 2001)

I suspect, that as your voice hearing has only happened to you a few times, that these times were those of emotional turmoil. Maybe when you really hit a low? Sometimes when our self-esteem is really at rock bottom, we find ourselves unable to listen to answers from ourselves. We know what we need to do, but do not trust ourselves enough to do things on our own. Therefore we attribute these answers as coming from an external authority source (God, self-help books, TV personalities etc.) As I say, we externalise internal dialogues.

So, no I do not think you are schizophrenic. However, that admission does not stop me questioning the factual basis of your dialogue with God.

perhaps you would prefer not to talk about psychology any more, you feeble minded pedestrians...

Now, now, play nice!

I personally I am willing to talk about it anytime.

Other Comments by Corylus

1374. Comment #120565 by Steve Zara on February 2, 2008 at 2:40 am

You folks decry sexism and homophobia...

This is curious phrasing... "You folks", not "We all". Do you decry these too?

You know, I am not entirely happy with anyone calling you schizophrenic, but I do see their motivations. Someone who listens to an internal dialogue and assumes it is anything whatsoever to do with a God needs to have some modern understanding of psychology pointed out to them. One of the symptoms of some mental illnesses is the illusion that the voices in internal dialogues are actually real; they are heard as if through the ears. This is a sign of brain malfunction. It is not something to be mocked - it is something to be treated.

As a consequence, it is rather sad when people act as if they were mentally ill when they should know better. Trying to convince yourself that you are receiving mental messages from an external source is in extremely bad taste when millions are trying to stop hearing what seem to be such messages.

Voices in the head aren't a gift - they can destroy lives. Those who have experienced them (typically schizophrenics) and have recovered know such voices are not to be trusted. That idea anyone could attempt to imagine such voices and claim that they speak truth is ignorant and shameful.

Christianity does have this apalling notion of redemptive suffering. But you are supposed to actually suffer. Just pretending you have the symptoms of mental illness probably won't cut it.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

1375. Comment #120567 by Richard Morgan on February 2, 2008 at 2:54 am

The Six Nations Rugby Tournament starts today.
See you all on Monday.

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

1376. Comment #120569 by Goldy on February 2, 2008 at 3:03 am

IRB Rugby Sevens in W'ton - I'll be rather quiet too :-)
Kardi, you're a nutcase, no question about it. Get it sorted, don't waste our time.
Corylus, Steve, maybe I should be so cruel, but he doesn't want to help himself. He's a fruitcake.

Other Comments by Goldy

1377. Comment #120572 by Goldy on February 2, 2008 at 3:12 am

If you don't want to listen, then don't pay attention, nit wit. I was engaged in discussion with your betters.

Errr, this would be God then?
Sorry, couldn't resist! :-)
G'nite all, late here! Bedtime for us sane people....

Other Comments by Goldy

1378. Comment #120581 by DavidMcC on February 2, 2008 at 3:56 am

Day:"Dawkins thinks humanity should follow Darwin just long enough to cast off Jesus Christ, then ditch Darwin in favor of following Richard Dawkins' opinion on life, the universe and everything."
So Day thinks that Darwin was a social Darwinist?
Maybe Day needs to study more.

Other Comments by DavidMcC

1379. Comment #120584 by BAEOZ on February 2, 2008 at 4:01 am

What's up with posting/editing these days?

Other Comments by BAEOZ

1380. Comment #120656 by gr8hands on February 2, 2008 at 8:34 am

Kardashovel wrote:

I was engaged in discussion with your betters.

This one sentence demonstrates that you are an idiot. It renders everything else you've written as suspect. It taints everything you will write in the future.

I shall point out the obvious -- no one is "better" than anyone else. Perhaps with the good fortune of being better educated, better trained, in an environment that fosters growth and maturity. But a "better" person? Of more intrinsic worth and value as a human being? Absolutely not.

It is just such thinking which is one step away from ethnic cleansing and genocide -- and not a long step!

What is not surprising, is the person making such a stupid claim will consider themself one of those "better" people. Arrogance in the extreme.

Please leave this forum -- you have demonstrated that you have nothing worthwhile to offer. I, for one, wish there was an "ignore" feature found on some other forums, where I wouldn't have to even look at your posts to pass them by. An apology now would be too little, too late.

Other Comments by gr8hands

1381. Comment #120663 by walk on February 2, 2008 at 8:50 am

Yes, BAEOZ, what has happened?

Hey Josh, as we can see from some above posts, if you copy from a text program (it happens with Appleworks and Microsoft Word) and use an apostrophe, you get this:

I’m sure it won’t.

This did not happen before.

Other Comments by walk

1382. Comment #120666 by Steve Zara on February 2, 2008 at 9:00 am

Hey Josh, as we can see from some above posts, if you copy from a text program (it happens with Appleworks and Microsoft Word) and use an apostrophe, you get this:

Things should work better if you use a "plain text" program, such as Windows notepad (or GNU Edit under Linux)

Other Comments by Steve Zara

1383. Comment #120676 by walk on February 2, 2008 at 9:39 am

Thanks, Steve. Do you know of any Mac program that works? It's just curious to me that I've been using Appleworks up until yesterday with no problem.

Edit: Oops! Found it. My Mac has a program called Text Edit which must be a "plain text" program as you advised. It's working fine.

Thanks again.

Other Comments by walk

1384. Comment #120736 by walk on February 2, 2008 at 12:12 pm

Kardashovel,

Just curious, when god was talking to you, did he give you ANY information or facts that could not have come from your own mind? I know that if I were conversing with an omniscient being, I would surely ask for some heretofore unknown information that would better the world. Did he give you any such knowledge?

Other Comments by walk

1385. Comment #120740 by Steve Zara on February 2, 2008 at 12:22 pm

Thanks again.

It's nothing. In addition to my research interests, I have been involved part time in IT support for close to 25 years. My husband and I are currently employed as web designers for high-traffic web sites, so we know what users have to deal with. (This also means I have respect for what Josh has achieved)

Other Comments by Steve Zara

1386. Comment #120746 by Frankus1122 on February 2, 2008 at 12:30 pm

I just got back from a conference of librarians where Irshad Manji spoke. She mentioned how Dawkins and Harris and Dennet were all doing well and how she got complaints not only from Muslims but atheists as well. We feel she has come part way but needs to take the next step. She was a very engaging speaker.
One thing that she said that struck a chord was that we should not be afraid of inquiry. Dogma is afraid of inquiry. She believes that faith should never be afraid of inquiry.
I agree with her.
I think Kardshovel can be convinced of this.
It pisses me off that so many people are too easily dismissive and rude.
I understand the opinion that 'faith-heads' are immune to reason, but are they all? Can you convince someone of something by calling them a fucktard?
Corylus and Steve have posted reasoned rational responses to Kardshovel's posts. They are interesting to read. Name calling is not that interesting. It can be funny but it really doesn't put anything interesting on the table.
How can we expect the best arguments to come forward of all we do is name call? I guess I am hoping to see a higher road taken.
If an argument is put forward can we not simply say, "No. This is wrong and here is the reason why...."
I want the best from the theists. I want the best from the atheists. I believe trying to follow the Golden Rule is a decent way to live.
Kardshovel, other than the voices, which you can understand are highly problematic, is there anything else you can offer that would convince me that god exists?

Other Comments by Frankus1122

1387. Comment #120750 by Diacanu on February 2, 2008 at 12:34 pm

Oh, fine, your guilt trip worked, I'll simply avoid Shovel's posts.

(Even though I think his victimhood is a passive-agressive mask)

Other Comments by Diacanu

1388. Comment #120754 by Richard Morgan on February 2, 2008 at 12:41 pm

Talking about hearing voices...
In the Mormon church, the big boss president and Prophet gets messages from God for all of humanity.
"Stake" presidents get messages from God for the running of their "Stake".
"Bishops" get messages from God for the administration of their local church.
And all married men who are "priesthood"-holders HEAR the voice of god to guide them in running their family.
And every Mormon is entitled to ask god questions and get answers.
So why should Kardathingummy be so different?
Now if you have the good luck of having Mitt Romney as President (God forbid!!!!), then he will surely hear the voice of god giviing him hints on how to run the country and keep his millions safe.

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

1389. Comment #120764 by Goldy on February 2, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Frankus, I started nice and polite, only to have it shoved back inot my face. I'm no Jesus, meek and mild, so I take umbrage. It is the way I am online (not in person, it has to be said).
It does sometimes make the other think, I find, and get a dialogue started.
Richard, I hear on the BBC Wales beat England. Hmmm.....

Other Comments by Goldy

1390. Comment #120767 by Steve Zara on February 2, 2008 at 1:09 pm

Corylus and Steve have posted reasoned rational responses to Kardshovel's posts. They are interesting to read. Name calling is not that interesting. It can be funny but it really doesn't put anything interesting on the table.

I can speak only for myself, but I think there is a role for name-calling, if it is appropriate.

I have never said that my polite and gentle approach is the only way. It is all that I am capable of. I fully support more agressive approaches, providing they are attacking ideas, not individuals.

Name-calling can be based on ideas. It can be useful, as in "Creationist" or "homophobe".

Other Comments by Steve Zara

1391. Comment #120772 by Frankus1122 on February 2, 2008 at 1:31 pm

Name-calling can be based on ideas. It can be useful, as in "Creationist" or "homophobe".

Sure, these are shortcuts pointing to ideas. Sometimes these ideas need to be spelled out more clearly for some people.
I'm not above name calling. I get passionate about the ideas I am defending. If there is a refusal to listen to reasoned argument then I get angry. Willful ignorance boils my blood. Then the names will fly. I can't write them now because my daughter is watching me type this and she is just learning to read.

Other Comments by Frankus1122

1392. Comment #120776 by righton on February 2, 2008 at 1:36 pm

Give me a break frankus. Karadashovel is just here to antagonize people.

Other Comments by righton

1393. Comment #120778 by righton on February 2, 2008 at 1:38 pm

Usually people get to talk about their arguments as much as they want, sometimes people arent here for that and this is an obvious case

Other Comments by righton

1394. Comment #120782 by annabanana on February 2, 2008 at 1:58 pm

Kardashovel,

I never called you a schizophrenic. I think that you probably just tried to convince yourself that some part of your consciousness speaking to you was God, when it was not....

However, all of this sniveling is bullshit. How the fuck do you think I felt when you called me a "Betty"? How the fuck do you think Steve felt when you said homosexuality was a sin? Don't fucking come here and insult all of us and then whine when people suggest that you may be schizophrenic. That's about the shittiest thing I've ever heard of. You're whining about name-calling when you were the one who came here and started name-calling in the first place. Take your sexist, homophobic, playing-the-victim charades somewhere else.

Other Comments by annabanana

1395. Comment #120783 by Diacanu on February 2, 2008 at 2:03 pm

*Standing ovation*

Other Comments by Diacanu

1396. Comment #120787 by Frankus1122 on February 2, 2008 at 2:22 pm

Actually,Anabanana I brought up the name-calling bit but,...yeah. Good. You give and you get.

Kardshovel, put up an argument or I'm with Anabanana:

Take your sexist, homophobic, playing-the-victim charades somewhere else.

Have you noticed that it gets really quiet when we ask for an argument?

Way back we had Tyler ask:

If so, can you please tell me how it "crushes" Dawkins and his argument for the existence of god?

This was followed by a series of

"Hello... Anyone there?"

Why is that?

Kardshovel?

Other Comments by Frankus1122

1397. Comment #120790 by troyreynolds86 on February 2, 2008 at 2:34 pm

Kardashovel,

I don't think everyone meant it as an insult, but here is how I have to perceive such claims. There are innumerable people in this world from all different religions that claim that they have heard a message or seen some type of sign no one else could see. Some are lying. Some are schizophrenic. Some are, probably, just constructing something in the unconscious. Some might be legitamately hearing something external. But the problem is that many of these experiences are specific to the religion that they are drawn to and many are exclusionary. So it would be reasonable to assume that some are either liars, mentally disturbed or suffering from some type of temporary delusional state. Now, if there is only one god, and he is specific in his desire for a particular religious, then only one religious experience is legitamate, at best. So for yours to be real, all other must be fake, or tricks by some evil being. I look at it this way, if two patients are in a doctor's office with identical symptoms it is fair to assume they have the same ailment, until something distinguishes on from the other. You may not be schizophrenic, but one does not need to be to have their imaginations, purely beyond their control, get the best of them. Take the advice. Seek some help. At least then you may protect yourself if the voice that your heard is an indication of something more insidious that is lurking in the shadows than might cause you to hurt yourself or someone else. I understand that this was one of the most important moments of your life, and having someone trivialize it with arm chair psychology is a litte bit demeaning, but please don't just go with it. I would rather not see anything bad happen to you because you saw something in the voice that may have lead you to a conclusion that could be disasterous. If it never comes back or does and is benevolent, all the better. If it does and you do something at its bidding therein lies the tragedy.

Troy

Other Comments by troyreynolds86

1398. Comment #120795 by Geoff on February 2, 2008 at 2:43 pm

Annabanana: what Diacanu said!

Encore!

Other Comments by Geoff

1399. Comment #120811 by Goldy on February 2, 2008 at 3:41 pm

Anna... :-D
Nice one!

Other Comments by Goldy

1400. Comment #120823 by annabanana on February 2, 2008 at 4:22 pm

Thanks, guys, I just couldn't deal with it anymore.

Also, Goldy, saying y'all doesn't necessarily mean he's a backwoods redneck. I say it, too (in speaking usually, not writing). So I'd say you might be making some assumptions there. Most southerners (U.S.) say it, smart or not. ;)

Other Comments by annabanana

Reload Comments | Back to Top