1. Comment #369779 by jshuey on April 24, 2009 at 2:54 pm

I was fortunate enough to be in Atlanta and see Dr. Thomson's presentation. It was the singularly most informative part of the entire meeting and in and of itself made the trip to Atlanta well worth it.

Other Comments by jshuey

2. Comment #369789 by Max of Earlobes on April 24, 2009 at 3:17 pm

Can this please be made availible for download?

Other Comments by Max of Earlobes

3. Comment #369803 by Dr Alessandro Magno on April 24, 2009 at 3:45 pm

Could anyone please be generous enough to post a transcription for this video so that I could translate it faster to broadcast here in Brazil/Portugal?

Moloch bless us all! lol

Other Comments by Dr Alessandro Magno

4. Comment #369810 by HKSARblog on April 24, 2009 at 3:54 pm

Hello from Hong Kong

RichardDawkins.Net already has a Database of Lecturers in the Resources drop-down menu. However, this database only lists lecturers with whom most people on this site generally agree. A second database, this time of dubious speakers with references and evidence of their bias, would be useful too. For instance (forgive my ignorance) before I visited this site, I had little idea of dubious speakers such as, say, John Lennox, Alister McGrath or Dinesh D'Souza. A Database of Dubious Speakers would be useful. I wonder if other users here agree?

If so, can such a database be set up? Richard? Josh?

Thank you, and keep up the fantastic work.

Other Comments by HKSARblog

5. Comment #369811 by Fausto on April 24, 2009 at 3:56 pm

2. Comment #369789 by Max of Earlobes
Can this please be made availible for download?




Just download tubesucker. A very nice, simple and omnipotent youtube converter. Totally free (no 30 day trial bullshit)
My ipod is full of youtube stuff. Dunno if it's illegal :/

Other Comments by Fausto

6. Comment #369828 by robotaholic on April 24, 2009 at 5:17 pm

Although this person can speak in front of people better than I can, I really wasn't impressed with this very much: it didn't seem very scientific-

Other Comments by robotaholic

7. Comment #369829 by Friend Giskard on April 24, 2009 at 5:19 pm

2. Comment #369789 by Max of Earlobes on April 24, 2009 at 3:17 pm

You can download the video from youtube. Just paste the youtube URL into keepvid.com and it will give you a link. I'm downloading it now.

Other Comments by Friend Giskard

8. Comment #369830 by Metch on April 24, 2009 at 5:23 pm

So far, I like the way he started, no tip-toeing around the subject.

I think I'll grab a beer, sit on my incredibly uncomfortable computer chair, and watch the entire video.

They really should post more videos on here, although I guess articles are easier to come by.
Does anyone know of other sites that have good video's, discussion forums, articles, etc?

Other Comments by Metch

9. Comment #369833 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2009 at 5:40 pm

I really enjoyed this. Great video work by Josh.

I am not quite convinced by the MRI work, but the connections between religion and evolved brain functions for social interaction and modelling of minds was very clearly demonstrated. I am not sure this will convert many religious people though; if theists can deal with the conflict between evolution and their beliefs, I am sure they will find a way around this.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

10. Comment #369837 by Fausto on April 24, 2009 at 5:52 pm

They will say the brain is tunned to God...

Other Comments by Fausto

11. Comment #369840 by Fausto on April 24, 2009 at 6:12 pm

Religion is a byproduct of something else, but is it also an adaptation? Byproduts don't need to be

Other Comments by Fausto

12. Comment #369841 by commonhumanity on April 24, 2009 at 6:13 pm

THE STRANGENESS OF ANGELS

Your Heaven means nothing to me.
dwelling outside time and space,
where I have never lived.
It's earth I worship, the world I love.

Have you never noticed the names
we use for Heaven are derived
from earthly things: throne, street,
harp, gold, recognition

by hair and bone. Angels seem strange,
but pick them apart feather by feather,
as curious boys peer at flies,
and you might be surprised to see beneath,

men with names like Michael and Gabriel,
or blue-eyed girls with wheat-colored hair.
(Men got tired of playing the game –
Who’s got the nerve to ask a boy

to don a shining, diaphanous dress
in Christmas pageants of today?)
Feathered wings we know from birds.
The halo we'd seen, blooming brilliance

around the moon. Cherubim
nothing in the world but something
in the world: milk-inflated
babies, most innocent thing we could name.

Then lutes and flutes, and hosts of glory
escorted by shimmering blare of trumpet,
the world's sweetest music machine--
to level us to Heaven, hold us there.
--Dorothy Sutton

Other Comments by commonhumanity

13. Comment #369842 by Metch on April 24, 2009 at 6:17 pm

Zara:

I imagine their defense to evolutionary psychology would be that since religious belief comes natural to us, and since it is the default state of mind to believe in unseen disembodied minds, that this is actually evidence FOR a creator, not against.

Religious people are unable to believe that their "intuitions" are misleading. They over-value common sense, gut feelings, and intuitive feelings. When in reality, what we find to be true about the universe, more often than not, defies our "common sense".

Other Comments by Metch

14. Comment #369844 by Fausto on April 24, 2009 at 6:24 pm

Not all common sense is misleading. It's actually difficult to trick the human brain (Dennett says this in "consciousness explained"). Most religious folk believe... well... because they do. It's not like they have the intuition, or the gut feeling. They just don't think about that. Those who have the "intuition" ou the "Gut feeling" are the mystics. They're are not that common...

Other Comments by Fausto

15. Comment #369847 by chewedbarber on April 24, 2009 at 6:32 pm

So basically most of us are lazy. If we wanted we could invent our own fantastic religion and find plenty of support for it in our mental makeup. But instead we choose to borrow some old rags.

Seems about right!

Seriously though, great video that certainly engaged my brain. (However, the eye trick didn't work for me and I'm wondering if I might need to see a neurologist!? ;)

Other Comments by chewedbarber

16. Comment #369848 by Fausto on April 24, 2009 at 6:46 pm

I still think that the best theory is that our brains are set to follow the majority. It's not an absolute rule. But it would be cool if someone started to work to demonstrate what it takes for a really dumb idea to be accepted by the majority just because of the simple fact that in the very beggining... say... 4 out of 5 believed it. And them... enough times goes by... and a tradition is born. I think this is a more simple begining to explain religion instead of all that fancy stuff about natural dualism or hyperactive detection of agency. Because we may have those but most of us aren't really tricked by it. What really trick us... is the overwhelming consensus...

Other Comments by Fausto

17. Comment #369850 by mordacious1 on April 24, 2009 at 6:52 pm

I always enjoy Andy's talks. Great job again by Josh in filming and editing.

The question I had was also asked by the lady who got the first question. What makes the brains of atheists, especially those raised to believe, so different from the believers? I'm not sure that saying our cognitive development is higher (although I like hearing that) answers the question. Perhaps it's a natural selection thing. When they were rounding up people to be sacrificed to the volcano god, our ancestors took off and the "I'm not giving up anything for this nonsense" gene was passed down.:)

Other Comments by mordacious1

18. Comment #369852 by Fausto on April 24, 2009 at 7:02 pm

17. Comment #369850 by mordacious1


[arrogance on]The answer is simple[]
We evolved to believe but also to be alert. The alert part of our brain is what kept us safe from saber toths. It's a trick we develop with the help of our parents. They would say: be very alert (or be very skeptic) whenever you find something moving in the shadows... because it might be a big cat.

We all have belief and skeptic programs running in our brains... and they are always active. During Childhood we have an education... basicaly our brains are downloading complex programs (that's what education is)... and in the adulthood i bet the most common will be... well... the ones that previously were more common.
but in essence i think atheist are less pussy than believers... it's a personality thing :)

Other Comments by Fausto

19. Comment #369853 by mordacious1 on April 24, 2009 at 7:08 pm

"...but in essence i think atheist are less pussy than believers... :)"

There's a ring of truth to that!

Other Comments by mordacious1

20. Comment #369857 by Gnomeyhead on April 24, 2009 at 7:40 pm

One of my favorite speeches from the convention! Glad to have been there!

Other Comments by Gnomeyhead

21. Comment #369861 by funnybroad on April 24, 2009 at 8:20 pm

I have a theory... tell me what you think:

By the time a human being (such as the pope) has reached the pinnacle of an organized religion, that human doesn't truly believe in that religion anymore. However, that human carries on with it anyway for various reasons that might include:
1) Realizing everything that Andy Thompson has just presented, and fearing that if he/she doesn't carry on with it, it would cause chaos in the lives of the followers.
2) He/She likes the power too much.
3) He/She likes fame too much.
4) He/She likes the money too much.

What do you all think?

Other Comments by funnybroad

22. Comment #369864 by funnybroad on April 24, 2009 at 8:24 pm

And furthermore... what would be REALLY INTERESTING... is if we could get those same brain MRIs done on religious leaders... would they show the same results?

Other Comments by funnybroad

23. Comment #369870 by dampearth on April 24, 2009 at 9:39 pm

I'm not sure about the search index comparison. It could be returning matches for keywords, unless Richard "explicitly searched by phrase".

Other Comments by dampearth

24. Comment #369872 by Big City on April 24, 2009 at 10:01 pm

I agree with robotaholic @ #6.
I'm very critical by nature, and I found myself, more than once, going "Well, that's not exactly true."

funnybroad @ 21:

I have a theory... tell me what you think:

While I think it's an interesting idea, I don't really have any reason to believe that those people, in particular, are full of shit the way you say they are.

Other Comments by Big City

25. Comment #369873 by nonsuch on April 24, 2009 at 10:05 pm

JOSH:

It would be greatly appreciated if this and all other lectures could be made available in mp3 format. Not everyone has the time to sit and watch a lecture, but many more will be able to hear it while on the bus, walking around, etc. One doesn't usually lose much information minus the visuals, so I think it woud be conducive to getting the word out to more people...people who would otherwise not have the time to sit and watch the video.

Just a suggestion to Josh...I'm sure there are others who would appreciate the option as well...

Anyway, thanks for all the work put ino this site regardless. It's just a suggestion.

Other Comments by nonsuch

26. Comment #369874 by Diacanu on April 24, 2009 at 10:45 pm

Excellent talk.

I liked the guys idea at the end of a program/game called "let's make a religion", that teaches kids how they form.

Other Comments by Diacanu

27. Comment #369885 by rod-the-farmer on April 25, 2009 at 1:29 am

Err, I agree with robotaholic and Big City. I found this unconvincing and hard to follow, in places. Smarter people than I may have been more persuaded, but I guess that is just me. I always have trouble following psychology presentations. Maybe I should have taken some of those courses. I feel a tiny bit like a person who has NO interest in golf, listening to someone wax poetic about the differences between various golf clubs.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

28. Comment #369887 by iType on April 25, 2009 at 2:37 am

What a great talk, so infomative and made a lot of sense.

It's so unfortunate people can't see beyond their convictions and understand how it is all happening, how their very nature is being hoodwinked by parasitic ideologies.

It can be frustrating talking to religious people about things, I usually avoid getting into any sort of meaningful conversations with them these days, because quite frankly I just can't be bothered anymore.

Other Comments by iType

29. Comment #369888 by ina.j on April 25, 2009 at 2:39 am

On one point dr. Thomson stands to be corrected - I actually got cravings for brocolli after he mentioned it, paused the video and went out to buy some.

Other Comments by ina.j

30. Comment #369889 by iType on April 25, 2009 at 2:46 am

ina.j,

I'd be impressed if your craving was for raw brocolli...

Other Comments by iType

31. Comment #369890 by Steve Zara on April 25, 2009 at 2:50 am

I don't know if this was intentional, but I found it interesting that Andy Thomson spoke about evolution as resulting in "problem solving" components of organisms, and then went on to talk about how we can incorrectly assign intentionality and purpose. The language used to discuss biology in general, and evolution in particular, tends to use phrases that unintentionally imply purpose.

Does this matter? I don't know. Does a heart solve the problem of how to circulate blood? Does this make any more sense than to say an orbit solves the problem of how to not have a planet plunge into the Sun, or a river solves the problem of how water gets to the Sea?

Other Comments by Steve Zara

32. Comment #369891 by iType on April 25, 2009 at 3:01 am

Steve,

Interesting observation. Your implications could just be Andy's use of language, although it raises some interesting questions, eg why does matter 'solve' these problems the way it does, why do physics behave this way, why is there natural selection at all? Perhaps we'll never know the answer to these 'gaps', certainly can't see god there though...

Other Comments by iType

33. Comment #369892 by Szymanowski on April 25, 2009 at 3:35 am

The title strikes me as a bit silly. 'Why We Believe in Gods', at an atheists' convention....

Other Comments by Szymanowski

34. Comment #369894 by Stafford Gordon on April 25, 2009 at 3:44 am

"Science is eating the lunch of religion." Steven Weinberg.

Other Comments by Stafford Gordon

35. Comment #369900 by Steve Zara on April 25, 2009 at 4:30 am

Comment #369891 by iType

There are some reasonable answers to why we get the appearance of order in a Universe like ours: statistics and thermodynamics. Ordered and structured systems like water flowing in rivers can result in more disorder elsewhere, through the production of heat. So, statistically, the situation with the ordered system in along with the increased disorder elsewhere is more probable than the situation without the ordered system in it.

Life is a very good way of increasing disorder, so it is likely that there is a strong link between thermodynamics and statistics and the appearance of life, and even perhaps the way natural selection works.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

36. Comment #369903 by decius on April 25, 2009 at 4:39 am

What condition killed the erectus woman? I can't make out what Andy is saying at around min 20. "Vitamin A poisoning" perhaps?

Other Comments by decius

37. Comment #369906 by tuibguy on April 25, 2009 at 4:58 am

There are sections of this talk I find very helpful, and the one that strikes me is the discussion of 'Intensionality:' whether than it Thompson's term or if he has borrowed it from other sources it does bring in elements of symbolic interactionism.

Other Comments by tuibguy

38. Comment #369907 by Steve Zara on April 25, 2009 at 5:08 am

Another thought comes to mind: I wonder if the tendency of children to have imaginary friends is dependent on culture? The reason I ask this is that Thomson's description of the mental interaction with imagined beings seems very much like the way that Abrahamic theisms work, but perhaps not so much like other religions, where there is either no deity, or at least some consider Gods irrelevant or just "aspects of reality".

This does make me wonder if the Abrahamic theisms can be considered a form of infantilism: Although specific childhood imaginary friends are given up, the general "imaginary friend" idea is allowed, even encouraged, to persist, whereas in other cultures some more sophisticated ideas are at least possible, even if not believed by the majority.

So, in general, I would like to see how culturally dependent (if at all) this work is.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

39. Comment #369909 by Mr Blue Sky on April 25, 2009 at 5:21 am

I would like to bet that if his prediction about psychology text books content in the future come to fruition that we will not only be fighting to keep ID etc out of science we will be trying to actively get psychology into the senior's syllabus. THe future is to get a generation where this sort of stuff is common knowledge. He may not be 100% in all his presentation but I have yet to hear a better summing up the the various elements that we should now pursue in earnest. I hope this is somewhere realted to what Sam has been studying. These theories allied with what "We" already "know" will be powerful weapons at the higher end of society and they will gradually trickle down to the waverers. I see it as one heck of a wedge and look forward to more detil and some sort of action plan as to how best to package and use this knowledge. It is hard to unlearn stuff that seems so right so we should be preprogrammed to take advantage of it just like our adversaries are destined to believe and preach their nonsense. If we are a bit preachy I do not mind if we are preaching fact based on truth from our evo development. As he says "Bring it on!"

Other Comments by Mr Blue Sky

40. Comment #369911 by decius on April 25, 2009 at 5:50 am

Excellent presentation, informative and inspiring.
I notice that Andy can give any talk without reading his notes, that's really impressive.

Many of the concepts hereby introduced may be new to someone, that doesn't automatically make them "unscientific". Clearly, the evidence in its entirety cannot be shown and stuffed in a short presentation, but it was referenced and is available to the more inquisitive for scrutiny.
Dismissal without trying and discovering the subject isn't really the way to go, though.

Other Comments by decius

41. Comment #369915 by Frankus1122 on April 25, 2009 at 6:48 am

31. Comment #369890 by Steve Zara

I found it interesting that Andy Thomson spoke about evolution as resulting in "problem solving" components of organisms, and then went on to talk about how we can incorrectly assign intentionality and purpose.

That is a point that I have often thought about. You ask if it matters; I think it does.

Speaking about how the process of evolution 'solves problems' is inaccurate and, I feel, could lead to misunderstanding of the actual process. It is a shorthand - we know what he means - but not everyone may. It would be more laborious to give an accurate description of the process of evolution which leads to change that results in a benefit for the organism (or selfish gene - another slightly problematic metaphor), but it could lead to a greater general understanding if it were done more frequently.

However, given that some posters have already stated that the talk was hard to follow ... I don't know. Is there a different metaphor that could be used that doesn't ascribe intentionality?

Other Comments by Frankus1122

42. Comment #369916 by chewedbarber on April 25, 2009 at 6:54 am

decius, yep Vitamin A poisoning.

I wonder if atheists are better able than theists to distinguish between a beneficial attachment and a harmful one.

edited

Other Comments by chewedbarber

43. Comment #369918 by decius on April 25, 2009 at 6:59 am

Thank you, chewedbarber.

Other Comments by decius

44. Comment #369921 by decius on April 25, 2009 at 7:27 am

Comment #369907 by Steve Zara

I wonder if the tendency of children to have imaginary friends is dependent on culture? The reason I ask this is that Thomson's description of the mental interaction with imagined beings seems very much like the way that Abrahamic theisms work,

I doubt that.
If agency detection is a hard-wired cognitive mechanism, then its early by-products should manifest themselves independently from culture, with the latter only intervening in configuring them. So I would expect all children to display a tendency to have imaginary friends. But if you asked them for a description, you would probably be able to discern the external environmental and cultural inputs.
Then religion hijacks the mechanism and directs it.

I kind of pulled this out of thin air, so don't take it as, ehm, gospel.

Edit - On second thought, you should take it precisely as gospel. :)

Other Comments by decius

45. Comment #369922 by SilentMike on April 25, 2009 at 7:40 am

Saw it as soon as they put it up. Great stuff. Already downloaded it from YouTube. Very recommended.

Other Comments by SilentMike

46. Comment #369923 by Steve Zara on April 25, 2009 at 7:41 am

Comment #369915 by Frankus112

As Phil says, language here is very difficult. We look at things around us from the position of humans having the brains we do, with implications described by Thomson.

I used to often come across such use of the language of a purpose when I did my biochemistry and biology degrees. A particular molecule in a plant would be called a "herbicide binding protein", because when we did tests, that is where a herbicide would end up. But the name did seem rather amusing to me, as I could imagine someone not experienced in this research asking "why did that plant evolve a protein for the purpose of binding a herbicide?".

My personal view is that there is too much use of language like "problem solving" and "purpose" and "reason" in the discussion of evolution. But getting around that is hard, even with Phil's suggestion of qualifying the use.

This reminds me of quantum mechanics, where terms like "spin" and "orbit" are used to describe the motion of particles at the atomic scale, when whatever particles are actually doing, it is probably nothing like our everyday ideas of of "spin" and "orbit". However, at least the atomic scale is beyond our everyday experience. That is not the case with biological systems, so the words used inevitably come into conflict with everyday usage.

A metaphor for the kind of problem we are having might be a visual one.

As I have discussed with Richard here, even the word "improbable" can have different meanings depending on the context. From one point of view, you get Mount Improbable, that suggests a barrier to be covercome to produce biological systems - there is a problem to be solved. From another view, there is a valley, a possible inevitability (if not huge likelihood) that some biological system may appear.

The metaphor is pictures of craters on the moon. I don't know about you, but because of the way they are lit, I almost always see then as if they are hills, not craters. Some concentration is required to get the brain to see them as recessed. Perhaps this is like the appearance of purpose... we inevitably start to see things from the wrong perspective.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

47. Comment #369925 by decius on April 25, 2009 at 8:03 am

Steve,

this may help. It doesn't seem to differentiate between theistic and non-theistic religions.

Every culture on earth has had some sort of religious system, whether animistic, polytheistic, monotheistic, or even non-theistic (e.g., some Buddhist traditions). This raises an interesting question for evolutionary scientists: why is something so counterintuitive, so illogical (at face value) so pervasive and so persistent?

For many years evolutionary scientists were puzzled by what they considered to be the enormous cognitive effort required to believe in God or gods. Atran, however, has come to consider the opposite view: perhaps belief in God requires much less cognitive effort than was previously thought. Perhaps the human brain is "hard-wired" to believe in God. Perhaps it is our "default" position.

Psychologists refer to three cognitive tools that help to explain the evolutionary basis for belief in God: agent detection, causal reasoning, and theory of mind:
Agent detection evolved because assuming the presence of an agent -- which is jargon for any creature with volitional, independent behavior -- is more adaptive than assuming its absence. If you are a caveman on the savannah, you are better off presuming that the motion you detect out of the corner of your eye is an agent and something to run from, even if you are wrong. If it turns out to have been just the rustling of leaves, you are still alive; if what you took to be leaves rustling was really a hyena about to pounce, you are dead.

A classic experiment from the 1940s by the psychologists Fritz Heider and Marianne Simmel suggested that imputing agency is so automatic that people may do it even for geometric shapes. For the experiment, subjects watched a film of triangles and circles moving around. When asked what they had been watching, the subjects used words like "chase" and "capture." They did not just see the random movement of shapes on a screen; they saw pursuit, planning, escape.

So if there is motion just out of our line of sight, we presume it is caused by an agent, an animal or person with the ability to move independently. This usually operates in one direction only; lots of people mistake a rock for a bear, but almost no one mistakes a bear for a rock.

What does this mean for belief in the supernatural? It means our brains are primed for it, ready to presume the presence of agents even when such presence confounds logic. "The most central concepts in religions are related to agents," Justin Barrett, a psychologist, wrote in his 2004 summary of the byproduct theory, "Why Would Anyone Believe in God?" Religious agents are often supernatural, he wrote, "people with superpowers, statues that can answer requests or disembodied minds that can act on us and the world."

A second mental module that primes us for religion is causal reasoning. The human brain has evolved the capacity to impose a narrative, complete with chronology and cause-and-effect logic, on whatever it encounters, no matter how apparently random. "We automatically, and often unconsciously, look for an explanation of why things happen to us," Barrett wrote, "and `stuff just happens' is no explanation. Gods, by virtue of their strange physical properties and their mysterious superpowers, make fine candidates for causes of many of these unusual events." The ancient Greeks believed thunder was the sound of Zeus's thunderbolt. Similarly, a contemporary woman whose cancer treatment works despite 10-to-1 odds might look for a story to explain her survival. It fits better with her causal-reasoning tool for her recovery to be a miracle, or a reward for prayer, than for it to be just a lucky roll of the dice.
A third cognitive trick is a kind of social intuition known as theory of mind.
It allows us to anticipate the actions of others and to lead others to believe what we want them to believe; it is at the heart of everything from marriage to office politics to poker. People without this trait, like those with severe autism, are impaired, unable to imagine themselves in other people's heads.

The process begins with positing the existence of minds, our own and others', that we cannot see or feel. This leaves us open, almost instinctively, to belief in the separation of the body (the visible) and the mind (the invisible). If you can posit minds in other people that you cannot verify empirically, suggests Paul Bloom, a psychologist and the author of "Descartes' Baby," published in 2004, it is a short step to positing minds that do not have to be anchored to a body. And from there, he said, it is another short step to positing an immaterial soul and a transcendent God.

Other Comments by decius

48. Comment #369926 by Steve Zara on April 25, 2009 at 8:14 am

Comment #369925 by decius

Thanks decius, but I find the last bit of the argument a problem...

If you can posit minds in other people that you cannot verify empirically, suggests Paul Bloom, a psychologist and the author of "Descartes' Baby," published in 2004, it is a short step to positing minds that do not have to be anchored to a body. And from there, he said, it is another short step to positing an immaterial soul and a transcendent God.

This does not explain why some religions don't make that step. Buddhists don't believe in a transcendent God, for example, and the core of the supposed teachings of Buddha is that there is no immaterial soul (although that might be a surprise considering what some versions of Buddhism are like). As for the Greek gods, they weren't that transcendent! They were moody, grumpy and lustful beings that had supernatural power.

You see, I think that last bit describes the step to monotheism. But it is a step that a major fraction of the humans on the planet just don't make. I think that going from "there are disembodied minds all around us having influence" to monotheism is a big one.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

49. Comment #369927 by decius on April 25, 2009 at 8:18 am

Comment #369926 by Steve Zara

I see the problem with those buddhist beliefs that you mention, but not with the Greek pantheon, which for its greater part is a collection of anthropomorphised natural phenomena, when you think of it.

Other Comments by decius

50. Comment #369931 by chewedbarber on April 25, 2009 at 8:28 am

What is the difference between the moody, grumpy, lustful Greek gods and Allah, other than the fact that Allah is all those things in one being, versus the same attributes divided among several beings?

Is that distinction enough to undermine the plausibility of the argument?

edited

Other Comments by chewedbarber