1. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Edd Doerr

Comment #59092 by The Spaghetti Monster on July 27, 2007 at 9:29 am

A lot of posters here are 'griping' that the theists, or deists, or 'religious' are constantly changing their definition of 'God' in order to protect their belief or faith. So I wonder; what is the correct definition of 'God'?

Anyone care to take a crack at it………?

I will wait for your definition, but I am certain, beforehand, of being able to say to you, "I agree with you, there is no such God"; but that God is certainly not my God. If you say to me: "Define your God," I will reply, "I will take good care to do nothing of the kind, for a God defined is a God dethroned." Every positive definition is deniable, the Infinite is the undefined.

So we can clearly see; the debate over that which cannot be observed or defined is pretty silly. I happen to 'believe' that there is a creative 'force' or 'underpinning' to our very existence. Why do I believe this…….? I don't know…. I guess by choice. Does this mean I'm insane….? I don't think so. People believe in all sorts of things that they cannot 'prove'.

So what is 'true'? I don't believe that 'science' believes in truth. Understanding is understood as the best fit to the data under the current limits (both instrumental and philosophical) of observation. If science fetishized truth, it would be religion, which it is not. However, it is clear that under the conditions that Thomas Kuhn designated as "normal science" (as opposed to the intellectual ferment of paradigm shifts) most scholars are involved in supporting what is, in effect, a religion. Their best guesses become fossilized as a status quo, and the status quo becomes an item of faith. So when a scientist tells you that "the truth is . . .", it is time to walk away. Better to find a priest.

2. Emory Brain Imaging Studies Reveal Biological Basis For Human Cooperation

Comment #55536 by The Spaghetti Monster on July 11, 2007 at 1:14 pm

Morality is a concept… it does not exist in reality. The same can be said of any other ideal, emotion or thought. There is no 'good or bad' for society… there is only action and reaction. Sure there is nothing 'wrong' with killing (so called) innocent people however; where I live… there are consequences of such actions - if you get caught.

3. We stand awed at the heights our people have achieved

Comment #49559 by The Spaghetti Monster on June 12, 2007 at 11:33 am

"We stand awed at the heights our people have achieved. No gods, no religion. Us."


sniff...

sips latte

sniffy, sniff...





WTF... you brighty brights get creepier everyday...

4. Majority of Republicans Doubt Theory of Evolution

Comment #49509 by The Spaghetti Monster on June 12, 2007 at 7:59 am

What does evolution have to do with how man came to exist on earth?

Furthermore, is there no doubt associated with evolution…? If not, why has the theory not been declared a law by the scientific community? Now before you get all gunchy on me… I do know the theory and the assumptions it makes. Evolution is our best explanation for diverse life on this planet… Yeah, so what?

It does not address initial cause and offers no explanation of such. Again, to write a headline that claims republicans (in an obvious attempt to marginalize them) have doubt in evolution is flat out stupid. I say, who the hell doesn't have 'any' doubt regarding the theory.

Choose your words more carefully….. Lest you be labeled a bona fide moron.

5. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #49501 by The Spaghetti Monster on June 12, 2007 at 7:16 am

Comment #49489 by BillySands

"I'm happy to accept that I was once deluded in faith. There is no other way to put it. Many christians no doubt think the devil has deluded me. That's their opinion, I couldn't really care what they think. I may think they are silly, but dont take offence - its called maturity - sticks and stones etc. If christians take offense at being called deluded, well, you have to break a few eggs to make an omlette.

How do you tell someone they are so morally corrupt that they are going to burn in hell for all eternity with out causing offence?"

______________________________


Billy, Billy, Billy….

I applaud your maturity

You know as well as I do that it is not my words or the words of others that cast condemnation upon those who reject the innate truth within themselves. It takes effort to turn away; perhaps freedom really does have a price.

With all this talk of who's 'delusional' and who isn't… I find it interesting that people (I'm a pasta monster, so I don't have the ability to participate) conjecture at random, what they do not know, and then believe blindly in their own conjectures.

I can almost hear the Christ reproaching, in his last dying sobs, Jehovah for having abandoned him…

6. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Comment #41662 by The Spaghetti Monster on May 16, 2007 at 1:56 pm

Comment #41652 by briancoughlanworldcitizen
"No doubt. Though why being loathed should be preferable to being ignored"



Loathed..... yes.

Admired..... I'm sure.

However, I disagree with your implication that it is better to be ignored than it is to be loathed. Of course you would have to convince yourself this; especially considering the high probability that you have been largely ignored all your life…… by your friends, family, perhaps your wife….. no doubt your God has forsaken you…… hence your conversion…. Ummmm, I mean "enlightenment"…

That's where you and I differ….. "I will not be ignored"….. sound familiar?

7. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Comment #41646 by The Spaghetti Monster on May 16, 2007 at 1:28 pm

Comment #41636 by Dower
"It is sad to see anybody wasting their lives following some sky-god,"








Wasting their lives…….? Oh I get it, because they (people who believe in a God, or creative life force…. or whatever) choose to live a different life; their life is a waste….. and that makes you sad.

Well we can hope…….. we can hope that one day, mankind will evolve to act in accordance to your will. Unfortunately for you, I don't think that will happen anytime soon……. That makes me happy. You see, I'm happy…… you're sad.

I do have a question for the brighty brights……. You see, life is a force that is constantly consuming; using what it needs and excreting what it doesn't need. So it should follow that mankind is really just a bunch of shit…….. right?

Indeed….. a little perspective is all you need. You're all just the excrement of life, tinkering away on your goofy little computers, espousing your half baked idealism while commenting on the death of one of your own……. As if your belief system is somehow "magically" superior to that of the indigenous folks who lived under a bush and worshiped the dirt.

I do know this….. what happened to the Rev will happen to you too. The only difference is that the "blogisphere" will be deafeningly silent when it's your turn.

8. Is Christianity Good for the World?

Comment #39690 by The Spaghetti Monster on May 11, 2007 at 2:33 pm

Comment #39686 by briancoughlanworldcitizen
"Really? Being hated by every islamic halfwit on the planet, that benefit?"




Well, that is an interesting point……. However, I think I'd rather be hated and keep my head on my body. You on the other hand……. I could see how losing your head might be appealing.


lol..... come on - that was funny.

9. Is Christianity Good for the World?

Comment #39683 by The Spaghetti Monster on May 11, 2007 at 2:13 pm

Comment #39677 by briancoughlanworldcitizen
"Who wants to be doing well militarily? What a strange mind set you have. Can you eat weapons, provide health care with them?"



I could easily justify the benefits of having a strong military. Ask your buddies in France about that one…….. Oh, BTW….. looks like the French might be waking up from their stupor….. let's hope:)

10. Is Christianity Good for the World?

Comment #39669 by The Spaghetti Monster on May 11, 2007 at 1:40 pm

Comment #39661 by briancoughlanworldcitizen
"Europeans get that, and we imprison a fraction of the populace that the "religious" US feels compelled to. That is interesting."


Well, you reap what you sow……. right? Oh come on brian…… take a look at 'reality'….. take a look at history. Oh sure America has problems but to imply that the europieans are "doing it better" – all the way down the line, economically, militarily and fostering an environment that springs ambition….. is just not being honest. Why so may people want to 'come to America"………? That is interesting.

11. Is Christianity Good for the World?

Comment #39663 by The Spaghetti Monster on May 11, 2007 at 1:26 pm

Comment #39658 by 3legcat
"Crime prevention is not what I was after here, I was thinking about Justice for the victim. For example, if someone were to torture my child for their own amusement, I would want them punished, not merely treated for mental illness. perhaps that is primitive but I doubt it is unique."


That may be primitive..... and to liken 'primitive' morally unjustifiable or lacking righteousness is naive.

12. Is Christianity Good for the World?

Comment #39657 by The Spaghetti Monster on May 11, 2007 at 1:15 pm

Comment #39655 by briancoughlanworldcitizen
"I think you are largely correct about that. So as a deterrent it is completely without value. So why threaten it? Even more critically, why apply it?"



Come on brian..... you have to threaten it, and of course make good on the threat; otherwise you start down the slippery slope. Think about software mfg companies. If they cannot threaten lawsuits for unauthorized distribution..... what would motivate people to stop copying programs?

13. Is Christianity Good for the World?

Comment #39654 by The Spaghetti Monster on May 11, 2007 at 1:02 pm

"Comparable economic and political values"……?


Oh sure brian, you can compare anything…… however, when you do compare the political values of America with Sweden you will see a very stark contrast….. (even you know that brian). Furthermore, as far as the economic comparison goes, how long do you think Sweden could support the reconstruction efforts in Iraq? Not to mention paying for the opportunity…..

14. Is Christianity Good for the World?

Comment #39653 by The Spaghetti Monster on May 11, 2007 at 12:54 pm

"Fear of punishment" usually doesn't enter the mind set of people determined to commit crime – and when it does it gets justified. This "fear" you speak of usually comes into play after the criminal realizes he will be held accountable.

15. Is Christianity Good for the World?

Comment #39645 by The Spaghetti Monster on May 11, 2007 at 12:30 pm

Comment #39639 by briancoughlanworldcitizen


That may be true brian. However, you imply (evident by your choice of words "both rich, developed, independent" and both having "fully functional judicial systems"….. fully functional judicial systems is an oxymoron…… isn't it?) that Sweden & America are on the same level when it comes to leading the free world. Let's compare apples to apples……….. Your plea to consider the statistic you put forth falls short.

16. Lou Dobbs w/ Hitchens on Al Sharpton's Bigoted Remark

Comment #39640 by The Spaghetti Monster on May 11, 2007 at 12:13 pm

37. Comment #39629 by Mr. Mark

"I was very surprised at Sharpton's take on what god is. He seemed to refute any definition of god that was based on any of the standard holy books. Isn't he a Rev in the Southern Baptist tradition?"










lol

Indeed, more like a Rev in the media whore tradition. Just like Rev Hitchens…….. How's that for a paradox?

17. Free Speech

Comment #39608 by The Spaghetti Monster on May 11, 2007 at 9:34 am

Comment #39055 by MarcCountry on May 9, 2007 at 9:48 pm

"It's great to hear him speak on atheism, and the horror of religion, but he's just so painfully superficial in his singling out Islam as qualitatively different from the other religions, based on middle-eastern conflict. If we all woke up tomorrow and, instead of "Xians" v. "Muslims" the teams were "Catholics" v. "Protestants", for example, the real story would still be one of rich v. poor, educated v. ignorant, opressed and oppressor........... blah, blah, blah."




If what you say is true my brighty bright friend…… what difference would it make if we eliminated religion……. After all, once all religion is banned and outlawed, and anyone who speaks of the possibility of a divine intelligent force at work in the universe is publicly flogged….. well, we will still have rich people and poor people right? we will still have educated people and ignorant people right? we will still have the oppressed and oppressors……. I just don't see how eliminating and or banning freedom of thought will eradicate the oppressed. One would think it would radically increase the number of oppressed.






sippy

18. God . . . in other words

Comment #39604 by The Spaghetti Monster on May 11, 2007 at 9:20 am

Comment #39067 by Janus on May 9, 2007 at 10:58
"but they at least have the guts to admit the full extent of their irrationality. The same can't be said of moderates like Miss Gledhill. Obscurantism always has been and always will be the enemy of intellectual honesty."




Well....Interestingly enough….. the Bible has a thing our two to say about the 'lukewarm' as well.





I must say, I can't seem to identify with some of the posters here who express such utter distain and frustration with those who hold different beliefs. I think we can all agree that extremism, regardless of where or how it may manifest itself, is dangerous in society. The trick is identifying who is extreme…… and once the 'extreme' people are identified…. What do we do with them…….? Do we kill them? Do we marginalize them? Do we take away their rights?

I once read that God demands the sacrifice of reason. If this is true, it becomes reasonable to force our will upon others. If this is not true….. it becomes reasonable to force our will upon others.

Nevertheless, I am not "frustrated" or "irked" or "angry" like my friend Spinoza…. Check out his comment below:


Comment #39073 by Spinoza on May 9, 2007 at 11:58 pm
"Transcendence is the fucking PROBLEM in the first place... it's what makes the fucking thing SUPERNATURAL."

"This makes me very angry... "





What can you say……. to me, such a waste. Who the hell has time to be angry that Ruth Gledhill may believe in God, or is attempting to better understand Dawkins. But what do I know…… maybe I should fall in line with Janus and Spinoza; get myself all pissed-off and angry and go out and do something about it…… Ummmmm, no – I think I'll pass.






sips latte

19. My response to the GOP evolution question

Comment #38479 by The Spaghetti Monster on May 8, 2007 at 9:09 am

What the…..?

Mr. World Citizen (yeah, the moniker alone should tip you off…. let me guess….. you're all for globalization…. right goofy?) is an amateur hack. He will spend hours upon hours wrestling with his own uncertainty; as evident by his brilliant youtube uploads.

So what motivates people like Brian to engage in the battle of controlled thought? Ya know; the people who conjecture at random, what they do not know, and then believe blindly in their own conjectures, or in those of others, who know no more than themselves……. And they call those who choose to believe in a God delusional……. That's pretty funny.

I think it's quite reasonable to believe in things that one neither sees, touches, nor measures, because manifestly the infinite exists, and one can say not only I believe, but I know that an infinity of things exist which are beyond my reach. How about you goofy…… do you believe the universe is infinite….. if so, prove it… lest you be forever labeled as 'delusional'…….




"A universe with a God would look quite different from a universe without one. A physics, a biology where there is a God is bound to look different."
Richard Dawkins

Really……? Hmmmmm, let's compare the 'with a God' universe to the 'without a God' universe…….. let me know when you're ready….. no doubt the 'differences' will make for interesting observation………

I won't hold my breath.



Sips latte….

20. Scene Caused by Christian Group at NYC Stage Show

Comment #36556 by The Spaghetti Monster on May 1, 2007 at 2:20 pm

WTF……is this shit?





Well, I don't think I would have dumped the water over his notes…….. however, I would have demanded that the chubby little half-wit stand up / dig deep into his back pocket and give me a full refund. I mean Come On! I would have preferred watching Mr. Daisey bent over the desk getting it like a man…..but this, this was just intolerable tripe! Yeah, I would have saved my anger for whoever convinced me that the show had any redeeming entertainment value…… that poor basterd would have gotten the foot in the ass.

21. The God disunion: there is a place for faith in science, insists Winston

Comment #35166 by The Spaghetti Monster on April 26, 2007 at 12:53 pm

Comment #35162 by TheCelestialTeapot on April 26, 2007 at 12:36 pm
"I find nothing wrong with ostracizing idiots, that's generally how modern society works."



I see…… so according to you….. anyone who holds a "belief" that you find illogical; it's best to ostracize them and label them "idiots".

Got it…… Idiot!

22. A debate on people who profess no religion

Comment #35165 by The Spaghetti Monster on April 26, 2007 at 12:48 pm

Comment #33356 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 20, 2007 at 12:03 am
"Bill Gates, and Warren Buffett are the most substantial philantropists that the world has ever seen.

When the catholic church can match the money these "atheists" have stumped up, then we can talk again."





Gates: "In terms of doing things I take a fairly scientific approach to why things happen and how they happen. I don't know if there's a God or not, but I think religious principles are quite valid."


Hmmmmm, something tells me that Gates "belief" that religious principles are quite valid will land him in the "severely delusional" camp. Plus he can't even acknowledge that he knows emphatically that there is no God. What's up with that?

23. The Video: Bill O'Reilly Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #35153 by The Spaghetti Monster on April 26, 2007 at 11:40 am

Comment #35151 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 26, 2007 at 11:14 am
"I was going to respond to this inane post, when I suddenly thought, why bother?"





But you responded anyway....... and in a manner consistent with your usual tripe……

Bravo!

24. The Video: Bill O'Reilly Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #35147 by The Spaghetti Monster on April 26, 2007 at 10:43 am

Comment #35131 by glittergulch on April 26, 2007 at 9:57 am
"His clarification actually shows that the comments were taken completely in context. He DID say that people are poor because they are lazy and irresponsible. How else could he possibly have meant it when he said: "It's hard to do it because you gotta look people in the eye and tell 'em they're irresponsible and lazy. And who's gonna wanna do that? Because that's what poverty is, ladies and gentlemen."

What an idiot."



Got it..... So what you are saying is…… success in getting oneself out of poverty does not require responsibility and ambition / drive.

Listen, I think we can all agree that anyone can argue against 'absolutes' and usually with good reason. I think a little 'discernment' is in order here….. unless of course you actually believe that being a responsible person has absolutely nothing to do with achieving personal goals…. In this case, I "believe" (yeah, I know "belief" equals severe delusion) that Bill was simply making the point that personal responsibility can go a long way towards getting yourself out of poverty….

That's it…. No need to over scrutinize the painfully obvious.

25. The God disunion: there is a place for faith in science, insists Winston

Comment #35119 by The Spaghetti Monster on April 26, 2007 at 9:05 am

Comment #35113 by scottishgeologist on April 26, 2007 at 8:45 am
"I still dont know how he manages to square superstition with reason."





So according to you….. a personal "belief system" is really just a bunch a "superstition".

Well, I believe that our universe is not accidental, but I cannot prove that; it is simply my "belief"…. Or as you would say "superstition".

Historically, most physicists have shared this point-of-view. For centuries, they believed that the universe was governed by a simple set of physical laws that are the same everywhere and that these laws derive from a simple unified theory.

However, in the last few years, an increasing number of physicists have become enamored with the anthropic principle—the idea that there is an enormous multiplicity of universes with widely different physical properties and the properties of our particular observable universe arise from pure accident. The only special feature of our universe is that its properties are compatible with the evolution of intelligent life. The change in attitude is motivated, in part, by the failure to date to find a unified theory that predicts our universe as the unique possibility. According to some recent calculations, the current best hope for a unified theory—superstring theory—allows an exponentially large number of different universes, most of which look nothing like our own. String theorists have turned to the anthropic principle for salvation.

Frankly, I view this as an act of desperation. I don't have much patience for the anthropic principle. I think the concept is, at heart, non-scientific. A proper scientific theory is based on testable assumptions and is judged by its predictive power. The anthropic principle makes an enormous number of assumptions—regarding the existence of multiple universes, a random creation process, probability distributions that determine the likelihood of different features, etc.—none of which are testable because they entail hypothetical regions of spacetime that are forever beyond the reach of observation. As for predictions, there are very few, if any. In the case of string theory, the principle is invoked only to explain known observations, not to predict new ones. (In other versions of the anthropic principle where predictions are made, the predictions have proven to be wrong. Some physicists cite the recent evidence for a cosmological constant as having anticipated by anthropic argument; however, the observed value does not agree with the anthropically predicted value.)

I find the desperation especially unwarranted since I see no evidence that our universe arose by a random process. Quite the contrary, recent observations and experiments suggest that our universe is extremely simple. The distribution of matter and energy is remarkably uniform. The hierarchy of complex structures ranging from galaxy clusters to subnuclear particles can all be described in terms of a few dozen elementary constituents and less than a handful of forces, all related by simple symmetries. A simple universe demands a simple explanation. Why do we need to postulate an infinite number of universes with all sorts of different properties just to explain our one?

Of course, this belief (presumably because I cannot prove it) makes me delusional in the eyes of the brighty brights. I might as well believe in fairies that live in my garden…. Or Santa. But, I view the current failure of string theory to find a unique universe simply as a sign that our understanding of string theory is still immature or perhaps that string theory is wrong.

But what do I know. I'm delusional with all my "beliefs".

26. The God disunion: there is a place for faith in science, insists Winston

Comment #35112 by The Spaghetti Monster on April 26, 2007 at 8:42 am

Comment #35106 by BillySands on April 26, 2007 at 8:09 am

"David, I challenged you to provide your best evidence for the existance of God. I'm still waiting!"


Of course when you say "evidence" you mean something you can see, or touch…. empirical indeed. And of course there is no such "evidence" that God exists….. well, except that maybe existence itself is the evidence….. but that would require "belief".

Presumably all sorts of people believe in things that they cannot prove….. Truth and belief are uncomfortable words in scholarship. It is possible to define as true only those things that can be proved by certain agreed criteria. In general, science does not believe in truth or, more precisely, science does not believe in belief. Understanding is understood as the best fit to the data under the current limits (both instrumental and philosophical) of observation. If science fetishized truth, it would be religion, which it is not. However, it is clear that under the conditions that Thomas Kuhn designated as "normal science" (as opposed to the intellectual ferment of paradigm shifts) most scholars are involved in supporting what is, in effect, a religion. Their best guesses become fossilized as a status quo, and the status quo becomes an item of faith. So when a scientist tells you that "the truth is . . .", it is time to walk away. Better to find a priest.

Anyway, I guess the brighty brights here would say I'm delusional because I believe that the universe is infinite. Of course I cannot prove this; but I believe it. So I must ask….? Am I as delusional as those who believe in God; or perhaps I'm a little less delusional?

27. The Video: Bill O'Reilly Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #34877 by The Spaghetti Monster on April 25, 2007 at 1:41 pm

Comment #34786 by ghostbuster on April 25, 2007 at 8:38 am
"I find most religious people border on a monothematic delusion"




Ummmm, and what would be the "monothematic" theme or….. delusion? Could it be they believe in one God…..?

Presumably all sorts of people believe in things that they cannot prove….. Truth and belief are uncomfortable words in scholarship. It is possible to define as true only those things that can be proved by certain agreed criteria. In general, science does not believe in truth or, more precisely, science does not believe in belief. Understanding is understood as the best fit to the data under the current limits (both instrumental and philosophical) of observation. If science fetishized truth, it would be religion, which it is not. However, it is clear that under the conditions that Thomas Kuhn designated as "normal science" (as opposed to the intellectual ferment of paradigm shifts) most scholars are involved in supporting what is, in effect, a religion. Their best guesses become fossilized as a status quo, and the status quo becomes an item of faith. So when a scientist tells you that "the truth is . . .", it is time to walk away. Better to find a priest.

Anyway, I guess the brighty brights here would say I'm delusional because I believe that the universe is infinite. Of course I cannot prove this; but I believe it. So I must ask….? Am I as delusional as those who believe in God, but obviously cannot prove it? Or perhaps I'm a little less delusional?

I also believe that our universe is not accidental, but I cannot prove that either.

Historically, most physicists have shared this point-of-view. For centuries, they believed that the universe was governed by a simple set of physical laws that are the same everywhere and that these laws derive from a simple unified theory.

However, in the last few years, an increasing number of physicists have become enamored with the anthropic principle—the idea that there is an enormous multiplicity of universes with widely different physical properties and the properties of our particular observable universe arise from pure accident. The only special feature of our universe is that its properties are compatible with the evolution of intelligent life. The change in attitude is motivated, in part, by the failure to date to find a unified theory that predicts our universe as the unique possibility. According to some recent calculations, the current best hope for a unified theory—superstring theory—allows an exponentially large number of different universes, most of which look nothing like our own. String theorists have turned to the anthropic principle for salvation.

Frankly, I view this as an act of desperation. I don't have much patience for the anthropic principle. I think the concept is, at heart, non-scientific. A proper scientific theory is based on testable assumptions and is judged by its predictive power. The anthropic principle makes an enormous number of assumptions—regarding the existence of multiple universes, a random creation process, probability distributions that determine the likelihood of different features, etc.—none of which are testable because they entail hypothetical regions of spacetime that are forever beyond the reach of observation. As for predictions, there are very few, if any. In the case of string theory, the principle is invoked only to explain known observations, not to predict new ones. (In other versions of the anthropic principle where predictions are made, the predictions have proven to be wrong. Some physicists cite the recent evidence for a cosmological constant as having anticipated by anthropic argument; however, the observed value does not agree with the anthropically predicted value.)

I find the desperation especially unwarranted since I see no evidence that our universe arose by a random process. Quite the contrary, recent observations and experiments suggest that our universe is extremely simple. The distribution of matter and energy is remarkably uniform. The hierarchy of complex structures ranging from galaxy clusters to subnuclear particles can all be described in terms of a few dozen elementary constituents and less than a handful of forces, all related by simple symmetries. A simple universe demands a simple explanation. Why do we need to postulate an infinite number of universes with all sorts of different properties just to explain our one?

Of course, this belief (presumably because I cannot prove it) makes me delusional in the eyes of the brighty brights. I might as well believe in fairies that live in my garden…. Or Santa. But, I view the current failure of string theory to find a unique universe simply as a sign that our understanding of string theory is still immature or perhaps that string theory is wrong.

But what do I know. I'm delusional.

28. The Video: Bill O'Reilly Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #34549 by The Spaghetti Monster on April 24, 2007 at 1:02 pm

Yeah….. Didn't Mr. Dawkins look like a tired old man…. covering the same old ground – "you have to prove God does exist…." Or "just because you choose to believe doesn't make it true"…. Or "we're all atheists when it comes to Zeus" or "the universe does not need a God to be adequately explained"…. Etc, etc.

I must say, he definitely looked as if he were just 'going through the motions'. Granted, a couple of minutes may be a little short to address the origins of existence while debating the validity of personal belief systems…. On the other hand…. Maybe a few minutes is plenty of time. Nevertheless, I have become utterly board to death with this topic. You can only conjecture in regards to the unknown for so long before you come face to face with the knowledge that your convictions probably won't sway the opinion of others (not to mention your convictions might not even be true). And even if they are true…… it doesn't matter; you are only responsible for your own actions. I guess I keep hoping for a little concession on both sides of this debate. Indeed, God may not be necessary for our existence but at the same time….. maybe God is the condition of possibility of any entity whatsoever, including ourselves…. Maybe God is the answer to why there is something rather that nothing. I don't believe that God and the universe add up to two, any more than my envy and my left foot constitute a pair of objects. But that's what I choose to believe. I have no desire to believe otherwise. I will however, keep an open mind….. maybe someday I will be convinced that there is no God…… but for now, in my life…. I see no benefit in clinging to such a conviction.

And as for the truth….. I'm a little weary of both sides laying claim to absolute truth…. freedom (for me) lies within the uncertainty….. and I'm pretty sure that neither science nor religion can honestly lay claim to the absolute truth behind our existence. Maybe someday….. but that day is not this day.

But what do I know…… I'm delusional…..

29. Richard Dawkins interviews the Bishop of Oxford

Comment #33452 by The Spaghetti Monster on April 20, 2007 at 6:20 am

Comment #33440 by Logicel on April 20, 2007 at 5:38 am



You were "chilled to the bone"…….? You still can't "shake the feeling of horror"……..?

What is truly scary is the thought of people like this poster; these are people that are completely and totally frightened of someone / anyone who professes a belief in God, or presumably anything else they may believe – but cannot prove.

As evident from the post above….. they are so paralyzed with fear they use words like "feeling of horror".

Now I ask….. who is to be feared…….?

30. Sam's Flea!

Comment #33333 by The Spaghetti Monster on April 19, 2007 at 10:12 pm

"I don't think we need to invoke the supernatural to explain our thoughts and feelings on morality."
Comment #33316 by Jessie on April 19, 2007 at 9:14 pm


Indeed. We don't need much of anything….. except food, water and shelter, to survive. Let me put forth a question; who can say with certainty they know under what circumstances life originated on this planet? Furthermore, who can say with certainty that they know the events that transpired which lead up to and invoked the "big bang"…..?

As silly as it sounds I do believe that these are (some of) the unanswerable questions at the very heart of the "does God exist" debate. Listen, people don't care if we have evolved over billions of years or came into existence yesterday…. The belief in "God" is fundamentally a belief that some intelligent agent is at work throughout the universe. Likewise, the belief that there is no God is the belief that there is no intelligent force at work throughout our universe….. and perhaps beyond? Of course with the exception of us (humans). Oh sure we like to speculate the possibilities and probabilities….. but what are these possibilities and probabilities in the context of infinity?

Indeed, infinity is the indefinable…. How some people can keep a straight face while debating the existence of "God" is beyond me. The simple truth is….. nobody knows for sure…… How can this be you ask? Well, see the two questions proposed in paragraph (1). There either is a God or there is not. Any further diatribe attempting to prove, disprove, explain or define is rubbish. I suppose if there is a God who has created the universe it would be pretty arrogant for me to claim I know his method of operation. And if there is no God…… well, the absurdity of life would only be fitting in the absurdity of what we call existence.

Enough with the banter…… it produces nothing.

31. Sam's Flea!

Comment #33208 by The Spaghetti Monster on April 19, 2007 at 3:00 pm

"Put your cards on the table, so we can see you're hopeless from the get go, that(s) saves an awful lot of trouble."
Comment #33168 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 19, 2007 at 2:03 pm





Indeed my stray friend…… are we not all "hopeless"? (That's a rhetorical question creepy…) BTW, I checked out your youtube vid. I must say, the first thing that struck me was the undeniable feeling that you still haven't found what you're looking for…… funny "a pictures worth a thousand words"…..

Seriously, you speak of "blasphemy of the holy sprit" and your (once) fear of hell and what not…… obviously defining moments in your experience as a man of "faith". No doubt you are familiar with modern day religion and goofy practices, like speaking in tongues and "prophesizing"….

I was raised in a Christian family and was brought to church every Sunday where I heard all the old testament Bible stories and was exposed to the "hell fire and brimstone" sermons……. But I gotta tell ya, I identified with the core message early on….. I realized that the emotionally charged words of our pastor were just that……. emotions….. his emotions. I realized very early that the place for God is outside the self…… Choose this day who you will serve…… not because you have the choice to serve or not to serve, but only the choice of who or what to serve. People have crafted religion in attempts to understand who God is…… that which is indefinable; is it any wonder that such a grand quest to define God would only lead to miserable failure.

As far as the 'blasphemy' thing is concerned…. I think a little applied thought would have helped you out in your struggle with that one…… don't deny the self, embrace your uncertainty….. it is all you will ever have.

32. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #33135 by The Spaghetti Monster on April 19, 2007 at 12:28 pm

distortions put out by the enemies of free thought.
Comment #33112 by Stewart on April 19, 2007 at 8:13 am









Who are the "enemies of free thought"? Isn't everyone free to think as they choose? Granted, throughout this life I have been subjected to various "belief systems" and certain groups who would try to persuade me to acknowledge the "so called" truth that is supposedly inherent within their particular "belief system". But guess what….. you cannot control what another thinks….. a lot of times you can't control what you think. Of course you can control how people act, but that's a different ball game.

So goes the pseudo battle between the pseudo intellectuals who, for whatever reason, find it necessary to posture and pander and influence others to openly acknowledge that their world view is indeed "correct". Of course this is evident by the very existence of this site.

But who is being intellectually honest with themselves? For the atheist (or as I like to call them…. "the brighty brights") how can you rationalize what is good for humanity, or society, in the context of there being some form of "common good" or "mutual respect" or "compassion for the living" when no such things exist in reality. All of existence is completely absurd and therefore any notion of ones actions (as) being reprehensible is just a personal subjective observation, based on the conditions of which you have been raised. The absurdity of people believing in "God" is indeed "par for the course" in a universe that exists as a result of pure unadulterated blind dumb luck….. Take the mass murder that occurred at VT earlier this week. To say this was a tragedy needs clarification; a tragedy to those who were directly affected….? Perhaps, in their "delusional" minds it was a tragedy….. but we know that no such "tragedy" exists in reality…. Therefore, should we mock and ridicule the afflicted; proclaim that the sooner they can "break the shackles" of their delusion…. The better off they'll be?

Likewise, those "Crazy Christians" who, for whatever reason, can't shake the feeling that there is something beyond our limited capabilities of comprehension and ability to "lay our hands on" are equally as disturbed as the atheist who believes there is a moral code of conduct in which to live by…… Indeed, maybe one day there will surface sufficient evidence that sways one to the other…… I wouldn't hold my breath. But one can hope….. I think…. Right brighty brights….? I mean, unless "hope" is just as delusional as faith……. I think it just might be.



BTW…. All the questions proposed in my above rant were rhetorical…..

So don't get any "bright" ideas……. k!

33. For God's Sake

Comment #31658 by The Spaghetti Monster on April 13, 2007 at 4:48 pm

Comment #31643 by ScienceBreath on April 13, 2007 at 3:31 pm




Maybe I am a "loon". But I will ask in return; what is it with the pseudo-intellectual brighty brights that make them incapable of crafting a reasonable contribution without "gratuitous" use of letters?

But thanks for your wonderful contribution to our discussion…… what was it again….. Oh yeah… "What unmitigated shit!". Indeed, simply brilliant!

BTW, I'm a pasta monster….. neither male nor female….

***edit by OBC personal will not be tolerated***

I'm out…. But I shall one day return.

34. For God's Sake

Comment #31629 by The Spaghetti Monster on April 13, 2007 at 2:37 pm

"I recommend ignoring his ignorance."
Comment #31626 by Phaderus on April 13, 2007 at 2:21 pm



That's fine with me Phaderus….. I recommend that posters 'pay close attention' to your ignorance….

Knowledge being indefinitely progressive, I can believe that I shall one day know that of which I am now ignorant……. I presume you believe ignorance is lost upon you……

Good for you…… you must be an exceptionally bright "brighty bright"…..


seacrust out.....

35. For God's Sake

Comment #31625 by The Spaghetti Monster on April 13, 2007 at 2:20 pm

"By all means define your God, and lets have a look. Who knows, maybe you are actually worshiping the one true God, and will convince us of it? Be sure to define all the characteristics in explicit detail, plus how you know that this is so. Take your time, there's no rush:-)"
Comment #31615 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 13, 2007 at 1:52 pm



I will take good care to do nothing of the kind, for a God defined is a God dethroned. Again, every positive definition is deniable, the Infinite is the undefined.


But I will entertain your other question….. (which is much more interesting)

You ask:

"Really? Wouldn't you prefer to be sane?"


I must say….. that question made me chuckle (thanks, seriously)….

Well, I'll assume that you believe yourself to be one of the 'sane'…… and I'll admit that the few exchanges we've had this fine day - doesn't really provide ample enough information for me to completely discern your 'mental veracity'….. but, from what little I can gather….. if you're 'sane'…… my answer would be no…. I do not wish to be 'sane'.

36. For God's Sake

Comment #31619 by The Spaghetti Monster on April 13, 2007 at 2:01 pm

"Before I began to think about it seriously, the lack of belief seemed unthinkable to me, too."
Comment #31613 by Fedler on April 13, 2007 at 1:48 pm

This is where you and I differ. I have put a lot of serious thought into what and why I believe the things I do…….. rather painful at times.

BTW…… you say "unthinkable"….. I don't get it. How can any thought be 'thought' while being 'unthinkable'. Indeed there is the known and unknown……. But doubt is always present.

37. For God's Sake

Comment #31609 by The Spaghetti Monster on April 13, 2007 at 1:32 pm

"An idiot or a disingenous, and rather clever God botherer. I've got you firmly pegged as the latter:-)"
Comment #31604 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 13, 2007 at 12:56 pm



Ahhhhh, yes…. I think I could safely 'fit' into any one of those characterizations.

That's fine with me……. I live within the comfortable confines of my own apathy and indifference. Something I owe to this thing called 'life'. However, I must admit, I do find it mildly entertaining to visit sites like this (religious, political and/or philosophical – not to mention scientific; this site hits the mother load) and watch the pandering and posturing on matters that often times require the sacrifice of reason. I do believe in 'God' Mr. World Citizen….. if that makes me 'delusional' I guess I'm o.k. with that…….

BTW….. I don't click on links…… sorry.

38. For God's Sake

Comment #31603 by The Spaghetti Monster on April 13, 2007 at 12:55 pm

"Here in Canada we currently have a Homophobic, Going to Church Every Sunday, "Born Again" Prime Minister who has been known to end his speeches with,"And God Bless Canada." "Scary"
Comment #31593 by Naturalist1 on April 13, 2007 at 12:00 pm


See what I'm saying………?

This person thinks it is "scary" that the Prime minister of Canada says "God Bless Canada" and (I'm guessing) it is equally "scary" that this Prime Minister doesn't particularly agree with the life style choice of the homo….. (no doubt this person will be deeply hurt, saddened and angered that I used the word 'homo').

But what is this fear…… Of course you'll say…. what about the 'Christian crusades' (ummmm, when did that happen again…..) Ahhhh, indeed but… but… but… these 'Crazy Christians' will no doubt lead us down the path of the crusades all over again….. little old church ladies will be beating the 'un-faithful' to death with their walking sticks….. Or perhaps, the atrocities we bestow upon ourselves as a collective species will (and are) be justified in the name of 'God'….. making it all too easy to point to the belief in 'God' as the reason we (humanity) commit such horrible acts of violence. (see 9/11 and the on-going war in Iraq). But I do wonder…… if I live to see the day when religion and 'God' go the way of (for the vast majority) Santa and the tooth fairy……who or what will replace 'God' as justification for murder and war……? I just have this strange feeling that global acts of violence and war aren't going to disappear / or even dissipate with the absence of 'God'.

I could be wrong….. But I'm not going to get all fucking bent out of shape about it……

39. For God's Sake

Comment #31597 by The Spaghetti Monster on April 13, 2007 at 12:29 pm

"Your right, evil is only a personal bias, but then again, we are people, so personal bias is a valid reason."

Comment #31588 by Phaderus on April 13, 2007 at 11:26 am



Valid.... as in "sound" or "just" or "well-founded"..... no doubt the validity of imposing ones particular 'world view' onto another backed by the notion that we are 'people' is debatable. Don't get me wrong…… of course, as a society there must be rules and regulations to follow…. As you stated; laws are enacted (in society) to protect personal property and possessions inherent in a free-market. Taxes pay for infrastructure and education etc. etc….. But, if a group comes along that shares a particular ideology…. Christian, secular or other….. and collectively in a peaceful and law abiding manner tries to influence others to 'convert' to their world view…… where's the danger in that? What makes one 'self-imposed moral code of conduct' more dangerous than others?

Before you go off the deep end…. were talking about ideologies or 'belief systems' that typically have the best interest of society in mind. I'm not talking about what YOU consider societies best interest; I'm talking about the collective interest of the 'group'. I know it's 'in fashion' to call people who believe in 'God' crazy these days….. to which I say; He who says there is no God, without having defined God in a complete and absolute manner, simply talks nonsense. I wait for his definition, and when he has set this forth after his own fashion, I am certain, beforehand, of being able to say to him, "I agree with you, there is no such God"; every positive definition is deniable, the Infinite is the undefined. But I digress….. what we're talking about here is the supposed 'danger' of the Christian right….. Like I said before…… danger my ass.

40. For God's Sake

Comment #31584 by The Spaghetti Monster on April 13, 2007 at 11:07 am

"The Bush administration's implosion clearly represents a setback for the Christian right's strategy of infiltration. But it would be wildly premature to declare the danger over."

Danger? What danger…..?

Could one of you 'brighty bright naturalist' types explain to me what this supposed 'danger' is and why people (in general) should be afraid?

I know I'm not afraid of any 'right wing christian' group just as I am not afraid of any 'secular humanist' group.

For whatever reason people take it upon themselves to impose their particular 'world view' on others….. always have and as far as I can tell, probably always will. And of course then your dead……… oh well.

Listen, I don't care what you believe or how you choose to act; the implication of your particular ideology bears no consequence in reality. Morality is a sham and I implore anyone to produce sound rational evidence that suggests 'evil' is anything more than a personal bias. What is the basis of your 'self-imposed' moral code of conduct?

Danger my ass!

41. Yanoconodon, a transitional fossil

Comment #26468 by The Spaghetti Monster on March 19, 2007 at 1:34 pm

"I know you're trying very hard to promote the idea that "atheism" relies on nihilism"



If by nihilism you mean: total rejection of established laws and institutions. I do not think that atheism promotes or should promote this definition. I accept the laws of society and institutions that have put them forth. I am well aware of the consequences of my actions.

But, if by nihilism you mean: the denial of an objective basis for truth. I do believe that atheism should promote this definition. Let's face it, if we are to be intellectually honest with ourselves; we must promote that FACT that there is no objective basis for what is right or wrong. The debate must be open to all.

Listen, if you would like to think I'm a "theist" go ahead….You can think of me anyway you choose; your thoughts are of no consequence to me.

You state:
"The existance of "Values" do not in any way depend on a belief in god or any other unnamed form of supernatural authority."

Well duh….

I agree with you that the term "value" is a descriptive term used to identify human preferences. Furthermore, I could care less whether or not these human preferences come from a book or shared interest. Fact is…. they're only preferences…

Listen, if you get satisfaction from the "belief" that your actions will have an impact (or will live on….. like some horrible meme) on others years after you're dead…. Good on ya. As for me….. I could care less about the "echos" of my most cherished ideas….. and I don't think I'll be anymore concerned after I'm dead. I want more money and sex…… but, that's just me.

42. Yanoconodon, a transitional fossil

Comment #26449 by The Spaghetti Monster on March 19, 2007 at 11:28 am

BaronOchs

Alright Baron…. First of all let me say that you are implying that humans, because of our "advanced art" and "mathematical abilities" have more "value" than say….. an egg plant.

Sorry, I have to disagree. Human life may have more value to YOU over an egg plant but, in reality….. no such value exists.

Your comment regarding evolution and how it has managed "against the odds" to "create" animals of (so called) intelligence is just plain wrong on every level. First of all; what are these "odds" that evolution has overcome? Listen, I'm fine with your belief system…. I just think you're a little "delusional"…. That's all.

43. Yanoconodon, a transitional fossil

Comment #26443 by The Spaghetti Monster on March 19, 2007 at 10:37 am

BaronOchs


I do act responsibly. To me responsibility is having the "ability to respond" in any given situation to whatever outcome will benefit me and bring me the most pleasure. I also see the world as beautiful but I don't necessarily agree that human life is of "great worth". Indeed, that's a very subjective statement; nevertheless, if you choose to place this (so called) "value" on human life that's up to you. However, I will contend that your belief in this "value" is just as "delusional" as any other "belief".

44. Lonely Atheists of the Global Village

Comment #26431 by The Spaghetti Monster on March 19, 2007 at 9:37 am

Ahhhh, the "brighty bright" argument of the "weak minded"…..

Listen, I'm not what you would call a "believer"…. In fact I would consider myself Amoral. I do know believers and often times I'm amazed at the discipline required for them to live by their faith….. So I don't know if you can attribute their "belief" to a "weak mind" so to speak…. I do question why believers torment themselves with these self-imposed disciplines…. but I must say, I know a few "non-believers" who also self-impose some "moral code of conduct"…. Hey, whatever floats your boat….. just don't try to tell me you are any less "delusional". I mean its one thing to make the statement that you're an atheist; quite another to dismantle the so called "emotional attachments" that so often hinder our quest for personal gratification.

45. Yanoconodon, a transitional fossil

Comment #26416 by The Spaghetti Monster on March 19, 2007 at 7:15 am

Unfortunately, coffins are quite useless against zombies... they never stop kicking and moaning in there -- you'd think they were alive.
Comment #26237 by fonex_86 on March 17, 2007 at 11:55 pm


WTF???

I've been visiting this site off and on for the past several months…. the thing I don't understand is why the vast majority of posters on this site find it necessary to call those who believe in God "mentally ill" or "delusional"….(etc. etc….)

You know, I have a passing interest in the life-style of the non-believer (as I am one) but I gotta tell ya…. most of the posters on this site are a little creepy….

Not that I care…. I'm just saying…..

Here's what I don't get….. As a non-believer myself I find it a little contradictory the "lashing" I have received form others regarding some comments I've left. For example, I commented (more or less) that I could care less about global warming and its effect on future generations; which don't matter to me now….. and won't matter when I'm dead.

To me my comment was completely rational… Why should people that haven't been born yet matter to me now (in the present)….? obviously when I'm dead…. Nothing much will matter… including the climate of planet earth. I'm all about the "here and now" and how can I benefit from you….. For the life of me…. I cannot understand why you would choose to live any other way.

Yes I am amoral…. My actions have consequences in this society just like anyone else….. however, I am not obliged to live my life with the interest of others…. In fact, if you choose to do so, I believe you are in the same boat as the "religious fundies"…..

What you think you feel is not reality….. hello……

46. Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?

Comment #26404 by The Spaghetti Monster on March 19, 2007 at 6:31 am

"because I, myself, would opt for a gay child."
Comment #26402 by Logicel on March 19, 2007 at 6:03 am


Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahah





Yeah, no doubt….. "Ummmm, can you make my baby "Gay" please….."


Wow, that's some funny shit. Hey listen…. Seems to me that (most of the posters here have the opinion) the biological basis for homosexuality is a forgone conclusion…. Am I right…..? Has homosexuality been proven to be the result of ones genetic make-up…?


Anyway… I say let them choose…. However, I do believe that this would mark the beginning of the end for homosexuals…..

47. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #26075 by The Spaghetti Monster on March 16, 2007 at 2:10 pm

But please, let us remain above insulting the mentally ill, because it won't stop them from being ill. And unfortunately they are usually beyond the influence of reasonable argumentation. But by all means, let us share our ideas here on this site – we all need encouragement and moral support form time to time.
Comment #21198 by Richard Morgan on February 8, 2007 at 2:07 am




Mentally ill?

Well, I'd like to know who doesn't fit into that category. (lol) Listen, I been having a debate with a good friend of mine (and a fellow atheist) regarding the issue of morality. I've read Dawkins and Harris and others continually make the claim that you don't need "God" or "religion" to be person of "moral character"…..

Sam Harris:
"Compassion is deeper than religion. As is ecstasy. It is time that we acknowledge that human beings can be profoundly ethical — and even spiritual — without pretending to know things they do not know."

What the f**k…..? Sam says "profoundly ethical"…… Don't get me wrong…. I don't have an issue with people living their lives according to some "moral code of conduct or ethics" however; I disagree with the implication that having "morals" or "ethics" somehow makes you a "better" person. I'm in the camp that finds it very invigorating and rewarding to know that this life is all you have….. and I have absolutely no conflict with exploiting peoples goofy belief systems for my own benefit……. My friend call me a "grifter" but I must say, Hey…. I'm aware of the consequences but…. that doesn't make they way I choose to live my life "wrong" or "immoral"….. I just haven't heard a good argument which would lead me to place "value" (whatever that may be) on other peoples pain and suffering…..

Seriously…. Am I missing something?

48. Top Scientists Warn of Water Shortages and Disease Linked to Global Warming

Comment #25881 by The Spaghetti Monster on March 15, 2007 at 2:17 pm

Comment #25864 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 15, 2007 at 1:46 pm




Yeah…. "what nature has selected" or "natural selection"…. What…? you want to argue semantics? I already stated that I'm not implying nature has any foresight….. So….. wouldn't it be logical to conclude that through natural selection, humans are bringing about climate change……. (is that better you fucking simpleton)….?

So if I don't give a shit about anyone else I should at least try to care about myself….. Yeah, O.K. Well where I live I would welcome global warming with open arms…. Because I care man, I really – really care…..

Oh and "true" meaning only exists in the context of language. Any other "meaning / purpose" that you "believe" you derive out of your pathetic life experiences; does not exist in reality…… Oh, how "scary"……


Seriously dude…… you are stupidity squared.



You're welcome….. Again!!!

49. Top Scientists Warn of Water Shortages and Disease Linked to Global Warming

Comment #25856 by The Spaghetti Monster on March 15, 2007 at 1:28 pm

Comment #25849 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 15, 2007 at 12:47 pm



"you are clearly attributing intent and design"…..?

How the fuck did you draw that conclusion?

Listen, I'll try to dumb it down for ya. I agree with you that we are not obliged to enslave ourselves to nature…. or whatever. In fact we are not obligated period. Furthermore I'm not saying that "global warming" shouldn't cause a "reaction"…. what else can we do but "react"….? I mean if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice…. right? (copyright rush)

Listen stupid shit…. You seem to be having trouble with our conversation when really, as it appears to me; we share the same "general" thoughts regarding our existence. The main difference, as far as I can tell, is that you seem to be a bit "emotional" and as a result; you confuse your "feelings" with reality. Yeah… it's all good that you're "genetically predisposed to care"…. I'm happy for ya….. I must be lacking the "care" gene.

Oh and BTW don't confuse the pleasure you derive from "raising kids, being good to your wife (although being bad to your wife can sometimes bring pleasure as well) work, sex, youtube, bittorrent and ummmmm, I'll take a wild guess and throw in a healthy dose of internet porn….." with - as you say "meaning". Get it? Pleasure / meaning (not the same). So I guess if the prospect of living a life void of any true meaning is "scary" to you…… well, that must mean your exceptionally bright.

Kudos to you my bright friend.

50. Top Scientists Warn of Water Shortages and Disease Linked to Global Warming

Comment #25845 by The Spaghetti Monster on March 15, 2007 at 12:32 pm

I don't know what you're advocating kniggit? do you really think our current actions will cause no problems for the future of the human race?
Comment #25843 by BaronOchs on March 15, 2007 at 12:23 pm


Well, I can't speak for kniggit...... But if our current actions do cause these so called "problems" for future humans...... I say; who fucking cares... wait, I mean if you do care that's cool..... but I don't.