Saturday, December 16, 2006

Believers, Rewards Await You (And Not Just In Heaven)!

Yes, it's true! All you god-believers who deny the scientific evidence and refuse to accept that either you are a bunch of raving loonies or a bunch of lying bastards can can collect $10,000 simply by posting conclusive evidence that god exists here .

Hurry, though, because some of your idiot bretheren have been there before you, such as Darlene, who posted these bon mots as part of her claim on the big bucks:

Quote: "Did you know that it is very reasonable to think that the Earth was made in 7 days — IF YOU KNOW HOW BIG GOD IS!!!!!

I was thinking about this the other day when a thought occurred to me.How long does it take you to make a salad? 15 minutes? About that, anyway.

Now suppose 2 ants were on the salad. Imagine one ant telling the other that you had made the salad in 15 minutes. The second ant might not believe it. After all, it would take an ant days to make that salad. He would think that making a salad in 15 minutes was IMPOSSIBLE, and an unbelievable claim. “15 minutes to make this whole salad? No way!” he might think. How could something that would take him days to make be done in 15 minutes?

But we are much, much bigger than the ant. The ant would have to assemble one piece of a lettuce leaf, then another piece, then another, and so on. But we are big and strong enough that we could assemble all of the lettuce at once, then all of the tomato at once, and so on. And so is God. Compared to God, we are mere ants or even smaller.

Could we make the world in 7 days? No way! Could something as big and strong as God make the world in 7 days? No problem." Unquote.

Now before you all hurt yourselves falling about laughing at Darlene's homespun idiocy, I'm willing to bet that none of you can produce any less risible arguments to support your so-called beliefs in this delusion which you like to call god.

Hurry now, for the prize goes to the first successful candidate.


Alan Mackenzie said...

Who cares -- even if God exists, I am sure that all theistic conceptions of God are about as real as a Penrose Triangle. Angels exist on paper, just as an X-window exists as code on a UNIX build. They are conceptions of our own, not the other way round.

These are pseudo-questions with pseudo-answers in philosophy -- like a fan-fiction, where people discuss their favourite characters, God and Jesus, and create a whole load of artificial mystery, and unsolved paradigms with no hope of resolution.


The Merchant of Menace said...

Actually I find their answers interesting, since they say much about the abnormal psychology of those who profess to believe in a god.

Furthermore, I find the arguments they put forwards are higly amusing, and a source of considerable merriment to me.

Most important of all, however, is that I am prepared to support almost anyone who is prepared to make a stand against theists and their desire to exercise control over those who do not share their completely irrational and delusional beliefs.

Alan Mackenzie said...

I hesitated to mention that I too praise anyone who publicly challenges theism. This reward is a publicity stunt, and it would help to define God -- out of all human conceptions of God, I think it wise to go for the conception put forth by sophisticated theolgians:

A transcendent, unconditioned reality -- not the God of Polkinghorne or Swinburne, which fine-tunes the universe, but the essential being who is neither existent or non-existent, and could represent anything possible, including ourselves.

Well, they used to say that Gods resided on mountain tops, or clouds, or suns, and today no-one believes in them. No-one believes in men with white beards, or Yahweh, who turned sinners into pillars of salt. Now God is impossible to test scientifically, because even if such a God existed objectively in the entire universe, since God exists outside of our space and time, God could never be a scientific fact, discoverable in principle.

I think this conception of God commits the residue fallacy, as I have explained in my blog articles. Do people never learn? You can, for example charge atheists with knocking a straw man conception of God, only to make up new conceptions to prove the impregnability of theism.

"Actually I find their answers interesting, since they say much about the abnormal psychology of those who profess to believe in a god".

A friend of mine last night accused Richard Dawkins of baiting theists, and that asking for proof is "not acceptable in terms of the empirical evidence necessary to examine the arguments". Does the $10,000 reward bait theists into responding with stupid answers?

Personally, I am primarily concerned with how theism affects the minds of people. I have no interest in the supernatural, and can barely muster the enthusiasm to rebut the various conceptions of theism put forth every five minutes by believers. So, you are right to mention the abnormal psychology -- there is no reason to believe in God, and besides, why should God care? Why do people care so much about impressing God with their loyalty to him? The fact that people care so much about belief in God, surely means that God is an invention of ours and not the other way around.

But I care about the way in which I think belief in God, or as Dan Dennett put it, belief in belief in God, is uttererly ruinous to people's critical faculties.

For example, the nonsense idea that we need a belief in a 'higher purpose' to function as moral animals. This alone prevents us from becoming morally autonomous -- more like moral automatons, who collectively abide by moral platitudes, and won't move on, or re-examine why we feel the need to believe in the in the first place.

Abiding by the ten commandments is analogous to millions of record players stuck in a groove. But then, that is just the devil speaking.


The Merchant of Menace said...

The 'definition of god' put forth by so-called 'sophisticated theologians' is nothing more than pure unaduterated metaphysical sophistry, the purposes of which are not to provide any evidence that their alleged god exists but to attempt to immunise their alleged beliefs from any form of rational or scientific enquiry, to preserve their comfortable lifestyles, and to enable them to exploit the ignorance and credulity of the masses.

'Sophisticated theologians' are, by definition, no more than clever liars who have a prima facie reason for promulgating ignorance and credulity amongst the sheep who comprise their respective flocks.

Amusing that Loyola said that the first duty of a believer was to 'ignore reason when it conflicted with faith' and now the duplicitous and mendacious theologians who follow him spend their time devising 'reasoned arguments for god that cannot be defeated by reasoned arguments'. If that's not an admission of the fact that faith is not enough to substantiate a belief in god, then I don't know what is. One might as well say that those who only have faith in god's existence are not true believers.

Whilst I don't care what any of these people believe, or claim to believe, I do object to the fact that they are promulgating ignorance, mendacity, and duplicity.

Papalazarou said...

I love this bit from Alan's response:

Does the $10,000 reward bait theists into responding with stupid answers?

LOL - do there exist any "answers" that aren't inherently stupid? I believe not!

The Merchant of Menace said...

If there are, then I'm still waiting to hear them.

Askinstoo said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Alan Mackenzie said...


I have expanded upon my recent article, 'Atheism and Communism' to include my views on the double-standards of Oxford theologian, Alister McGrath.

I also did some research on some of the interviewees who appeared on 'The Trouble with Atheism'. Some of Rod Liddle's interviewees, I discovered, are sympathetic to the Intelligent Design movement, and upon viewing the programme again, this fact is apparent to me.

I hope you will read it again.


Papalazarou said...

at this time of year I thought we should all enjoy ths latest piece of news:

who elects these people?

The Merchant of Menace said...

As they say, "People get the politicians they deserve", but don't ask me who "they" are.

BTW, the church of Rome in the UK is welcoming all those Poles who are coming over here to do the jobs that our work-shy leisured classes won't do, because for the first time in decades their congregations are increasing! Just wait 'till the BNP get hold of that fact, lol!

The Merchant of Menace said...


Thanks for drawing my attention to your additions. I have read your article again, and it is even more excellent and enjoyable than the first time - if such things be possible.

Frankly, people like McGrath make me despair for the human condition.