Pharyngula

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 24, 2009 10:37 AM

What? I thought they measured his brain activity and found it was normal?

Posted by: Ol' Greg | November 24, 2009 10:38 AM

Oh how odd. I've never heard of this. When I read that story they said that a series of brain scans revealed that his brain was active. I guess I assumed that he had, perhaps, limited eye movement and they had been using one of those communication devices that operates by tracking eye movement as a person looks at a field of letters.

If there's no ability to move or communicate, how on earth does the FC specialist know? Reminds me of communicating with spirits.

Posted by: MorboKat | November 24, 2009 10:43 AM

The article I read about this (just this morning) in the Toronto Star said

A breakthrough came when Houben was able to indicate yes or no by slightly moving his foot to push a computer device placed there by Laureys' team.

I am at work and can't see the video, but I would think that if he could move his foot just a tiny bit to answer yes or no questions (a la the beeps in Star Trek) they could get an answer out of him unaided by anyone else.

His faciliated communication may be falacious, but I think he may actually be awake... and absolutely insane. How could you sit, trapped in your own body, for that long and not go stark raving mad?

Posted by: Cheryl | November 24, 2009 10:47 AM

The initial news reports stated more specialized brain scans showed his brain at an almost normal functioning level. There was one report that he was able to answer yes and no questions using a foot pedal device. Those two things I might be more willing to accept, but Facilitated Communication has long been proven fraud. There probably is evidence he is/was conscious, but there is no way to accept the statements attributed to him are real.

Posted by: Techskeptic | November 24, 2009 10:48 AM

Or just put some damn headphones on that woman so she cant hear the questions.

So stupid

Posted by: Eamon Knight | November 24, 2009 10:50 AM

I also originally (ie. yesterday) read that the diagnosis of conciousness was determined by PET scan of the brain, and some sort of communication using his toe. If so, that immediately differentiates this from the Terri Schiavo case, where brain scans showed that the greater part of her brain had physically gone AWOL.

But damn: 23 years stuck in your own head? I'm sure you'd go insane from boredom.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 24, 2009 10:53 AM

The scanning technique used to identify 'consciousness' has been criticized. The investigator, Laureys, seems to have a history of endorsing poorly supported hypotheses that patients in a persistent vegetative state are capable of slow recovery.

Ahhh.

Posted by: Judy L. | November 24, 2009 10:58 AM

Easy to confirm whether the assisted communication in this case is fraudulent: just use a caregiver to assist him who doesn't speak Flemmish! The story mentions that he understands English but responds using FC in Flemmish.

Posted by: gr8hands | November 24, 2009 11:00 AM

The foot work would be legitimate, but the lady assisting him is a fraud.

Sad to think that this is getting any air time on the media.

Posted by: aratina cage | November 24, 2009 11:04 AM

It isn't clear exactly how they figured out he is aware of his surroundings. CNN says,

tests carried out by Dr. Laureys of the University of Liege, in Belgium, revealed that although Houben was believed to be in a persistent vegetative state, he was fully aware.

Further searching for Dr. Laureys brought up this:

Wallis [a different person from Houben] emerged from a minimally conscious state in 2003 at the age of 39 and uttered his first word: "Mom." Since then he has regained the ability to form sentences and recovered some use of his limbs, though he still can't walk or feed himself.
Using positron emission tomography scans and an advanced imaging technique called diffusion tensor imaging, the researchers examined the Arkansas man's brain after he regained full consciousness. They found that cells in the relatively undamaged areas had formed new axons, the long nerve fibres that transmit messages between neurons...Steven Laureys, a neurologist at the University of Liege in Belgium, said the findings would force doctors to reconsider the way they treat patients in minimally conscious and persistent vegetative states.

Posted by: Religion Brandâ„¢ Brain Staples | November 24, 2009 11:10 AM

Seriously? Facilitated communication? I wonder why the article left out all mention of that. In fact, they give the impression that it isn't being used at all ("with the aide of a computer").

"But three years ago, new hi-tech scans showed his brain was still functioning almost completely normally."

Almost? That's a bit... vague. What part isn't normal, exactly?

Given the slant of the rest of the article (OMG OMG euthanasia etc.), and how much they've gotten "creative" with the facts... I really have to wonder about those scan results.

They don't even say what they used. fMRI? What are this guys readings if you hook him up to depth of consciousness measuring equipment (stuff like this) used in anaesthesia? How do they compare with conscious vs. other coma patients?

Having to rely on daily mail is about like having to rely on rumour.

Posted by: Michelle R | November 24, 2009 11:13 AM

@Anonymous: Missed the part where Dr. Laureys is controversive and questioned for the methods and interpretations?

Posted by: Standard curve | November 24, 2009 11:19 AM

If this is real, then they should be able to devise a system of cords, pulleys, and counterweights that would function as an unbiased facilitator.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | November 24, 2009 11:22 AM

I don't know about the scanning methods, but didn't they learn anything from the "facilitated communication" BS with autistic kids? Ended up with false charges of abuse against parents and other caregivers.

If they really believe he's conscious they'd better find some way that he can communicate for real, not find out whatever the "facilitator" thinks he should be thinking.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: Chuck Morrison | November 24, 2009 11:25 AM

My God, Terri Lynn Schiavo WAS murdered!

I think if people kept me alive for 23 years in either a persistent vegetative state or in a locked-in condition, my greatest hope would be for an afterlife so I could haunt the shit out of those people in revenge.

Posted by: DaveX | November 24, 2009 11:28 AM

I don't get it-- is the guy "with it" or not?

Posted by: Michael Simpson | November 24, 2009 11:29 AM

This story is completed confusing. I can't tell if the patient really was in a persistent vegetative state. I don't know if patient actually did communicate before the bogus facilitated communication.

And now the right wing will use this unclear data as their "proof" for their beliefs. And how many physicians are going to be speaking with families after a severe brain trauma to someone close, and those families will bring up this story. Not to be insensitive, but this is ridiculous.

Posted by: JennyAnyDots | November 24, 2009 11:30 AM

Totally off-topic, but I thought people might be entertained about this story about the last pope - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8375174.stm

Not to mention rather disturbed that they seem to be giving serious thought to declaring him a saint. Sorry for the interruption, I'll get back to work now.

Posted by: kopd | November 24, 2009 11:34 AM

Am I the only one who immediately thought of this song? Still creeps me out.

Posted by: Rebecca C. | November 24, 2009 11:39 AM

Does this patient have private insurance or is he using the public health care option? If it's the latter, I'd like to out that Belgium's pinko communist grandma-killing government-run health care system kept a man in a vegetative state alive for 23 years. So much for death panels.

Posted by: llewelly | November 24, 2009 11:40 AM

Old scams never die. There is always some unscrupulous monster out there seeking to take advantage of the grieving.

Posted by: LadyShea | November 24, 2009 11:43 AM

Everything I read said he was diagnosed as in a coma, not PVS. People recover from coma sometimes.

Are there conflicting stories?

Posted by: mck9 | November 24, 2009 11:45 AM

Some background:

A lesion in the right part of the pons (part of the brainstem) can sever the motor pathways to the spinal cord, leaving the victim almost completely paralyzed. He can still breathe, because the respiratory rhythms are driven from below the lesion. He can still move his eyes, because those pathways are above the lesion. The facial nuclei, which drive the muscles of facial expression, are just below the lesion and likely intact, so they can support some reflex activity, but not under voluntary control.

The auditory pathways, visual pathways, and forebrain are intact, so the victim can see and hear, and be awake and conscious, but the only way he can communicate is through eye movements -- look left for yes, right for no, that sort of thing.

Truly my least favorite sort of lesion. I don't even want to think about it.

In a particular case, some miscellaneous pathways may have been spared by chance, leaving some residual function. That could account for the reported foot-tapping.

The facilitated Ouija board, of course, is a crock.

Posted by: ABradford | November 24, 2009 11:46 AM

Knowing a bit from the recent SfN conference that various conscious states can be misdiagnosed and that there might be recovery for a handful of patients, this story did at first strike me as a good sign that techniques might be improving enough to better understand what's going on on a patient-by-patient basis and how to get some patients communicating again, but the facilitated communication and the boastful claims of the doctor as I saw it this morning just made me skeptical and sorry for the patient.

Posted by: BdN | November 24, 2009 11:49 AM

Has anyone read the paper in which it is supposedly reported yet ? All I could find was the one about the diagnostic accuracy.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2377/9/35

Posted by: LadyShea | November 24, 2009 11:51 AM

Well, well, David Mathews is still floating about the 'nets being an ass.

I don't think a discussion of consciousness on a science blog can be considered silly or unworthy by rational people.

Posted by: mxh | November 24, 2009 11:56 AM

@mck9

A good neurologist would have figured out whether the person has the type of lesion you describe (locked-in syndrome) pretty easily. A bad neurologist would have figured it out sometime in the last 23 years. As good as the locked-in syndrome explanation is, the fact that it was just discovered smells a little fishy to me.

Posted by: El Guerrero del Interfaz | November 24, 2009 11:57 AM

I've been searching for scientific articles on the subject but could not find anything outside the regular media. And everything I've found is very superficial.

It's indeed suspicious when an article says that he is communicating through a computer and all published pictures show that somebody (the "facilitator" I suppose) is holding his hand *every* time he is shown handling a computer. So all "communications" coming this way should be taken with a grain of salt.

However I've also found mentions of other experiments and tests like looking how certain stimulus change their magnetic resonance scans, electroencephalograms and so on. I'm not a scientist and I don't know much about all this. But maybe there is something more to this and it's just the usual sloppy science reporting we all loved to hate.

Posted by: freelunch | November 24, 2009 11:58 AM

I don't think a discussion of consciousness on a science blog can be considered silly or unworthy by rational people.

Agreed, but Mr. Mathews has no use for rational behavior.

Posted by: AJ Milne | November 24, 2009 12:04 PM

I don't think a discussion of consciousness on a science blog can be considered silly or unworthy by rational people.

Quite... But I guess, so far as it goes, there's some limited relevance to DM's lame-ass 'intolerant, dogmatic atheist' BS here, I guess...

(/I mean, talking about discerning brain death... talking to the brain dead... Some of the words are the same, anyway...)

Posted by: Ginger Yellow | November 24, 2009 12:07 PM

I caught this on the news yesterday and immediately had the same reaction as PZ. There's no way he's doing the "communicating" in that video. That isn't to say he isn't conscious though. I dug around and I think the paper the story was based on is this one. Does anyone have access to Neuroradiology?

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 12:14 PM

Hello Menyambal,

* "David Mathews, your reading skills are rather poor. I just read the article that you are bemoaning, and it doesn't say what you seem to think it says. The child PZ describes was disappointed, not traumatized. "

The sort of disappointmentr PZ Myers describes is that of an atheist responding with offense to a astronaut quoting Scripture. The emotional response can only make sense within the context of an Bible-hating atheist responding angrily to an unwelcome encounter with the Scriptures.

But this seems to put PZ Myers in a quandary since he describes himself as a religion-friendly religious person prior to those horrible astronauts failing to provide him with the science lecture he expected.

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 12:17 PM

Hello LadyShea,

* "I don't think a discussion of consciousness on a science blog can be considered silly or unworthy by rational people. "

PZ Myers and the rest here aren't actually engaged in a scientific discussion of consciousness. He seems to have thrown out this sad little story as a bit of red meat to provoke an emotional response from his audience.

An actual scientific discussion of consciousness would demand a bit more effort.

Posted by: RayvenAlandria | November 24, 2009 12:19 PM

Hi, totally off topic here, but I thought some of you might want to read this propaganda piece. The author starts off mentioning how some students across the country have been forming atheist clubs on campuses and then it dissolves into your typical religious rant. Someone needs to smack this person upside the head a few times.

http://www.wsusignpost.com/editorial/students-profess-athiesm-1.944057

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 24, 2009 12:23 PM

I see Mr. Matthews has a scrambled brain. Nothing else describes his pointless delusions.

Posted by: Josh | November 24, 2009 12:23 PM

Man, and I thought the story was interesting, but common now, doesn't anyone suspect that the lady is just moving his hand? sigh

Posted by: Ol'Greg | November 24, 2009 12:24 PM

but if Rom Houben is aware of others and wanting to communicate, helping him do so or even enabling him to pretend that he can could be very fulfilling for him and might help his recovery.

I was thinking the same thing. That without the FC being hailed as legitimate in the press, that the attempts to communicate with him are probably important if he is in fact not brain-dead. The statement that he used his foot to communicate is encouraging, I know for a fact that there are other methods to allow severely paralyzed people to communicate.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 24, 2009 12:26 PM

There's a problem in PZ Myers' atheism and he cannot resolve it. There's a problem in atheism and it is a fatal flaw.

The oh wise one, won't you please tell us what it is?

I can hardly wait.

I'm amazed that it hasn't dawned on atheists but it is easy to understand why when atheism solidifies into a defining dogma in children. Once atheism becomes a non-negotiable core philosophical principle is well beyond the reach of either reason or refutation.

It's plenty negotiable.

If you have some evidence of a supernatural being responsible for everything I'd love to see it.

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 12:27 PM

Hello Kema,

You've asked some good questions and I will answer.

* "Why would it matter when or why he became an atheist matter at all? Do you want to be able to say, "He's only an atheist because he had a bad experience when he was a child?"

Yes, Kema, this is precisely what I am claiming. Childhood atheism isn't based upon sound scientific or philosophical principles because children aren't well informed about either. Therefore child-onset atheism is automatically suspect especially when it becomes a person's defining core principle later in life.

* "I had a bad experience when I was younger that started me on the path to becoming an atheist. So what? Does my initial starting point mean my conclusion is flawed? "

Yes, absolutely. Your bad experience destroys your objectivity and imparts an irrational emotional component to your atheism which is more important than any subsequent attempted justifications of the opinion.

* "He's one now. He's an adult. He's thought about it... a LOT. He had reasons for being one just like all the atheist commenters here. "

Afterthought is self-justification and it doesn't need rigorous scientific or philosophical effort because the atheism was pre-installed and solidified into non-negotiable dogma prior to adulthood.

* "Your post is trival and pedantic. Join in the discussion at hand about the brain-dead guy, or just go away. Or send PZ an e-mail. I'd love to see one of his "I get e-mail" postings about your questions. "

The question of PZ Myers atheism is more important than speculation regarding this brain-dead guy. Atheism is more important to PZ Myers than consciousness.

Posted by: Sastra | November 24, 2009 12:27 PM

Some years back my small local paper did a story on a woman in my town who worked with Facilitated Communication, as advocate, co-ordinator, and practitioner. Wonder of all wonders, the reporter turned out to be a skeptic, and he tried to set up a blind, controlled test of FC with the person he was interviewing -- instead of just doing the expected credulous gush piece. The woman was furious, of course, and the Letters to the Editor exploded with anger from people who thought it was cruel, insensitive, and completely out of line to test someone who was helping people. Whether she was actually helping the child communicate, or only helping the parents feel as if the child could communicate, seemed to be a distinction without a difference to this crowd.

It all came down to feelings about people and their relationships -- par for the course, with pseudoscience, or, for that matter, religion.

Which points out a significant difference between the "testing is insensitive" crowd who believed in Facilitated Communication because it was such a lovely story about mommy and child and helper -- and PZ's "emotional" reaction to the reading of Genesis by the astronaut crew.

His reaction wasn't based on the religious message not being focused enough on him and his needs and what he wanted from the astronauts, or from religion. He was disappointed because there was such a contrast between what a scientific explanation looks like, and what a religious "explanation" looks like. PZ realized rather clearly that religious explanations aren't really explanations of anything. They don't look objectively at the world to figure out what's going on. Instead, they're stories designed to bring everything back to you and what you need and what you can get. They're social explanations for things which don't need -- and shouldn't be expected to provide -- social explanations.

It was like asking how rain forms, and being told it rains because the angels are crying over something sad that just happened to you. Rejecting this "explanation" as unsatisfactory isn't going to be done from the same sort of egocentric, self-based emotion which would accept it as deeply satisfying.

Posted by: Ol' Greg | November 24, 2009 12:28 PM

it is his own words which indicate that his core atheism belief solidified in response to an irrational emotional reaction to disappointment regarding what the astronauts said while orbiting the moon.

Wait. Are you questioning PZ's logical premise for his thoughts as a small child? Maybe you should have asked him when he was a little boy then!

Posted by: dean | November 24, 2009 12:29 PM

Dave M;
Your posts don't say anything except that you don't believe what somebody else has stated. It's been pointed out that you misrepresented (lied is the more honest description) about what PZ has written, and now you are claiming to be upset about people taking advantage of a seriously disabled person? Based on your comments why should anyone think you could follow "An actual scientific discussion of consciousness"?

Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 24, 2009 12:30 PM

Yes, Kema, this is precisely what I am claiming. Childhood atheism isn't based upon sound scientific or philosophical principles because children aren't well informed about either. Therefore child-onset atheism is automatically suspect especially when it becomes a person's defining core principle later in life.

I presume you also reject claims that children can be Christians then.

I presume you also believe no child should enter a church, or receive any kind of religious instruction.

Posted by: Acronym Jim | November 24, 2009 12:32 PM

Aratina Cage@19

If so, perhaps facilitated communication isn't such a bad thing; they could be faking it for all the right reasons.

While we usually see eye to eye, I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on this one Aratina. If he is conscious, giving him a quack method of communication would be like dangling the carrot of conversation just ever so slightly out of reach.

After 23 years of limited input without any real chance at interaction, topped off by promise of interaction followed by delivery of woo, perhaps what he really wants to say at this point is "just pull the damn plug already."

Posted by: The Tim Channel | November 24, 2009 12:35 PM

I found atheism through Santa Claus.
In any event, this is probably excellent news for Sarah Palin.

Enjoy.

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 12:36 PM

Hello Ric,

* "David Matthews: atheism is not a religion, and one does not have a "conversion to atheism." It seems to me the story PZ related describes the catalyst that got him thinking and investigating, which eventually led to his very rational atheism. "

Come on, Ric, are you serious?

Is that what you really concluded from reading the account?

I have to disagree. PZ Myers described a classic conversion experience which differs very little from the conversion accounts which religious people tell each other as a means of self-affirmation and faith-affirmation.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 24, 2009 12:38 PM

Here you reveal irrational emotional anger against the religion of your childhood. This is not at all uncommon among converts ... see Saul who would eventually become Paul.

He has said no such thing.

Why lie ? We can all see what he said, and it was not what you say he said. We can see you are not being honest.

Well that, or your comprehension skills are fucked. Personally I think you are a liar who think that lying for Jesus makes it ok.

Posted by: daveau | November 24, 2009 12:40 PM

child-onset atheism

Priceless!

Children aren't born theists. They don't become theists until their parents start pouring that junk into their brain.

At what age did you stop believing in Santa Claus? If it was before the age of 21, it's completely suspect.

Posted by: tsg | November 24, 2009 12:41 PM

@David Mathews (I shall regret this, I'm sure)

I've always been an atheist for the very simple reason that I was never taught not to be.

Now, back in the killfile with you.

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 12:42 PM

Hello Matt Penfold,

* "I presume you also reject claims that children can be Christians then.

* "I presume you also believe no child should enter a church, or receive any kind of religious instruction."

You presume too much.

Posted by: Knockgoats | November 24, 2009 12:43 PM

My wife is a speech and language therapist, who specialises in Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) - that is, using devices from low-tech boards with letters or images on, to specialised hardware and software, to help people with a range of disabilities - often multiple disabilities - communicate. It's highly skilled work, involving a detailed assessment of what the client can do physically and cognitively (often made more difficult by relatives' understandable wishful thinking or more rarely, undue pessimism), the design of systems that maximise the abilities they have, and working with relatives, carers and teachers to make sure the communication aid actually gets used properly. She says these "facilitated communication" frauds make repeated attempts to worm their way into conferences, sometimes succeeding and presenting themselves as brave and lonely pioneers, and advocates for the people they exploit. Yuck.

Posted by: CunningLingus | November 24, 2009 12:44 PM

I can safely say the only childhood trauma that guided my influence to atheism was learning to read, and a couple of years later, question stupidity. Oh and the fact sunday school was so fucking boring for a seven year old who wanted to play football (soccer for you US types). That Mathews person appears to be getting his "facilitated communication" from baby jeezuz, and of course he wasn't an atheist at birth, he was born onto whatever particular brand of woo he follows because his parents indocrinated him, and also because of whatever country he happened to be born in.

Posted by: rjb | November 24, 2009 12:45 PM

For Dave Mathews... my own atheism "conversion" story for you. I have no idea when I became an atheist. I was part of a methodist church growing up. I went to college and studied biochemistry, and still occasionally went to church. Never thought about it much. I eventually went to grad school and stopped going to church. I was focused on science and understanding the natural world by the mechanism that worked the best... scientifically. One day some friends were discussing religion, and I just realized that I hadn't really had any religious thoughts in years. No "aha" moment. No epiphany. I just used the method that worked the best to explain the world around me.

Posted by: Fodder Boy | November 24, 2009 12:47 PM

David Matthews:

You want anger and emotion?

Fuck you.

You want to know what makes me, in particular, angry?

Ignorant fuckheads. Like yourself.

I've been an atheist my whole life. I never believed in any god, even when I believed in other, equally nonsensical things. There need not be some defining moment that turns one away from spiritual delusion. There need be no traumatic event required to lose faith.

There are people out there without faith to begin with, who even as children thought it weird that so many adults had imaginary friends.

We need not be angry at our childhood to be angry at irrationality, wilful ignorance, prejudice and all the other fun things your religions bring with them, like sexual oppression, repression and abuse. I have plenty of reasons to be angry with religion, and not one of them is due to anything more than being an egalitarian humanist.

People like you are one of those reasons.

Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | November 24, 2009 12:48 PM

Yes, Kema, this is precisely what I am claiming. Childhood atheism isn't based upon sound scientific or philosophical principles because children aren't well informed about either. Therefore child-onset atheism is automatically suspect especially when it becomes a person's defining core principle later in life.

So is this right too?

"Childhood theism isn't based upon sound scientific or philosophical principles because children aren't well informed about either. Therefore child-onset theism is automatically suspect especially when it becomes a person's defining core principle later in life."

You argument has nothing to back it up except that you don't agree with atheism. You're not producing any evidence to say why.

It goes both ways or it goes no ways. You don't get to claim only atheism is a problem when attained as a child.

Yes, absolutely. Your bad experience destroys your objectivity and imparts an irrational emotional component to your atheism which is more important than any subsequent attempted justifications of the opinion.

Good thing then. I didn't become an atheist until I was an adult. It was only when I actually became objective about my beliefs in the supernatural that I figured out I had been wrong and turned away from accepting things based on faith.

Afterthought is self-justification and it doesn't need rigorous scientific or philosophical effort because the atheism was pre-installed and solidified into non-negotiable dogma prior to adulthood.

What about kids born into theistic families and are indoctrinated into it? Do you say that it is also pre-installed and solidified into non-negotiable dogma prior to adulthood, or is it okay simply because theism agrees with what you want to?

It took me nearly a decade to break free from the indoctrination I had, and I STILL have problems saying stuff like "Jesus Christ!" and "God damn it!" and urges to say "Thank God" when something good happens, or ask "Why?" up at the sky when something bad happens.

The question of PZ Myers atheism is more important than speculation regarding this brain-dead guy. Atheism is more important to PZ Myers than consciousness.

No, it's not. I guarantee evidence is first. Atheism stems from you have no evidence for your diety.

Posted by: Sastra | November 24, 2009 12:49 PM

David Matthews #77 wrote:

Childhood atheism isn't based upon sound scientific or philosophical principles because children aren't well informed about either. Therefore child-onset atheism is automatically suspect especially when it becomes a person's defining core principle later in life.

Richard Dawkins has rather famously asserted that there is no such thing as a "Christian" child, or a "Muslim" child -- or, for that matter, an "atheist" child. One's rational conclusions are formed gradually over time, not given by parents, or jumped to on the spur of the moment. So he would agree with you -- to an extent.

It's important to PZ's story that there was no sudden, blinding insight into the Truth of the Universe revealed through a special Way of Knowing. Instead, there was a sudden recognition that came as the result of noticing a contrast between different ways of approaching a situation. This wasn't a "conversion" to atheism in the way someone gives themselves to Christ, or acknowledges God -- or believes in Santa Claus. It was one small step in a child's journey to thinking like a scientist and adult, instead of like a child.

Atheism is not the "defining core principle" of a secular humanist like PZ. Atheism is just one conclusion coming out of a commitment to larger principles. Honesty, for example -- as in the "honest search for truth."

Tell me something: would you analyze atheism the same way, even if you didn't believe that God actually existed? Or is your certainty that atheism must be based on some sort of "irrational emotional anger" based primarily on your certainty that God really does exist?

Posted by: Knockgoats | November 24, 2009 12:50 PM

So, David Mathews@99, you are a complete hypocrite. You remind me of the "chaplain" at my school, when I was 12. He went round the class asking people about their religion. I, alone, said I was an atheist (which I had very recently become, having seen the absurdity of Christianity). He said I was too young to have made up my mind, and insisted I should call myself an agnostic. Of course, he made no similar suggestion to those who had declared themselves Christians. I've never forgotten this despicable piece of bullying.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 24, 2009 12:51 PM

Richard Dawkins has rather famously asserted that there is no such thing as a "Christian" child, or a "Muslim" child -- or, for that matter, an "atheist" child. One's rational conclusions are formed gradually over time, not given by parents, or jumped to on the spur of the moment. So he would agree with you -- to an extent.

Matthews seems to think it is only atheism that is not suitable for children. He cannot explain why, or at least he has not bothered to do so which makes me think he cannot.

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 12:52 PM

Hello daveau and others,

The argument has been expressed several times:

* "Children aren't born theists. They don't become theists until their parents start pouring that junk into their brain. "

Children are born absolutely ignorant of everything including the existence of their mother and father ... so I wouldn't establish any argument on behalf of atheism upon the thought processes of newborn babies.

Posted by: MorboKat | November 24, 2009 12:53 PM

I totally had an Atheist conversion.

It was just like regular converstions you see in the movies, just reversed.

There was a dimming of the lights, from the dark came an unholy chorus of shrieking and groaning... then there was demonic laughter and the faint stench of brimstone.

This happened at the exact moment in my childhood when I realized that I never did get that Pony I wanted for Christmas and that Daddy never hugged me enough.

And just like that, I turned my back to the light and embraced the rotting corpse of God. As my converstion to Atheism wasn't about realizing there was no proof of God, so much as deciding that he sucked and had to be dead.

Isn't that what happens to everyone?

(OK, I'm a little pissed that an interesting conversation I was following was hijacked... I should probably just go back to lurking.)

Posted by: JennyAnyDots | November 24, 2009 12:54 PM

Aratina, @ #72 - be fair, his original post did so have some value. I doubt I'd have read the article he linked to without somebody flagging it up on here, and I found it interesting. Sure, ignore everything except the link, but at least there was some value there!

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 12:54 PM

Hello Matt Penfold,

* "Not really. Such positions would be logically consistent with your previously stated positions. As such it is not unreasonable to suppose they would be the positions held by an intelligent person aware that inconstancy would destroy any arguments they have put forward. "

No, Matt.

I'll tell you what I presume or do not presume.

You can tell me what you presume or do not presume.

This simplifies the discussion by removing one major source of speculation.

Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | November 24, 2009 12:56 PM

I want to say sorry to everyone for feeding the troll. I should have known better.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 24, 2009 12:59 PM

No, Matt.

I'll tell you what I presume or do not presume.

You can tell me what you presume or do not presume.

This simplifies the discussion by removing one major source of speculation.

Fine. I will no longer assume you have a shred of honesty nor that you employ any kind of logic. I will also refrain from assuming that your views have any kind of consistency.

I was not expecting you to give in quite so easily. Still if you want to admit you are a lying, illogical hypocrite I will not stop you.

Posted by: aratina cage | November 24, 2009 1:00 PM

Acronym Jim #87, I hadn't clicked on the facilitated communication link (which is updated at the end to include news of this story) that was provided, but having done so, I am aghast that such a fraudulent technique would used at all. This is not about helping or even adequately assessing Rom's state of mind, it is about media attention for Steven Laureys.

Posted by: Rewarp | November 24, 2009 1:01 PM

I will definitely put something in writing now about killing me if I am rendered into such a form that allows the local fishmonger to touch my hands and say I am feeling cold.

And to Dave Matthew, I pity you. You don't have to read anything into that, I just do.

Posted by: LinzeeBinzee | November 24, 2009 1:01 PM

Jesus Christ David Matthews, it's like somewhere between the words on your computer screen and your brain there's some kind of invisible fog that's jumbling everything up. Oh wait, there is...your religion! Pretend for five seconds that you've never heard of god, and maybe things will start making sense to you. /frustratedrant

Sorry for continuing to feed the troll, I'll stop now, I was enjoying the discussion on the actual topic of the thread.

Posted by: kopd | November 24, 2009 1:01 PM

Knockgoats:
My wife is also an SLP (and though I'd imagine she has less experience with AAC devices than your wife has, I do know she has set them up and trained patients to use them). I intend to ask her to watch this video later and get her opinion. Should be interesting. Personally, I'm disappointed in the journalists for being so credulous in this case. Maybe it's real, maybe it's not, but it should be easy to eliminate the facilitator's motives from the equation. But until then, it should be viewed skeptically.

Posted by: nejishiki | November 24, 2009 1:03 PM

DO NOT FEED THE TROLL!

Dumbasses.

Posted by: Naughtius Maximus | November 24, 2009 1:04 PM

Love some of the comments on the daily mails website, especially the muppet that links it with Obama turning off life support machines

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 1:06 PM

Hello Sastra,

* "Richard Dawkins has rather famously asserted that there is no such thing as a "Christian" child, or a "Muslim" child -- or, for that matter, an "atheist" child. One's rational conclusions are formed gradually over time, not given by parents, or jumped to on the spur of the moment. So he would agree with you -- to an extent. "

Good. I'm pleased any time Richard Dawkins and I are in agreement.

* "It's important to PZ's story that there was no sudden, blinding insight into the Truth of the Universe revealed through a special Way of Knowing. Instead, there was a sudden recognition that came as the result of noticing a contrast between different ways of approaching a situation. This wasn't a "conversion" to atheism in the way someone gives themselves to Christ, or acknowledges God -- or believes in Santa Claus. It was one small step in a child's journey to thinking like a scientist and adult, instead of like a child. "

Eh ... you are inventing a new conversion account for PZ Myers. Perhaps PZ Myers should speak for himself and not rely upon anyone else to describe his own childhood thought processes. Such secondhand accounts aren't especially reliable.

* "Atheism is not the "defining core principle" of a secular humanist like PZ. Atheism is just one conclusion coming out of a commitment to larger principles. Honesty, for example -- as in the "honest search for truth."

As PZ Myers speaks about himself it is evident that atheism actually is a defining core principle of his personality and provides some meaning to his life and work. But if not, he must say so himself.

* "Tell me something: would you analyze atheism the same way, even if you didn't believe that God actually existed? Or is your certainty that atheism must be based on some sort of "irrational emotional anger" based primarily on your certainty that God really does exist? "

Atheism's foundation of irrational emotional anger is objectively verified a hundred thousand times over by the words of atheists speaking about their own self and their response to religion.

Plenty of examples have already occurred on this blog today. Is there such a thing as atheism without anger and bitterness?

Posted by: Joey | November 24, 2009 1:07 PM

"I mean, there are millions of different religious beliefs. It would take a long time for a person to refute them all. "

All united but one common thing, the existence of one or more supreme beings, which many people have ruled out as a possibility.

Posted by: Revyloution | November 24, 2009 1:08 PM

AJ Milne at #64

You win +10 internets! That had me laughing for a good long while.

Poor poor David. He just can't understand that there is no atheist epiphany. People who believe in fairy tales of any sort need to slowly move out of them. Its difficult for a human brain to switch from one type of thinking to another.

Looking back at their past, many people who shed their faith can point to the moment that they took their first step towards rationality, but truly loosing faith is a long journey.

Posted by: Calladus | November 24, 2009 1:08 PM

David,

Christians use "conversion accounts" as a sort of Christian Credential. The more dramatic the conversion, the better the 'cred. Good 'cred equals standing in the Christian Church, which equals power, influence, and success.

While some deconversion accounts can be just as traumatic, they do not bestow any sort of atheist credential. Some of those transformations, like my own, can be pretty boring.

After 21 years of being a Christian (Baptized at 14) I had questions that I couldn't get answers for. I started a self-course on comparative religion and that lead to doubt.

I didn't come to atheism from a lack of answers, or some childhood trauma, or because my preacher treated me badly. I came to atheism because there were no answers to doubt in Christianity. I came to atheism because the Christian text was self-contradictory. I came to atheism because my prayers went unanswered - until I finally realized that I was only talking to myself.

I came to realize that the feeling of the Holy Spirit washing over me was merely a powerful form of self-delusion, the sort of self-delusion that is experienced by other religious cults worshiping completely different gods. I can now recreate that feeling when I want. (I don't, mostly. What's the point?)

Your attempts to pin atheism on a "hurt little boy" syndrome are laughable, simplistic, and they show an inherent dishonesty. You want to speak honestly about such things? You must first demonstrate a willingness to learn.

Posted by: LinzeeBinzee | November 24, 2009 1:10 PM

Would somebody who hasn't communicated with someone else in 23 years even be able to form words or sentences? Wouldn't you lose your mind? What an awful thing if he actually has been conscious this whole time.

Posted by: Steve_C | November 24, 2009 1:12 PM

HAHAHA, you really try to twist things. What anger did I show?

I didn't have any anger at my religion. I gave it a chance. But clearly logic won out. It's like how you feel when you realize the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus are just stories.

It was a self-defining moment, but an accomplishment? It really shouldn't be a big deal when people give up superstitions, I'm just surprised it doesn't happen to more people.

And I didn't convert, there was no ceremony, no baptism or accepting something of faith.

It's the opposite. It's the letting go of a childish idea.

Posted by: truebutnotuseful | November 24, 2009 1:12 PM

David Mathews wrote:

the beliefs are children are equally irrational and unscientific whether those beliefs are theistic or atheistic.

Bullshit. Rational beliefs are based on evidence. You have a serious problem with false equivalence.

We agree that the beliefs are children are equally irrational and unscientific whether those beliefs are theistic or atheistic.

Again with the bullshit. Beliefs are rational when they are based on evidence. They are irrational when they are not.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and conclude that you aren't as stupid as you appear to be. So I'm going to assume that you are just another one of Jesus' Obtuse Liars^TM.

Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | November 24, 2009 1:14 PM

Instead of hijacking this thread, I would suggest that Dave Mathews move this to the endless thread that will not die.

He pulled out the, "You have not investigated all religions" canard. Has he done the same?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 24, 2009 1:14 PM

Your attempts to pin atheism on a "hurt little boy" syndrome are laughable, simplistic, and they show an inherent dishonesty. You want to speak honestly about such things? You must first demonstrate a willingness to learn.

Yep. I'm an atheist and I've had a pretty damn good life and childhood. Never hurt but any religious figure I knew personally. I just remain unsatisfied by anything posited by any religion that I've come in contact with as far as some evidence or "proof" of their supernatural big guy.

Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 24, 2009 1:16 PM

David Mathews writes:
We can agree that child-onset theism is as irrational as child-onset atheism. From the standpoint of rationality and science both opinions are equivalent.

Given equal evidence, then yes. But in the absence of compelling evidence, it's more rational to assume the null hypothesis.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 24, 2009 1:18 PM

David Matthews,

Stick to focusing on your band.

No wonder they suck so bad.

Posted by: senecasam | November 24, 2009 1:19 PM

I think someone should get the video to an expert, say, like former Sen. Bill Frist, who did such an outstanding job diagnosing Terri Schiavo from about a thousand miles away.

Posted by: 386sx | November 24, 2009 1:20 PM

James Randi...

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/783-this-cruel-farce-has-to-stop.html

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 1:21 PM

Hello tsg,

* "Ah, now DM is going to edumacate us all on what atheism really is.

* "I was born without a belief in any god and that has not changed to this day. "

I wouldn't be so proud of affirming no intellectual progress since birth.

It seems a very strange argument atheists are making. When you were born you didn't even belief in your own self.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 24, 2009 1:24 PM

I wouldn't be so proud of affirming no intellectual progress since birth.

And what would be progress. What if his investigations have not given him any reason to think differently?

Posted by: hznfrst | November 24, 2009 1:25 PM

Good grief, it's so obvious that that woman is doing all the typing (and composing) it's painful to watch! What is wrong with these utterly gullible "reporters" (hint: it's very probably the same thing that's wrong with our walking-brain-dead Dave Mathews here).

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 24, 2009 1:25 PM

Still no conclusive physical evidence for a deity being present by DM. Just another Liar for Jebusâ„¢.

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 1:29 PM

Hello Sastra,

* "But the rational, scientific thinking came before he became an atheist. When he started applying the same standards he applied to science, to religion, he gradually recognized that scientific explanations went deeper. He didn't formulate an atheist "dogma" and join up with an atheist boy scouts. "

That's not how PZ Myers described his own life experiences. Perhaps you have someone else in mind ... ?

* "I don't remember the title anymore, but there was some social scientist (or group of them) who had studied religious "conversion" experiences -- atheist to theist, one religion to another, and theist to atheist -- and written a book on the results. I only read a few reviews, but as I recall they said that there was a significant difference between the atheist-to-theist vs. the theist-to-atheist. The first was almost always rather sudden, and deeply emotional. The second tended to be gradual, and God usually went through several transitions, in order to fit with changing understanding. "

Here is an example of irrational self-affirmation which isn't at all established upon objective experience. PZ Myers doesn't describe his own conversion in the above manner and it is unlikely that any other atheist here could do so either, except perhaps in an after-the-fact mythological self-justification / self-affirmation.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 24, 2009 1:29 PM

Nor do I imagine that an atheist would be swayed in their dogmatic assumptions regardless of any evidence since the atheistic dogma is formulated in such a manner as to exclude any consideration of evidence.

Do you have this evidence for me to consider?

Posted by: Kagehi | November 24, 2009 1:31 PM

The sort of disappointmentr PZ Myers describes is that of an atheist responding with offense to a astronaut quoting Scripture.

Not so, its the natural reaction of a child that wants to know "why", or "what", when confronted with someone trying to give him/her a useless answer:

http://www.livescience.com/culture/091123-why-kids-ask.html

Only, when we get a bit older we learn that such repeated questions annoy people, or we get indoctrinated into *accepting* certain answers, even when they provide no real answer. The later case is called "religion".

Any attempt to define it as something else is nothing more than a desperate need to ignore the progressive transition to scientific thinking that someone may undergo, as a result of **recognizing** that some answers are useless, even if sadly common, instead of just sheepishly accepting them. Some people are inherently more interested in knowing than being comfortable. Accepting any random answer, or one that conforms to previously accepted non-answers, is "comfortable". Ironically, it doesn't help the person seeking such answers, because other people are not interested in such comforting self delusion, and that unhinged the people that, literally, don't want their world view disturbed by people poking holes in it, which is... uncomfortable, and thus the exact opposite of why they chose to accept their non-answers in the first place.

Posted by: truebutnotuseful | November 24, 2009 1:34 PM

David Mathews wrote:

Nor do I imagine that an atheist would be swayed in their dogmatic assumptions regardless of any evidence since the atheistic dogma is formulated in such a manner as to exclude any consideration of evidence.

Wow. Just...wow. I retract my earlier assessment - you really are just stupid. Not that that doesn't also preclude you from being a lying sack of crap. Clearly you are both.

Posted by: BdN | November 24, 2009 1:35 PM

DM ". PZ Myers doesn't describe his own conversion in the above manner and it is unlikely that any other atheist here could do so either, except perhaps in an after-the-fact mythological self-justification / self-affirmation."

I must be a walking myth because that's how it happened to me : I gradually abandoned my Catholic delusions one after another and became a deist before becoming an atheist. Overall, it took at least 6 or 7 years to complete the process...

Posted by: LinzeeBinzee | November 24, 2009 1:37 PM

Okay the derail isn't ending so I'll join in...

David Matthews...what do you believe and why?

In response to this question 2 years ago when I was a Christian, I would have said I believe in a good and loving god, and his son Jesus was sent to save our souls and I'll be joining them in heaven after I die. Why do I believe this? Because the Bible says so and luckily I was born into a community with the right religion so I could have this truth. (Of course all of the "whys" that I had for my religion fizzled away when I learned how to think critically).

Okay, now you go! What do you believe and why?

Posted by: baldywilson | November 24, 2009 1:38 PM

You quote a sentence and say ..

I'm going to have to refer back to that reading comprehension problem of yours again. I didn't just "quote a sentence and say". I quoted a sentence, after the part of the article that you had deliberately mis-represented, and provided context that demonstrated that your claim were false.

In order to do this, I had to do some work: I read the transcript of the speech PZ gave that you choose to criticise. Incidentally, thanks for the link, I hadn't had a chance to read it before, I found it most enjoyable. Nevertheless, I had to do work: I had to read the article to see if it was making the claim you were making - it wasn't. My reply was the quote of that sentence because it succinctly demonstrated why your initial outburst was can only be explained in two way: you deliberately chose to misrepresent someone to suggest that atheism must be childish - i.e. you lied, or you have a reading comprehension problem.

I didn't "just" quote a sentence.

Posted by: Rob Jase | November 24, 2009 1:40 PM

You know a communication facilitator can also use a patient in a vegetative state as a dowsing rod. The patient acts as the stick & dips when water is found.

And speaking of dipsticks, David M. - why would your loving god leave a person in a vegetative state (concious or not) for 23 years?

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 1:41 PM

Hello Calladus,

* "While some deconversion accounts can be just as traumatic, they do not bestow any sort of atheist credential. Some of those transformations, like my own, can be pretty boring. "

Silly, silly! PZ Myers wouldn't have included a mythological conversion account if it didn't serve a purpose for atheists.

* "After 21 years of being a Christian (Baptized at 14) I had questions that I couldn't get answers for. I started a self-course on comparative religion and that lead to doubt. "

Wow, I'm impressed. How many decades did you invest in this project? Did you become a professional scholar and objectively engage in comparative religion?

* "I didn't come to atheism from a lack of answers, or some childhood trauma, or because my preacher treated me badly. I came to atheism because there were no answers to doubt in Christianity. I came to atheism because the Christian text was self-contradictory. I came to atheism because my prayers went unanswered - until I finally realized that I was only talking to myself. "

Need I point out that these aren't scientific arguments? They are irrational-emotional.

* "I came to realize that the feeling of the Holy Spirit washing over me was merely a powerful form of self-delusion, the sort of self-delusion that is experienced by other religious cults worshiping completely different gods. I can now recreate that feeling when I want. (I don't, mostly. What's the point?) "

I agree with you about this much ... that feeling which you had experienced was self-generated and self-delusional.

* "Your attempts to pin atheism on a "hurt little boy" syndrome are laughable, simplistic, and they show an inherent dishonesty. You want to speak honestly about such things? You must first demonstrate a willingness to learn. "

There's way too much anger and bitterness among atheists to entertain any other opinion except the "hurt little child" sydrome in the vast majority of atheists.

Posted by: hanna | November 24, 2009 1:42 PM

So I'm going to ignore the troll because I just wanted to say how happy it made me to finally see someone commenting on what BS the facilitated communication aspect of this story is. I saw a headline about this yesterday and thought, wow, clicked on the link--and there was a photograph of the facilitator holding his had and I just thought, No way! I remember being a kid and watching a story on 20/20 with my dad about FC with autistic kids, and turning to my dad and saying, "But the kids aren't even looking at the boards half the time! How can people think this is real?"

And now the board is attached to a computer instead of made of cardboard, and that somehow changes things?

So I went and looked for other stories, and they're all full of these "quotes" of his, and the few that even mentioned that these came through FC don't mention the fact that this method has been proven total fraud. What the hell is wrong with our media?

Whatever credibility there might be in the rest of the story is completely destroyed for me by putting that part of it front and center and unquestioned.

That said, did anyone else find it kind of...in poor taste, if not outright ablist, to be calling DM brain-damanged, etc? I'm not sure I can articulate exactly why it squicks me out; it's kind of the same as why I'm bothered when people use "gay" as an insult. I know, you're using the brain thing because it's relevant to the thread and because DM's logical reasoning has issues and that comes from the brain but...don't people with severe brain damage (and their loved ones) have enough to deal with without having their condition also used as the basis of an insult?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 24, 2009 1:42 PM

Yawn, still no physical evidence, just bad sophistry by the delusional godbot. Boring, boring troll.

Posted by: Endor | November 24, 2009 1:42 PM

"you deliberately chose to misrepresent someone to suggest that atheism must be childish"

I find this damn funny. Mr. Matthews is doing backflips attempting to pretend atheism is childish and impervious to evidence (WTF?) all the while believing that there's a magical creature in the sky who created him . . . to troll atheist blogs with poorly thought out garbage, apparently.

C'mon -that's comedy gold right there.

Posted by: s.k.graham | November 24, 2009 1:43 PM

It may well be true that facilitated communication is often bullshit of the "human ouija-board" variety. However, if a parallyzed person has just the tiniest bit of muscle control in one finger, enough that another person can sense the slight movements, then what is shown in the video is plausible, if the patient and facilitator have had, say, 3 years of practice. The facilitator would essentially be acting as a human force-feedback device, which would not be particularly difficult. (see suggested experiment below) Over time, the facilitator would learn to anticipate, completing words and phrases for the patient making the movements much more fluid than they would be if every hunt & peck was solely guided by the patient.

Of course, to avoid fraud or self-deception on the part of the facilitator, the patient has to be given some minimal independent method of signalling, which is not difficult if the patient has any conscious control some part of his body.

If such controlled verification of the patient's independent communication has be fully verified, with trust of the facilitator likewise verified, then there is nothing unbelievable about the story. If such verification has not been performed, the we are looking at a "human ouija board".

I think we are in no position to judge, until a peer-reviewed case study is published that includes detailed on how communication from the patient has been verified, and how the patient & facilitator learned to work together. But if such publication never arrives, then suspicion of hoax or self-deception should increase.

I am inclined to give the benefit of the doubt in this situation. If I had more experience of the extent of fraud/self deception in these kinds of cases, and/or if I had more information to judge the (lack of) credibility of the doctors and facilitator, I might err on the side of skepticism.

But the apparent dexterity of motion of the patient/facilitor in typing is not in and of itself damning evidence.

Suggested experiment to try with a friend: You will take turns in the roles of "guider" and "facilitator". The guider will rest one finger *lightly* on the back of the hand of the facilitator, and must try to guide the facilitator to hunt/peck keys on the keyboard. Neither of you is allowed to communicate in any other way, except that the *guider* is given a simple means of signalling yes/no with their free hand, just to signal mistakes. Take turns in the roles of guider and facilitator. I bet that within hours you and your friend will be able to converse clumsily and slowly by this method. After a few weeks of daily practice, you will be able to converse quite fluently, and only slightly more slowly than if you were each doing your own one-fingered typing. This skill should have roughly the same difficulty to learn as what is shown in the video. In my suggested experiment, I do not have the facilitator hold the guider's finger (as in the video), because it would be to easy for an able bodied person to fully control the entire motion with all the muscles in their hand and arm. Allowing only a light touch to the back of the facilitator's hand should create a limitation to communication which is comparable to the paralyzed person with slight movement in one finger.

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 1:45 PM

Hello truebotnotuseful,

You say ...

* "Rational beliefs are based on evidence. You have a serious problem with false equivalence. "

What sort of evidence did the child PZ Myers possess in order to rationally reach his atheism?

What sort of evidence did the 12 year old possess to rationally justify his affirmation of atheism?

Atheists proclaim their love for evidence, science, logic and reason by atheism itself hasn't any need for any of these.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 24, 2009 1:47 PM

Once again David,

Do you have this evidence for me to consider?

Posted by: Flea | November 24, 2009 1:48 PM

Interesting species this new Troll. He has some really good pictures (click his name) I think his misanthropy (commenting his pics) explains a lot...

"here's a tragic scene and dramatic contrast between the world of life (which is Nature) and the world of non-living technology (which is passing away). The birds have been around for millions of years. Electricity, cell phones and fences won't last that long ... thank God!"
"dolphins are intelligent, but not intelligent in the human sense (thank God!)"
"osprey engaged in philosophical speculation regarding the meaning of life and why humans are so very sad"

Posted by: tsg | November 24, 2009 1:51 PM

I think we are in no position to judge, until a peer-reviewed case study is published that includes detailed on how communication from the patient has been verified, and how the patient & facilitator learned to work together. But if such publication never arrives, then suspicion of hoax or self-deception should increase.

FC has routinely failed controlled testing where the patient can see an item (a picture, a word, etc) and the facilitator cannot. All the reasons you cite why it might be plausible are the same reasons FC proponents think it works. But it doesn't.

Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | November 24, 2009 1:51 PM

David Mathews, I will ask you to show just a modicum of respect and move your Gish Gallop to this endless thread. Leave this thread for the original topic.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 24, 2009 1:53 PM

You are speaking silly. The atheists on this blog have consistently demonstrated the emotional component of their lack of belief. The emotion often takes the form of anger and bitterness and sometimes pride and self-praise.

Oh yeah... total projection... I'm now more convinced than ever that you are here due to a crisis of faith. It's ok... as I said... don't fear the questions.

I'd better stop this... I'm getting too emotional. Sniff.

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 1:55 PM

Hello Michael Simpson,

* "Atheism, for me, is not an opinion. Is is based on rational thought, which is totally lacking in religion. Science shows how the natural world functions. Religion does not. Atheism is not a religion, it is the lack of religion. One does not "believe" in atheism, one rejects a belief in religion. Kind of simple, but Mathews you lack any reasonable intellect. You spout of fake words that make you seem that you have an IQ north of 40, but I reject that hypothesis. "

This is all silly talk which atheists use to celebrate their own opinions as if they constituted a great accomplishment.

I really doubt that the though processes described above actually occurred in the child PZ Myers. I am quite certain that these thought processes are also not active in adult atheists, either.

Atheism doesn't actually require that amount of effort. A simple lack of belief demands no effort whatsoever. The arguments used so far indicate this much.

Posted by: LinzeeBinzee | November 24, 2009 1:55 PM

David Matthews, what do you believe and why? How about answering that. Tell us why your position is better than ours.

Posted by: truebutnotuseful | November 24, 2009 1:56 PM

David Mathews wrote:

What sort of evidence did the child PZ Myers possess in order to rationally reach his atheism?
What sort of evidence did the 12 year old possess to rationally justify his affirmation of atheism?
Atheists proclaim their love for evidence, science, logic and reason by atheism itself hasn't any need for any of these.

You don't get it do you? Atheism rejects positive claims made by theism. Atheism is not a positive claim. It rejects positive claims of theism on the basis of lack of evidence.

Do you really believe that atheism can only be justified once you have examined every single religion in existence? I have to ask, when you chose your religion, did you examine every single religion in existence? I'm guessing no.

As a commenter here once said, if a man comes up to me and tells me that there is an entire miniature city in his belly button, I don't need to know the names of the individual streets to realize he's crazy.

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 1:58 PM

Hello Joey,

* "Why should someone have to prove something they do not think exists? You believe it exists, give us the evidence why, or is it just another irrational assumption? "

Thanks, Joey, for conclusively demonstrating that atheism has nothing whatsoever to do with evidence, science, rationality or logic.

Atheism simply isn't required to make any sort of efforts on its own behalf since is it simply, and exclusively, an dogmatic opinionated rejection of a particular set of beliefs.

Posted by: stogoe | November 24, 2009 1:59 PM

You must concede that at 12 years old you didn't know enough to legitimately call yourself an atheist.

Again, if 12-year-olds don't know enough to call themselves atheists, then neither do the 12-year-olds who call themselves Christians.

You fucking moron.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 24, 2009 2:00 PM

DM has officially covered his ears, started stomping his feet, and begun loudly belting "lah lah lah, your belief is dogmatic I can't hear you lah lah lah, I'm right you're wrong, lah lah lah, I'm not answering any of your questions I can't handle them lah lah lah".

In other words behaving like a typical christian.

Posted by: tsg | November 24, 2009 2:00 PM

I really doubt that the though processes described above actually occurred in the child PZ Myers. I am quite certain that these thought processes are also not active in adult atheists, either.

Ah, now the troll pretends to know more about us than we do.

Fuck off.

Atheism doesn't actually require that amount of effort. A simple lack of belief demands no effort whatsoever. The arguments used so far indicate this much.

Atheism is no effort whatsoever until a Liar For Jesus^TM like you shows up to tell us we're all wrong for not believing in your particular imaginary sky fairy. Idiot.

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 2:02 PM

Hello tsg,

* "That's the bloody point. Some things you discover for yourself, others have to be taught. God has to be taught. That's the way it is with made-up shit. "

Yes, indeed, God has to be taught. As it turns out, atheism also has to be taught.

If you performed an experiment by isolating a child from all contact with humankind the child would become feral and behave exclusively like an animal. Whether or not a feral child would have a belief in God or not is a matter of speculation but there is one evidence on behalf of theism ...

Our ancestors did formulate a belief in god.

In other words, whether a child is born an atheist or not, humankind did not remain atheistic. Humans have possessed some sort of religous belief for over 40,000 years and perhaps a lot longer.

So the Ignorant Newborn Baby Argument for atheism possesses a fatal flaw ...

Posted by: AdamK | November 24, 2009 2:04 PM

Atheism doesn't actually require that amount of effort. A simple lack of belief demands no effort whatsoever.

Exactly right.

As others have stated, atheism makes no positive claim. It simply waits for evidence of a supernatural being, not a shred of which is ever forthcoming.

Especially from brain-dead internet trolls.

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 2:05 PM

Hello Kagehi,

* "Any attempt to define it as something else is nothing more than a desperate need to ignore the progressive transition to scientific thinking that someone may undergo, as a result of **recognizing** that some answers are useless ... "

I really doubt that the child PZ Myers engaged in the above thought processes. I also doubt that adult atheists engage in the so-called "scientific thought process" either, especially as it might apply to religious and philosophical questions.

But keep on celebrating yourself if that makes atheism seem virtuous to you ...

Posted by: Steve_C | November 24, 2009 2:08 PM

It doesn't have to make any efforts on its behalf. Until there's evidence of any gods there's no point in believing in any gods or religion.

I think atheism is everyone's default position until your culture or family starts to change it.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 24, 2009 2:08 PM

DM, you are making a case for theism being for delusional fools. You are certainly acting like one. So, time to be honest, and show yourself as a man of honesty, truthfulness, and integrity, by showing us conclusive physical evidence for your diety, or shutting the fuck up. Only dishonest liars, bullshitters, and con men, keep faking without evidence.

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | November 24, 2009 2:08 PM

Smoggy Batzrubble: Dear Jesus?

Jesus Christ: Yes, Servant Smoggy?

SB: Jesus, some guy named David Mathews has turned up on Pharyngula and he's annoying all the atheists with pseudo-intellectual bullshit and discredited arguments. He's fixated on the false equivalence between my blind irrational faith and the fact that atheism is a simple negation of belief in all fairy stories. What's he doing here? I thought I was your missionary on this blog!

JC: You are my missionary on this blog, Smog (heh...heh...blog/Smog..get it?)

SB: Not that funny Jesus.

JC. Sorry. As I was saying, you are my missionary on this blog. David Mathews is just a little prank I'm playing at the atheists' expense.

SB: He is? What sort of prank?

JC: Well the real David Mathews is a congenital idiot who exists in a permanent vegetative state. The only thing above his brain stem is a "Vacant Lot" sign.

SB: So how is he communicating with the atheists Jesus?

JC: Facilitated communication, Smoggy! It's the new big thing. Mathews has an epileptic spasm and we turn it into keystrokes. There is a precedent. All the great men of God were empty vessels and resounding gourds. You don't seriously think a sentient human would say all the crap that Abraham, Elijah, John the Baptist, Ken Ham, Ray Comfort and Benny the Rat can come out with do you? They're just echo chambers, Smoggy, part of Heaven's great joke on the human race. We use people like Ham, Comfort, Hannity, Beck, O'Reilly etc. to confirm the one immutable fact from God's creation.

SB: What's that Jesus?

JC: The fact that most humans are thick as shit and will believe any stupid fucking thing someone on a soap box tells them. Look at Mohamed and his flying horse, look at Scientology, look at the crap Joseph smith got away with, look at the Birthers, look at transubstantiation, look at speaking in tongues and the gifts of the spirit. Look at God laughing until he shits himself.

SB: Fair enough. But this David Mathews guy is hardly impressive, he's a sequence of religious tics packaged in prejudice and ignorance.

JC: That's true, but you don't think I'm going to put a lot of effort into pulling the chains of thinking people do you? I really sent him to Pharyngula to watch the atheists bore him a new arsehole. He shits out both ends now.

SB: So I'm still your missionary on Pharyngula, Jesus?

JC: Yes, servant Smoggy. Now and until my second coming...which may be in a few minutes if I can just track down that saucy wench Mary Magdalene.

SB: AMEN

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 24, 2009 2:10 PM

Stupid christian chewtoy balthers:

Yes, indeed, God has to be taught. As it turns out, atheism also has to be taught.

"Stated by me, therefor fact! Oh wait... I've failed to demonstrate this in any way shape or form and simply dismiss any attempt at correcting this assertion with a hand wave... bah.. details! I win!"

but there is one evidence on behalf of theism ... Our ancestors did formulate a belief in god. In other words, whether a child is born an atheist or not, humankind did not remain atheistic. Humans have possessed some sort of religous belief for over 40,000 years and perhaps a lot longer. So the Ignorant Newborn Baby Argument for atheism possesses a fatal flaw ...

Dude... do you have any idea how completely stupid this assertion is? Or how completely juvenile and illogical it makes you sound? The simple retort to that is that humankind has used STORYTELLING as a method of disseminating information as long as there has been language. That certain stories serve well as a means of controlling a population is nothing short of a social construct with evolutionary benefits. Keep a population in line and under control, establish order, things work more smoothly and can help a developing culture thrive. Enter religion.

By your fucked up and warped logic we should all be still taking Greek mythology seriously... cause if we made it up there must be some truth behind it, huh?

Fucking moron.

Posted by: Michael J. | November 24, 2009 2:12 PM

I got my conversion to atheism the old fashioned way. I read the bible. Genesis alone should be enough to convince any rational person the whole thing is mythology.

By the way, Smoggy is a genius.

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 2:14 PM

Hello Endor,

* "Interesting. So then, by this Logic(tm), children who have bad experiences and turn to religion are relying on an irrational emotional component of their theism, which would be impervious then to any subsequent evidence to the contrary. "

We can agree about this much ... children are irrational by nature and this is true regardless of the child's belief or lack of belief.

Posted by: truebutnotuseful | November 24, 2009 2:15 PM

David Mathews wrote:

I'll tell you what I believe when you people ask a question which merits such an answer.

You've been asked that repeatedly. What do you need, to have it written on fuckin' stone tablets?

Posted by: BdN | November 24, 2009 2:15 PM

DM, I agree with Janine : move it.

"Come on, are you serious?

Atheism isn't a belief which PZ Myers invented. Nor did any other atheist invent their own atheism."

What the hell ? What don't you get in "atheism is not a belief per se ?

"Atheism is always derived from some other source. Otherwise there wouldn't be any need for PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins to evangelize on behalf of atheism."

No, there was no other source in my case : all my family was Catholic and I went to a Catholic school where I slept 12 days out of 14, all my parents' friends were Catholics, I knew NO atheist or agnostic before I reached university, so stop with your stupid assumptions.

And no, Myers, Dawkins and others talk about it because there are morons lying around.

Posted by: Alyson Miers | November 24, 2009 2:17 PM

Oh, boy! Naturalistic fallacies!

Our ancestors did formulate a belief in god.

Yeah, back when they had piss-poor tools to understand the nature of the universe, our ancestors formulated a belief in, drumroll please:

Mithra
Horus
Ra
Krishna
Buddha
Shiva
Vishnu
Brahma
Kali
Zeus/Jupiter
Hera/Juno
Poseidon/Neptune
Aphrodite/Venus
Ares/Mars
Athena/Diana
Dionysus
Odin
Loki
Thor
Freyr
Freya

and so forth, depending on where in the world they lived. There are heaps more gods I've omitted; there are just too many to remember them all.

And then fairly recently in the grand scheme, the Hebrews started bickering over the various Elohim and even more recently settled on Yahweh, and then a few more thousand years passed before the Romans Greeks a rogue crew of "Jews" came up with Jesus.

And since all these gods/sets of gods are more or less mutually exclusive, why should we assume any of them are anything other than fiction?

Oh, and I see your sneering at our anger as if that means anything. Your opinion is noted.

Posted by: AdamK | November 24, 2009 2:19 PM

...children are irrational by nature...

Why do christians despise children so much?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 24, 2009 2:20 PM

Atheists commit violent acts, engage in warfare and terrorism, and are equally prone to genocide as religious people.

Posted by: Calladus | November 24, 2009 2:21 PM

Silly, silly! PZ Myers wouldn't have included a mythological conversion account if it didn't serve a purpose for atheists.

Projection

Wow, I'm impressed. How many decades did you invest in this project? Did you become a professional scholar and objectively engage in comparative religion?

Sarcasm
(BTW - I spent 5 years. Lots of books, both pro and con in apologetics, comparative religions, and critical analysis of scripture.)

I came to atheism because the Christian text was self-contradictory. I came to atheism because my prayers went unanswered - until I finally realized that I was only talking to myself. "

Need I point out that these aren't scientific arguments? They are irrational-emotional.

Missing the point.

I agree with you about this much ... that feeling which you had experienced was self-generated and self-delusional.

No True Scottsman

There's way too much anger and bitterness among atheists to entertain any other opinion except the "hurt little child" syndrome in the vast majority of atheists.

Projection again, self-superiority

Sorry David. All noise, no signal. You really can't refute what I said, so you pooh-pooed it.

So it goes. Get back to us when you have any real content.

Posted by: BdN | November 24, 2009 2:22 PM

DM "However I think it far more likely that you are actively engaged in generating your own mythological atheism conversion account."

Mmmkay, so I'm a liar and you know what happened to me better than myself... I guess that's the end of the road : it's impossible to argue with someone who claims without any evidence whatsoever that you don't know your own life...

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 24, 2009 2:23 PM

Atheists commit violent acts, engage in warfare and terrorism, and are equally prone to genocide as religious people.

Please list for me all of the atrocities committed in the name of atheism.

Then ask yourself why your above statement is moronic.

Posted by: baldywilson | November 24, 2009 2:24 PM

@DM

which merits such an answer

I've noticed you made a similar statement before. May inquiring minds be informed as to what constitutes a question that "merits" an answer from Mr. D. Mathews? What objective criteria must be met before the enormous attentions the of masterful mind of Mr Mathews will deem to answer them, asked as they were merely in a thread that the same Mr Mathews chose to hijack, and asked merely in response to the utterances of the same Mr David Mathews Esq.

I understand that theists often expect their god to be choosy about which questions god deems fit to answer however, unless I am greatly mistaken, you are not a god.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 24, 2009 2:25 PM

DM, Janine is right. Go the the Eternal Thread and take up your ideas there. Bring evidence.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 24, 2009 2:26 PM

David can you please point me to this evidence I should consider?

Posted by: Sil | November 24, 2009 2:29 PM

Participating in the ugly derail makes me feel dirty but it's actually kind of fun. You think atheism requires some event to prompt a "conversion"? Bullshit! Theism requires that someone tell you about it first.

Let me tell you how I became an atheist, or agnostic, or whatever label is appropriate. The actual story is that I never became one, I always was one without realising it.

My early recollection of my parents describes them both as unreligious. My mom is best described as an apatheist and my dad is an atheist, as I now know. I cannot remember once ever hearing religion or atheism discussed in my house. My books never discussed God or any idea of spirituality but I never felt like I was lacking something. It was the same with both pairs of grandparents. I had never been in a church or spoken with a person of religious authority until I was almost 11 years old.

Even then, I only watched a baptism. I didn't know why they did it in a church - I knew the word but not why they were different from other buildings - but I suspected it was just some other thing people did. I also thought it was weird that people wore really nice clothes to weddings, when they might get filthy at the party.

It wasn't until I was 12 and a new neighbour - also 12 - moved in that I first encountered someone who ernestly believed in God. He told me once that he prayed to God that school would be cancelled every Friday because he really didn't like social studies. I asked him if he knew God and maybe was he the boss of the school? He said God should be the boss of the bosses of the school. I wish I knew the word "administrative" then, because using the word "boss" so many times became quite complicated.

I asked if I could meet him one day. My neighbour said that I can't meet God until after I died. I thought this was really weird because I can't meet anyone when I'm dead. Because I'd be dead. I told him so. He thought that was a good point and he'd think about it.

I don't remember hearing about God from him again except that he went to a church most Sundays. I think I went to swimming lessons instead. I was a really happy kid then.

In highschool I finally met someone who thought gay people were gross. I had a few gay relatives who I thought (and still think!) to be quite nice people. Most people responded "they just are!" but a few said that it was an abomination. At this point, my idol in life was my aunt, who was a busy engineer and a lesbian. I didn't think she was anything resembling an abomination. Well, God said so. So gay people are disgusting. So I was told.

Well by then I knew enough ghost stories and enough about reason that I could respond to this. Some people told me that it's true because the bible said so. One person told me we couldn't be friends anymore because I was going to burn in hell on account of not hating "faggots" (my first exposure to that word). My history teacher said that all the science was right but pointless because it was all an illusion God made to test our faith.

But the most interesting response didn't even approach the issue of gay people. No, this person, from the brother of the de-friender, told me there was a hole in my life that could only be filled with God. Woah. 12-year old me was kind of annoyed that someone who doesn't know me thinks there's something lacking in my life. I definetly didn't see any hole, except where people wouldn't be friends with me because I didn't believe in God. Again, I was still a pretty happy kid except now I was sad that I was down a friend and that some people really wouldn't like my dad's sister.

I'm going to stop the story here because I hate writing long posts. I wasn't unhappy until theists starting telling me how I should live my life and that, apparently, they know me better than I know me. I thought it would get better as I grew older, but it really doesn't. Same arguments, same folks. Suffice to say, I learned to avoid accepting superstition as a given. It had always seemed silly to me to be afraid of goblins just because someone else told you a story about them. I could spin a half-decent ghost story without ever having seen one. I was terrified of cougars. Those I had seen.

P.S. Evolution wasn't taught much at my highschool, and was never mentioned at my elementary school. I first learned about it myself from one of Carl Zimmer's books, and then read some library books before it was finally mentioned in the last two weeks of 11th grade. PZ Myers? Just heard of him this semester. Dawkins? Not until after I was out of highschool.

In summary: No one told me, or had to tell me to be an atheist (or whatever) or about atheism for me to be one. Someone had to tell me about God. Nice try DM.

Posted by: AdamK | November 24, 2009 2:30 PM

Bring evidence. --NoR,OM

Huh? --DM,troll

Posted by: Kagehi | November 24, 2009 2:32 PM

I really doubt that the child PZ Myers engaged in the above thought processes. I also doubt that adult atheists engage in the so-called "scientific thought process" either, especially as it might apply to religious and philosophical questions.

And yet.. The article I linked states that all children engage in such thought processes, until, as I pointed out, someone derails it by giving them the same useless non-answers over and over, and they start believing them. That is where the damn problems start cropping up.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 24, 2009 2:32 PM

DM, speaking to Sastra:

Huh? Sorry, you'll need to redo this paragraph so that it might actually say something meaningful and relevant.

Translation: "that was far too eloquent and clever an analogy for someone of my limited intellect and imagination to decipher... that and my head is filled with birdseed. Would you mind terribly dumbing it down a bit? And maybe throw in a bit about a burning bush?"

Posted by: Sil | November 24, 2009 2:34 PM

More than 100 posts were made while I was writing my last one. Yikes.

Also,

Tooth fairy is another thing I didn't have at my house as a child.

@270:

What is your position on the tooth fairy anyway?

Posted by: Alyson Miers | November 24, 2009 2:35 PM

I'll tell you what I believe when you people ask a question which merits such an answer.

You are a guest in our piranha tank. If you feel that our questions do not merit answers, then kindly fuck off and masturbate in your own sandbox.

PZ Myers brought up the subject himself in his semi-mythological speech to the humanists. Needless to say, I wouldn't have an interest otherwise.

And you've chosen to hijack a wholly unrelated thread rather than take your projection where it's vaguely on-topic.

People have a bad habit of inventing their own virtues for the sake of self-praise and self-validation ...

That mirror is so shiny.

Atheists commit violent acts, engage in warfare and terrorism, and are equally prone to genocide as religious people.

Wrong. False. Bullshit. Fiction. Delusion. Projection.

Just about par for the course where David Mathews is concerned, in other words.

Posted by: Spiro Keat | November 24, 2009 2:36 PM

Having to rely on daily mail is about like having to rely on rumour.

Not quite, occasionally there's some truth in a rumour.

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 2:38 PM

Hello Janine,

* "Ridiculous assertion. What about those of us who became atheist with ever hearing of Myers or Dawkins? "

We're you a feral child?

If you have an atheism conversion story to tell you might as well tell it for the benefit of everyone here.

No one need speculate about how your beliefs originated since you are available to tell us.

Posted by: Tulse | November 24, 2009 2:39 PM

by excluding atheism from the burden of proof you have excluded atheism from consideration as a scientific & rational manner of thinking

There is no "proof" in science -- there is only what is not disproved by reality, and what is the simplest explanation. I would happily be a theist if it were necessary to postulate such entity or entities to explain the world, but as Laplace said to Napoleon, "I have no need of that hypothesis".

Posted by: Sastra | November 24, 2009 2:41 PM

David Mathews #262 wrote:

Come on, Sastra, are you serious? PZ Myers is famous specifically because of his evangelical atheism and for no other reason. Without the evangelical atheism this blog would enjoy as much of a lack of success as other blogs devoted strictly to science.

Yes, I'm taking the term "defining core principle" very seriously, and not equating it with popularity, or the self-identity of the moment. "Atheism" isn't the defining core principle of a humanist. A humanist can believe in God. What makes them a humanist even then would be the reasons why they believe in God, how they believe, and their openness to contrary evidence.

Sorry you had problems with my analogy to an artist who loved beauty, but lost the ability to create it, while keeping their love for beauty. Perhaps you'll understand my point better if you asked yourself how many of your own views could you change, if you were given good enough reasons -- and still keep your basic values of honesty, integrity, and reason intact?

I suspect you could change pretty much any empirical viewpoint. What would change you is deciding instead that there was something more important than the truth. If, hypothetically of course, strong new evidence against global warming were to come in, and be gradually accepted by the overwhelming consensus of experts in the proper fields -- and yet you continued to insist that there is global warming because you love being a Crusader for the Environment, and it would destroy you to admit you were wrong -- then I think that might be an example of you, losing a core principle. But global warming -- or evolution -- or God -- or any belief you accepted on the evidence -- you could lose that, and still be you.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 24, 2009 2:42 PM

Again, by excluding atheism from the burden of proof you have excluded atheism from consideration as a scientific & rational manner of thinking.

Man, you are thick. Atheism is merely the position that, concerning the existence of deities, there is no proof, and proof is requisite for consideration... why would such a logical position require a burden of proof? Stop being stupid, for the love of reason!

(Or would that be like asking ice to stop being cold?)

Posted by: Menyambal | November 24, 2009 2:42 PM

Folks, Dave Mathews is a troll. He is the sort who spends a day being deliberately provocative, then 'fesses up with something about "wanting to make people think".

He isn't going to change his mind, or move away, no matter what anybody writes, as he isn't listening. He isn't going to change anyone's mind, as he isn't making any sense. His game is to waste time, to generate frustration and to pretend that said frustration proves his point about angry atheists.

We have done him and his kind before, and know the signs: Fairly-coherent writing coupled with bizzarely-convoluted logic equals provocation troll. And, in a few days, a smug not-pology.

In an effort to drag this thread back on topic, look at Dave and consider whether he qualifies as a self-aware human being. Does he even listen to himself? Does he think and reason? Does he listen and communicate? Is he reactin to what we say, or is he just thrashing around?

I do mean that insultingly, by the way, but I also ask at what point or line do we differentiate between rational and barking, aware and comatose? I submit that we humans tend to give the benefit of the doubt in most cases. Witness the discussions with Dave, the feeding of the subject of this post for 23 years, and the allowing of Farcical Communication.

Skepticism is the lack of acceptance of the crowd's giving of the benefit of the doubt, perhaps. Like atheism, it is a lack of something.

Kind of like a not-pology. "We aren't believing in your crazy shit, and we aren't sorry, really."

Posted by: lose_the_woo | November 24, 2009 2:45 PM

Ok, this merry go round is getting old and boring. Dave Mathews needs to be flushed. He's obviously not here for reasoned discussion, and by his intellectual stance, I'd say his IQ is somewhere just north of my bedroom slipper.

Posted by: tsg | November 24, 2009 2:47 PM

Folks, Dave Mathews is a troll. He is the sort who spends a day being deliberately provocative, then 'fesses up with something about "wanting to make people think".

He isn't going to change his mind, or move away, no matter what anybody writes, as he isn't listening. He isn't going to change anyone's mind, as he isn't making any sense. His game is to waste time, to generate frustration and to pretend that said frustration proves his point about angry atheists.

I agree with this assessment, but there is value in debunking his inanities. Even if he isn't listening, some may be and the last thing I want to do is give him a venue to spout his bullshit unopposed.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 24, 2009 2:48 PM

Since atheism attempts to make a claim regarding all religious thought the atheists are obligated to investigate everything.

Now, the default is always non-belief. So, there is nothing to investigate if there is no evidence.

Posted by: Sil | November 24, 2009 2:49 PM

I believe we can now use "to go out fishing" as a verb synonymous with "to do something better than debate theists"

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | November 24, 2009 2:49 PM

Dear Brother David Mathews,

As you have still ignored the warnings God asked me to deliver to you,I can only conclude that the thought of forcible anal penetration by an overly endowed demon gets you going. In which case, if you will consent not to interfere with my divine witness I will send my good friend Floyd Rubber around to your house to give you a good bonking.

You can't miss Floyd. He is seven foot tall, completely bald, immensely fat, he has crosses tattooed on his eyelids and cross piercings through his nipples and penis. He is in expert in loosening tight-arsed Christian fundamentalists, and although you present a particularly puckered challenge, Floyd and his twelve inch meatstick are up to it.

There now! You've got what you wanted! So please go away in the loving name of Jesus and give me time to repair the damage you've done to my witness.

Yours in Christurbation
Smoggy

Posted by: Ol' Greg | November 24, 2009 2:50 PM

David Mathews. I'm going to ignore most of your response because, frankly, I think you're confusing two arguments. You're suggesting that questioning things might lead to some one questioning things and that tendency to question things might lead one to enjoy a profession that questions things and then that might lead you in a direction that is completely opposed to things that don't like to be questioned.

Well... I don't see where the argument is to argue here.

Now on to the rest:

Specifically what questions did "Climbing Mount Improbable" specifically answer? I own the book and I've read the book. I didn't happen to notice any specifics but perhaps you have something in particular in mind.

It has been a really long time but for me it was mostly about the way properties can emerge because they work which leads to systems that are more complex, some times more complex than they might ideally be. It struck a chord with me I guess because I work with building functioning things with computers, so there was a logic to me that appealed accounting for a lot of the messy stuff when you think about why, for instance, some things have eyes that could be better and some things have eyes that are awesome.

* "I'm still half closeted. It's dangerous. " Dangerous in what respect? I haven't heard of any atheist lynchings occurring in recent modern times.

* "But yeah, I do owe the prominence of atheists like Dawkins and Myers for my slowly emerging willingness to admit that God never suited me. "
God never suited you? Why do you imagine that God's existence is predicated upon God suiting you?

You're making assumptions. My believing or not believing wouldn't make God exist or not exist. I think you're projecting a bit. Now YOUR God is predicated on YOUR belief, but not mine. I can't make YOUR GOD not exist for YOU, but I don't have to believe in it.

* "The relationship there, is similar I think to what PZ is talking about, except while I just enjoy reading about science he actually became a scientist. "
PZ Myers is a scientist. That much is certain. But people must distinguish between evangelizing for atheism and science.

I'm not sure what you're going for here. There is no religion inside of science. It's atheistic just like engineering is atheistic. There's no God in it's premises. Now if you want to believe in God, well that's fine. Some scientists do. Some don't. Myers is an atheist and a scientist, and most of what he argues about is with people who want to add God to science. For the time being it looks like no one is putting God in engineering, which is probably good. I'd be scared to drive on an overpass that was held up by the power of prayer.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 24, 2009 2:52 PM

* "Ridiculous assertion. What about those of us who became atheist with ever hearing of Myers or Dawkins? "

We're you a feral child?

Easy, I stopped buying the stories I was being fed by people I knew who were religious (friends, family, priest, strangers on tv etc..). They didn't ring true with any logic to me.

I had never heard of Dawkins, PZ, Hitchens etc. when I started to question the idea of God. In fact I hadn't really heard of The above until 5-6 years ago. I've been an atheist (or agnostic) for 15 or so years before that.

After I got though college and was moving past agnostic into more atheist I discovered that my grandfather was along the same lines as I. He had never said anything about it (he rarely talked about himself) but one day it came up in a discussion. He had a library with Gould, Sagan, etc.. and lent me a few books. But this was years after I had stopped accepting what people had been telling me as the gospel truth.

Pretty easy deconversion. No strife, no anger, no horrible experiences. Just plain old using my own noggin and logical thinking.

Now however, I'm better read and think clearer.

I'm open to the possibility that someone has some amazing evidence or proof that could change my mind, but so far I haven't been privy to any grand uncovering of such things.

So you have some evidence I should consider?

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 2:53 PM

Hello Adam,

* "As others have stated, atheism makes no positive claim. "

Indeed. I agree with you, Adam.

Atheism is an intellectually vacant idea without any sort of positive basis in either science or logic or evidence or rationality.

We're making progress in this discussion though it is as if slogging through the mud of atheistic self-delusion & self-praise.

Posted by: Albatross | November 24, 2009 2:54 PM

"PZ Myers can speak on his own behalf. Perhaps he is out fishing right now and that is why he remains silent."

Or perhaps he is so overwhelmed by the compelling evidence you've presented that he is now sitting in a corner, drooling, his mind truly shattered by your astonishingly astute revelations about what all us atheists have truly thought, believed, and experienced.

Posted by: Sili | November 24, 2009 2:54 PM

Everytime a troll posts, PeeZed gets a flatscreen TV.

Or part of one, at least.

We should have a little counter so that we can see how much PeeZed makes when the trolls roll in. But I suspect that's proprietary information, unfortunately.

Posted by: Sil | November 24, 2009 2:56 PM

@309:

Sssh. Don't let them know we're all in it for the free electronics...

Posted by: Sastra | November 24, 2009 2:57 PM

David Mathews #270 wrote:

Again, by excluding atheism from the burden of proof you have excluded atheism from consideration as a scientific & rational manner of thinking.

No, because atheism is still falsifiable. Naturalism is falsifiable, as is materialism. Strong evidence for ESP, astrology, mind-body substance dualism, or magical correspondences connecting moral values to physical events would probably go a good way towards disproving all 3.

But the burden has to be on the paranormal and supernatural, because it is too easy otherwise to continually insist that the magic is hiding "behind" its physical explanation.

Secular humanists tend to approach religious claims the same way they approach paranormal and pseudoscientific ones, because, objectively speaking, they all hold traits that classify them together. Including the need for "having faith."

Posted by: The Science Pundit | November 24, 2009 2:58 PM

I'm going to repeat my request for the disemvowelment of a certain somebody. I honestly think that that will improve the conversation.

Posted by: Jessica | November 24, 2009 2:59 PM

Can we please cut it out with the gratuitous ageism? It is possible to come to intellectual conclusions at 12, and it's also possible to live to be 120 and never inspect your position on the world logically. I take offense to the idea that I should be wholly detached from who I am when I was younger, as if I was not fully human until I reached a certain age (which, by the way, seems to be inconsistent across cultures). Then again, I was often the one who noticed the logical fallacies in the actions, behaviors and positions of the 'adults', and it frustrated me to no end that their conclusions were seen as more valid than mine when they were deciding things on emotion and baseless assumptions. People should be judged on their competency, not their age, and they should not be made to reject everything they did when they were younger just because some people are uncomfortable with the idea of young people having personal agency and the ability to form worldviews on their own.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 24, 2009 3:00 PM

* "Quit lying. Theism makes claims without evidence, and is built on quicksand. Atheism makes no claims, but says "show me the evidence". We don't have to reject non-evidenced claims. They aren't valid without evidence. We are waiting for your evidence. Your failure to address this says you are trying a presuppositional argument, and all presuppositional arguments are false. And you babbling sure indicates that. "

At best you are asserting that theism and atheism are equally irrational and unscientific.

No... enough of this... you keep making claims like this... well I'm asking you to show your fucking work. Based on ANYTHING NoR said, how do you come to make that assertion? What in any of what NoR stated about atheism makes it irrational and unscientific? Go on... we're waiting...

I am betting you don't touch this question.

Posted by: s.k.graham | November 24, 2009 3:02 PM

@tsg #207:

"FC has routinely failed controlled testing where the patient can see an item (a picture, a word, etc) and the facilitator cannot. All the reasons you cite why it might be plausible are the same reasons FC proponents think it works. But it doesn't."

I have no doubt that there is probably quite a bit of fraud and/or self-deception in FC that does not stand up to controlled testing.

As I said, conscious communication must be established and verified independent of facilitated communication, and if the patient does have control over any small part of his body, this is to do -- a series of yes/know questions could go a long way to establish the patients level of cognitive function.

It would then be easier to set the patient up with some kind of "morse code" device connected to a computer to let them communicate. But I was supposing that for some reason it might have been less expensive or more convenient for this patient to use an FC.

As long as there is an independent channel of communication by which the FC can be verified and trust of the FC established, there is no reason it could not work as shown in the video.

However, the more I think about how easily and cheaply a communication code could be set up with some kind of computer interface, the more unreasonable the whole FC thing becomes. Why wasn't he talking with a computer like Stephen Hawking or some similar arrangement? Even if the muscle twitches were to weak to push a button, electrodes could be used to detect the faint muscle movement or nerve impulses.

I change my position. FC is entirely possible, but quite impractical in the face of simple technological solutions. So I gotta figure it is fraud or self-decption by default.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 24, 2009 3:03 PM

If this was truly the case then you must explain how our ancestors originated the god idea against their own natural atheism.

Posted by: Erika | November 24, 2009 3:04 PM

At any rate, I have an easy test for the article in question: use a "facilitator" who doesn't speak the language. (And preferably someone who speaks a language that isn't closely related, so that he/she can't guess the gist of the interview questions from common vocabulary.) If the man is indeed conscious and doing the communicating, he should have no trouble guiding his facilitator to the correct letters. If it turns out gobbledy-gook... well...

Posted by: BdN | November 24, 2009 3:04 PM

@Rev

No, you know, your whole story is pointless since you obviously built your own mythological shit to feel good about yourself.

I'm just trying to anticipate here...

Posted by: tsg | November 24, 2009 3:06 PM

But it is. The flat world is borne on the backs of four elephants that, in turn, are standing upon the shell of a giant turtle that is swimming through space. The turtle's name is "A'Tuin."

It's turtles all the way down.

Posted by: Anri | November 24, 2009 3:09 PM

David Mathews, quick question(s):

If a child disbelieves in Santa Claus due to an emotional reaction (because they are frightened by the concept, for example), have they made an incorrect conclusion?

And if not, how would you determine that?

To ask it in a different way:

Would you say that a child who reacted to a description of Santa Claus with the (emotional) reaction 'that sounds crazy to me', is forever barred from having a rational opinion on the existence of Santa Claus?
And if not, please explain why this would apply to one mystical being (Santa) and not another (god).

Or again:

Have you ever had an emotional reaction to the Santa Claus story?
Do you consider your current opinion of the Santa Claus story rational?

Thanks in advance.

Posted by: martha | November 24, 2009 3:09 PM

DaveM is baiting people into an emotional response, defined as trolling. It wouldn't be trolling if he gave an argument for his own position. But we don't even know his position.

Dave, I suggest that you take an elementary class on logic. Most of your attacks simply do not make sense logically and evidence a misunderstanding of what is atheism. You say in response to the argument that religion has not shown any proof for their claims:

"by excluding atheism from the burden of proof you have excluded atheism from consideration as a scientific & rational manner of thinking."

People here will go cross-eyed when seeing this because it makes no sense. Atheism is not making a claim that there is no god. It is saying that there is no evidence of a god and from what we know about the world and people, it doesn't seem as if evidence is forthcoming so the atheist is going to waste her time on the issue. Just like we don't waste time on Santa or the tooth fairy. This is the essence of rational and scientific thinking.

In contrast, religion makes positive claims. Religions positively asserts the existence of god or gods and positively asserts claims about the nature of god or gods. You can make all the claims you want, but there is no reason to believe a claim without proof.

Show me the money, Dave.

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 3:10 PM

Hello Sastra,

* "Well, I didn't read the book, but it purported to be a scientific study, and this does seem to track with my own experience, and the experience of most atheists -- including PZ, who emphasizes that his recollection of disappointment during the Apollo 8 mission wasn't a Road to Damascus moment. He wrote ... "

Poor PZ Myers began explaining his atheism and ended up talking about an entirely irrelevant event. This is precisely why I requested further clarification from PZ Myers in my first post.

* "Seed of doubt." This is talking about a gradual de-conversion, seems to me. And it's relatively easy for many of us to remember "re-interptreting" God, so that God gets less and less to do, less and less concrete, more abstract, more like a concept, and less like a Personal Being (and all the time, this makes God more "other," and therefore deeper and better.) Some of us can follow this God through different churches, and put a time and place on it. "

If PZ Myers actually meant this he could have said so easily enough without even mentioning Apollo 8. Perhaps PZ Myers is easily distracted ....

* "I don't see how this is "self-serving" and suspect. After all, the former-atheists-turned-theist are usually very enthusiastic about emphasizing that no, their conversion wasn't a gradual, rational conclusion like figuring out how evolution works -- it was like being bowled over, embraced by a person, and so forth and so on. They had an experience and they suddenly KNEW because they experienced God. "

Atheists and theists have this much in common when talking about their conversion experiences.

* "Usually, they will admit that, without this experience, it's not unreasonable to be an atheist. But they've had it, and there's no going back. At least, in my own experience of people who do seem to have been "former atheists," this is what they often say to me. "

Perhaps so or perhaps not. If some such person was here we could find out directly otherwise this talk is all pure speculation which sounds like atheists self-validating their own opinions.

Posted by: baldywilson | November 24, 2009 3:10 PM

David Mathews

No, Celtic Thunder, you are mistakenly conflating a philosophical argument with the history of humans behaving horrendously for a thousand different reasons.

Hmm... What was it you said earlier about "atheistic soviet Russia".

Oh yeah:

See, for example, the behavior of the atheistic Soviet Union and also the atheistic scientists who invented the nuclear bomb and assented to its use against civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

You were saying something about "conflating a philosophical argument with the history of humans behaving horrendously for a thousand different reasons"..

Posted by: Alyson Miers | November 24, 2009 3:11 PM

If this was truly the case then you must explain how our ancestors originated the god idea against their own natural atheism.

Daniel Dennett has done exactly that in Breaking the Spell. Given your reading comprehension in here, I doubt you'll get anything out of the book, but the explanation has been made.

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | November 24, 2009 3:12 PM

Dear Brother David Mathews,

Well done! Jesus tells me that thanks to your asinine interventions on this blog seven wavering Christians have now decided to throw off the mind-shackles of religion and embrace a life of reason.

Not much more I can say really, except that Jesus says you'll get your eternal reward, and I don't think he meant it in a good way.

May Satan have mercy on your soul, oh destroyer of my Christian mission.

SB

Posted by: tsg | November 24, 2009 3:13 PM

The fatal flaw in the argument:

2. Religion must have originated somehow. If it isn't self-generated in humans it must have had an outside source. If that source cannot be humankind, well ... atheism has placed itself in a conundrum.

Religion originated with people who didn't know as much as we do now. No conundrum at all.

Posted by: baldywilson | November 24, 2009 3:14 PM

@David Mathews

If PZ Myers actually meant this he could have said so easily enough without even mentioning Apollo 8. Perhaps PZ Myers is easily distracted ....

And yet he still managed to say it, and he still managed to communicate it. And you still have a reading comprehension problem....

Posted by: AdamK | November 24, 2009 3:16 PM

@s.k.graham, 321

I change my position.

Thank you. It is so refreshing when somebody has the good sense to reason things out instead of resorting to dogmatic defensiveness. Restores my confidence in humanity.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 24, 2009 3:18 PM

Atheists and theists have this much in common when talking about their conversion experiences.

You are learning nothing. We are still waiting for your conclusive evidence for your imaginary deity. I expect us to wait a long time. After all, if you had the eternally burning bush, you would be waving it in our faces. The fact that you aren't says all we need to know about your lack of evidence.

Posted by: AdamK | November 24, 2009 3:21 PM

Religion must have originated somehow. If it isn't self-generated in humans it must have had an outside source. If that source cannot be humankind, well ...

It was invented by our prescientific, preliterate ancestors. Luckily, culture evolves, and some of us--not you--are no longer ignorant enough to believe it.

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 3:22 PM

Hello tsg,

* "That primitive man got the idea that a man-like (but much bigger) thing made the world and all the people isn't surprising at all. We tend to go with what we know. Later we found out what really happened, but some never grew out of their stone-age mythology and continue to teach it to their children.

* "In the present day, people must be taught about god or the idea would never even occur to them.

* "If nobody knew about god, we'd all be atheists, we just wouldn't have a word for it."

The last sentence contradicts the first paragraph, TSG.

If the last sentence is true it would exclude the possibility of humans inventing belief in God.

So you are left with a mystery ... humans are born atheists and must remain atheists forever without some outside influence, yet our ancestors who were also born atheists somehow came to believe in the existence of gods.

How did this happen, tsg?

Posted by: Alyson Miers | November 24, 2009 3:23 PM

It is easy for you to make claims regarding yourself which are, by definition, beyond the reach of refutation by anyone else.

And yet you've felt perfectly comfortable telling all of us who we are all thread long, based on your presuppositions. Even better, you seem to think you're telling us something deep and original in asserting that you know us better than we know ourselves. Who taught you how to read minds, Dave? I wanna learn, too!

Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | November 24, 2009 3:25 PM

Religion must have originated somehow. If it isn't self-generated in humans it must have had an outside source. If that source cannot be humankind, well ... atheism has placed itself in a conundrum.

Religion started as a way to explain natural occurances which couldn't be explained at the time... like Zues for lightning, Posidon for ocean currents and storms, Apollo with the sun across the sky, etc

We can explain these things now. God isn't needed to explain it anymore. If you don't think so, please provide a list of natural occurences that can't be explained by natural means and therefore must facilitate divine origin.

Posted by: tsg | November 24, 2009 3:26 PM

Who the hell told you that all of the gods are mutually exclusive?

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Exodus 20:3

Posted by: Ol'Greg | November 24, 2009 3:27 PM

Religion must have originated somehow. If it isn't self-generated in humans it must have had an outside source. If that source cannot be humankind, well ...

No joke! I mean for a while I played with making up my own religion. It's really easy. My religion was pretty awesome, but I fell short of being nasty enough to try and get people to believe it and give me money.

But seriously this argument seems incongruent with all the very different religions all saying they are the one truth.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 24, 2009 3:27 PM

* "And since all these gods/sets of gods are more or less mutually exclusive, why should we assume any of them are anything other than fiction? "

Who the hell told you that all of the gods are mutually exclusive? Religious people make no such assertion except in the case of the most intolerant fundamentalists.

Leaving aside that you chose to ignore that Alyson was careful to say "more or less"... how does this assertion in any way back up your primary argument(s)? Or are you just looking to score points?

Posted by: llewelly | November 24, 2009 3:27 PM

David Mathews | November 24, 2009 11:47 AM:

The actual post at hand seems quite silly and not worthy of any sort of response.

Posted by: baldywilson | November 24, 2009 3:28 PM

Woah! David Mathews @#348: Are you sure you meant to say this?

Otherwise, religious people have not had any difficulty at all acknowledging the identifying with the gods of other cultures. This can be documented even among the Christians as they adopted pagan myths and rituals (see, for example, Christmas) and also among Catholics (see the fusion between Catholic and Native American religions in South and Central America).

Are you suggesting that modern religions are simply a synthesis of earlier religions, with each earlier relgion being co-opted by latter religions as others gained favour and others fell out of favour? Are you suggesting that religions mutate and change over time? That Christianity hasn't been fixed in time but has mutated itself to the convenience of the cultures it has assimilated? Are you suggesting that religion is a dynamic thing, that the idea of God can't be fixed in time?

Are you suggesting that modern religion is simply a product of time and social dynamics, that it necessarily has nothing to say about the truth of any of those religions that have existed over time and through a process of migration, co-option and adaptation lead to the religions of the world as we currently know them?

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 3:29 PM

Hello Kema,

* "Atheism isn't dogma. It is a lack of belief in a diety. There is nothing that says you have to believe anything other than that. You can be an atheist and contend the world is 6000 years old if you want to. "

I agree, Kema. Atheism is an altogether intellectually vacant idea as empty as a vacuum and equally meaningless.

You wrote a whole bunch more in your post but I don't have the time to write a book in response so I will limit my comments to the above relevant statement you made about atheism.

Atheism isn't science, atheism's isn't reason, atheism isn't rationality, atheism isn't anything at all.

Posted by: Ol'Greg | November 24, 2009 3:30 PM

Nested blockquote fail.

Posted by: Sastra | November 24, 2009 3:31 PM

Dave Mathews #324 wrote:

The argument by the atheists:
1. A newborn baby is an atheist and will remain so forever without any imposition of faith from an outside source.

Not quite. Children have a natural tendency to anthropomorphise impersonal objects, project their own egocentrism into events, categorize in terms of dualism, and see intention where there is none. These habits are usually outgrown, but not always -- particularly if they're built on, and encouraged by their cultural environment.

But the specifics -- these have to be taught.

You know, if that weren't the case -- if children around the world would spontaneously know details about Krishna, or Jesus, or some other story without being previously exposed to them -- then this would be strong evidence against atheism. It would be very hard to explain under naturalism.

The fatal flaw in the argument:
2. Religion must have originated somehow. If it isn't self-generated in humans it must have had an outside source. If that source cannot be humankind, well ... atheism has placed itself in a conundrum.

Religion originated from natural human tendencies towards error (supernaturalism) and other natural human tendencies towards bonding in tribes, and with each other. Keep in mind that, in order to explain "belief in God," you also need to explain animism, superstition, and magical thinking. There are no strong dividing lines in how they're believed, learned, applied, etc.

Posted by: Styrbjörn | November 24, 2009 3:34 PM

Hello David Mathews,

a) These numbered comments below one of the posts by the blogger are collectively referred to as a "thread".

b) The main topic and purpose of such a thread is to discuss and reflect on what the blogger wrote about in his post (which is up there above this comment thread).

c) None of your many comments are about the main topic of this thread.

d) Luckily, PZ Myers has made a special post with the purpose to create a comment thread for arbitrary topics such as yours. It is called �Escape from the planet of the cursed undead heart of the vengeful bride of the son of the thread that will not die!�.

e) Other commenters on this thread have respectfully asked you to post in that thread, which has been specially designated for arbitrary topics, instead of this thread, and I urge you to follow their advice.

f) Thank you for your cooperation.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 24, 2009 3:34 PM

You know, David Mathews, you've been asked several direct questions and can't be bothered to answer any of them... you've asked several questions and have completely ignored the responses...

I think I've seen this act before, and I think we've given enough information to any potential fence-sitters that I am calling it a day with this woo-addled, tiresome, obtuse, stubborn, intellectually deficient troll.

Done.

Posted by: Alyson Miers | November 24, 2009 3:35 PM

Who the hell told you that all of the gods are mutually exclusive? Religious people make no such assertion except in the case of the most intolerant fundamentalists.

The majority of practicing monotheists today--that would be a hell of a lot of people, as you've already pointed out as if we weren't aware we were the minority--maintain that their God is the only valid one, and all other gods are fictional. The history of Christianity and Islam are soaked in the blood of pagans and other heathens because the last thing the missionaries wanted was for their converts to sully the purity of The One True Faith with those other, false gods.

Otherwise, religious people have not had any difficulty at all acknowledging the identifying with the gods of other cultures. This can be documented even among the Christians as they adopted pagan myths and rituals (see, for example, Christmas) and also among Catholics (see the fusion between Catholic and Native American religions in South and Central America).

Irrelevant. The practitioners still hold that their God is the only real one.

Intolerance is exclusive. Religion is inclusive.

Most major world religions have intolerance built in. In fact, that's how they became major world religions.

So the claim that belief in god is mutually exclusively is evidently false.

You've asserted everything and refuted nothing. Boring.

Posted by: baldywilson | November 24, 2009 3:37 PM

David Mathews:

I make the decision. It needs no special justification since I am one individual engaged in an argument with a mob.

A "mob" that you chose to engage with. If you were not confident in your ability to answer the questions that were inevitably going to be fired your way, you should have stayed well away. You are not some heroic fighter for justice, going down in flames by the evil atheists.

You are a person on a computer who deliberately insulted the owner of a popular blog, and who was then asked - rightly hostile - questions by other people on computers, most of which you have chosen to ignore.

You decide which to answer? Then say, "I will answer this question because I want to". Don't say, "I will answer this question because it is worthy of my attention" or "I refuse to answer this question because it is unworthy of my attention".

You don't answer most questions put to you because you don't want to. Why don't you just say that.

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 3:38 PM

Hello Chris P,

* "Isn't it special to be told by somebody that you cannot do what you know you did. I became an atheist through my own thoughts and analysis."

You are lying about your own history, ChrisP, just as PZ Myers lied about his emotional reaction to the Apollo 8 mission.

The above claim is beyond the reach of confirmation so I will dismiss it outright.

* "I noticed that nobody's prayers worked, that God did not intervene and a whole load of other stuff. "

Given that there are billions of humans on the planet it is unlikely that you engaged in the above "experiment".

* "I then read Dawkin's book and said "YES" - he had written down my own conclusions. "

Was he reading your mind? Must be atheism ESP.

* "I had never spoken to anybody about my thoughts. "

Don't lie to your own self.

Posted by: Rik G | November 24, 2009 3:41 PM

Hello David Mathews,
Good bye David Mathews.

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 3:42 PM

Hello Janine,

* "How do you know that all of the scientists that worked on the Manhattan Project were atheists? Also, the decision to drop the atomic bombs were Harry Truman's. Was he an atheist? And except for the magnitude of the explosions, how were the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki different from the other aerial bombings of civilians. "

Now you are attempting to morally justify the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki!

You have demonstrated that there are no moral principles of atheism which forbid the mass murder of civilians in wartime or at any other time.

Nor is it possible to derive such a morality from an intellectually vacant idea such as atheism. Atheism cannot impose any sort of morality upon atheists.

How could atheism forbid an atheist from engaging in violence, warfare, mass murder and genocide?

Please do explain. I've waited my whole life to hear an atheism formulate such a morality within the confines of atheism's vacuum.

Posted by: speedwell | November 24, 2009 3:45 PM

Dave, it doesn't matter a bit that atheism is a contentless notion. That's kind of the point. You are making the claim that God exists, or religion is true, or something. We're all waiting for you to back it up with reality and logic.

(looks at watch)

You can't, can you? I mean, you really can't?

Posted by: tsg | November 24, 2009 3:47 PM

Now you are attempting to morally justify the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki!

Argument by making shit up and pretending they said it?

You're not just deluded, you're deliberately dishonest. Just another Liar For Jesus^TM.

That's it. I'm done. Into the killfilter with you.

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 3:47 PM

Hello Nerd of Redhead,

* "What burden of proof? Not believing in something is a default."

This does not constitute a legitimate scientific or philosophical argument. You are essentially engaged in a circular argument which atheism self-confirming itself.

* " The burden of proof is always on those making the claims. Atheists make no claims, but theists do."

For people who "make no claims" the atheists have said a whole bunch, wrote entire libraries of books, engaged in debates, and boasted to each other about their own superiority.

* "Ergo, the burden of proof is upon deists to back up their claims with evidence. Which isn't happening in your case. "

If you set the rules for the argument you cannot help but set them up to your own advantage. You cannot possibly approach this question objectively or rationally. Nor scientifically, either.

* "So, what? Not believing doesn't require thought, as it is the default."

Atheism doesn't require any thought. Sure as hell we agree about something!

* "Believing does, but the thought becomes delusional without evidence. And you never present any. You still have presented no evidence for your imaginary deity. "

You must assume that I am a preacher. I'm not in the conversion business. You'll need to look to someone else for that job.

Posted by: BdN | November 24, 2009 3:49 PM

DM "You are lying about your own history, ChrisP, just as PZ Myers lied about his emotional reaction to the Apollo 8 mission."

You're absolutely right : PZ never had an emotional reaction to the Apollo 8 mission. Rather, the roots for his atheism are elsewhere. So WHAT THE FUCK IS YOUR PROBLEM WITH THIS ???

And if you can tell everybody that everything they say about themselves is a lie, well, I guess we can consider that everything you say is a lie as well so THERE'S NO FUCKING POINT TO ARGUE ANYMORE!!!

I know what you're gonna say : angry atheist, bitter, blablabla, fap fap fap, but you don't seem to be able to make the difference between being angry at a stupid troll and a position on any subject. I don't "believe" in AGW because I'm angry at the deniers, but I'm angry at some of them because they are morons who cannot think for a split second.

Posted by: daveau | November 24, 2009 3:52 PM

Slightly ON topic:

Maybe they should get this poor man a communication facilitator who can help him answer the questions in Chinese. Look! Another miracle!

Posted by: Knockgoats | November 24, 2009 3:52 PM

Atheism cannot impose any sort of morality upon atheists. - Dave Thick-as-two-short-planks Mathews

Of course it can't, dolt. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. That's all. If a morality is "imposed" on you, then of course, it's not a morality at all - moral principles are something you need to choose for yourself. But I wouldn't expect a thick-as-two-short-planks Christard to understand that.

Harry S Truman was a convinced Christian, incidentally.

Posted by: Alyson Miers | November 24, 2009 3:53 PM

You are lying about your own history, ChrisP,

And you still haven't told us where you learned to read minds. Now 'fess up. How is it that you know how our minds work so much better than we do? How do you understand our lives so well that you know we're lying about ourselves?

You have demonstrated that there are no moral principles of atheism which forbid the mass murder of civilians in wartime or at any other time.

Oh, yawn. This is a PRATT.

Humanism, reason and logic are the cranes which build healthy structures of civilization. Atheism is the bulldozer that gets the termite-infested superstition out of the way.

Better trolls, please!

Posted by: anonymouroboros | November 24, 2009 3:54 PM

@David Mathews

Atheism is always derived from some other source. Otherwise there wouldn't be any need for PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins to evangelize on behalf of atheism.

* "I didn't come to atheism from a lack of answers, or some childhood trauma, or because my preacher treated me badly. I came to atheism because there were no answers to doubt in Christianity. I came to atheism because the Christian text was self-contradictory. I came to atheism because my prayers went unanswered - until I finally realized that I was only talking to myself. " Need I point out that these aren't scientific arguments? They are irrational-emotional.

1. God provides answers to those doubting him (found to be false)

2. God provides his believers with a coherent, accurate, and logical text (found to be false)

3. God answers prayers (found to be false)

They are the very definition of rational. He did not keep his conclusion simply because he wanted the answer to be true. Rather, he went with the evidence. The fact that these hypotheses were found to be false discredits the idea of any sort of god actively involved with the universe. It seems to be your emotional prerogative to reject anything that doesn't fit your box for what atheism results from. Again, this fits with your prerogative to fit atheism into a conclusion you came to without very much solid evidence prior.

* " Atheism is the default rational position for the same reasons atoothfairyism is." According to the atheists, of course ...

Wow, I'm impressed. How many decades did you invest in this project? Did you become a professional scholar and objectively engage in comparative religion?

You've made a wide-ranging pyschological judgment that all atheism is based on some emotional component. Are you a psychologist? Are you a neuroscientist? I didn't think so. To say someone must be a scholar of religion to make valid judgments about religion is as ridiculous as saying that one must be a psychologist to make judgments about the psychology of atheism. If you honestly believed that, you wouldn't be here. I like to assume all of my opponent's arguments are made in good faith, but this truly strains my abilities to believe such in your case.

So far, the only evidence you've given for your conclusion that all atheism has an emotional component has been a theme and variations on "atheists always seem so angry...". It is a conclusion based on anecdote and likely reinforced by what you usually read. It is likely you interpret anything against Christianity as "anger" which reinforces your conclusion. Anytime you see people mentioning atheism positively, you interpret it as "evangelism" because atheists tend to express emotions when they do so. I note that by using "evangelism" to describe atheists' efforts though, you implicitly acknowledge that all of the evangelism that you know of is based solely on an emotional component (and acknowledge that religion is largely irrational as well), thus you equivocate atheists promoting atheism and "evangelism" so you can maintain your existing views and comfort yourself thinking that atheism is just as emotional as Christianity. This may or may not actually be true, but at least it is a comforting thought to him. To reiterate, all of this is emotional and not rational. Technically, Mathews has already acknowledged that religion is inherently irrational (to some degree), but wants to make atheism irrational as well so that he can do the "different points of view" and/or "different starting points" nonsense from which presuppositionalism results (though Mathews may not be a presuppositionalist himself).

Even if all atheism were based on an emotional component, I do not see how this would provide evidence for a god. I also do not see how that would prevent an atheist's arguments from being rational even if they themselves disbelieved due to irrationality. You can try to prove that atheism is irrational, but it would mean nothing unless you gave actual, objective evidence for your position.

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 3:55 PM

Hello Celtic Thunder,

* "Man, you are thick. Atheism is merely the position that, concerning the existence of deities, there is no proof, and proof is requisite for consideration... why would such a logical position require a burden of proof? Stop being stupid, for the love of reason! "

Atheism isn't merely a denial of the existence of gods. Atheists have written 100,000s of pages in addition to this simple vacant denial of the existence of gods.

Atheists must spend all of their time talking and never listen to what they are saying ...

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 24, 2009 3:57 PM

Whatever ... are you suggesting that PZ Myers might become a theist?

Posted by: lose_the_woo | November 24, 2009 3:58 PM

Un. Fucking. Believable.

Posted by: BdN | November 24, 2009 4:00 PM

Well, you really are dumb liar. I'm off to see if I can find a distribution by Ray's servants. Probably much funnier trolls there...

Posted by: speedwell | November 24, 2009 4:00 PM

Atheists have written 100,000s of pages in addition to this simple vacant denial of the existence of gods.

That's because we aren't talking about atheism. We're talking about theistic fallacies and abuses, humanistic philosophy, scientific materialism, and so forth. If you theists weren't so fucking ignorant and immoral, there really would be nothing to say to you, or about you.

Posted by: Dutch Delight | November 24, 2009 4:02 PM

"Nor is it possible to derive such a morality from an intellectually vacant idea such as atheism. Atheism cannot impose any sort of morality upon atheists."

The stupid, it burns.

You can't get lemonade from crushing bricks either.

If you want to know something about morality, you should try checking out moral frameworks. What does this have to do with believing or not believing in your god?

Are you seriously suggesting that the primitive might-makes-right morality of some deity trumps secular moral frameworks?

Stop boring us with your platitudes, do some reading, and come back apologizing for being such an ignorant tool.

Posted by: Confused | November 24, 2009 4:02 PM

Ack.

Any chance of warning us before you link to the Daily Fail in future? They make my brain hurt.

According to a proper newspaper:

"Houben now communicates with one finger and a special touchscreen on his wheelchair – he has developed some movement with the help of intense physiotherapy over the last three years."

Whatever the flaws with assisted communication, unless the reports are wildly exagerrating, it looks pretty clear that he is actually conscious. It'd be a pretty sick hoax if it wasn't. Given as you say it would be dangerously easy to disprove, at this point (given he's published papers on the case) it would be career suicide for everyone involved if it was. This ain't faking a blot on a gel, if he does turn out to still be a vegetable people will find out sooner or later.

Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | November 24, 2009 4:04 PM

I agree, Kema. Atheism is an altogether intellectually vacant idea as empty as a vacuum and equally meaningless.

Reading comprehension fail. I said nothing of the sort.

You wrote a whole bunch more in your post but I don't have the time to write a book in response so I will limit my comments to the above relevant statement you made about atheism.

Translation: I claim the rest of your statements irrelevent because I don't have a good answer.

Atheism isn't science, atheism's isn't reason, atheism isn't rationality, atheism isn't anything at all.

*sigh* Really? That's the best you can do?

Posted by: Knockgoats | November 24, 2009 4:05 PM

Atheists have written 100,000s of pages in addition to this simple vacant denial of the existence of gods. - Dave Christurd Mathews

That's because Christurds such as yourself, and other Religidiots, cause such damage and destruction with their wickedness and stupidity. If you caused as little trouble as the believers in leprachauns, atheists would have written no more about atheism than aleprachaunists have about aleprachaunism. Really, it is tiresome arguing with someone quite as stupid as you.

Posted by: Alyson Miers | November 24, 2009 4:06 PM

Atheists must spend all of their time talking and never listen to what they are saying ...

And the mirror continues to shine.

Posted by: amphiox | November 24, 2009 4:07 PM

Those of you who have accused David Matthews of being a troll and trying to derail this initially completely unrelated thread, consider the title of the thread, and realize that his presence within it is perfectly appropriate.

Posted by: Madrigalia | November 24, 2009 4:08 PM

Sorry to get back to the actual topic, but...

New questions arise

It appears that the media are slowly, grudgingly, getting this aspect of the story. The linked article is titled "Comatose for 23 years Belgian feels reborn" but is from a link, buried in the Yahoo carousel, labeled "New questions arise". It contains these bits:

Assisted by a speech therapist who rapidly moved his finger letter by letter along a touch-screen keyboard, ...

It's clear, and reported, that the typing is very rapid, not what I'd expect.

Arthur Caplan, a bioethics professor at the University of Pennsylvania, said he is skeptical of Houben's ability to communicate after seeing video of his hand being moved along the keyboard.

"That's called 'facilitated communication,'" Caplan said. "That is ouija board stuff. It's been discredited time and time again. When people look at it, it's usually the person doing the pointing who's doing the messages, not the person they claim they are helping."

Caplan also said the statements Houben allegedly made with the computer seem unnatural for someone with such a profound injury and an inability to communicate for decades.

Thus, buried in the story with the credulous title and largely credulous text, is indication that at least some knowledgeable person things the communication is bogus.

And, showing that Laureys has a vested interest in disproving PVS diagnoses:

Dr. Steven Laureys said he has discovered some degree of consciousness using state-of-the-art equipment in other patients but won't say how many. He looks at about 50 cases from around the world a year but none are as extreme as that of Rom Houben, who was fully conscious inside a paralyzed body. Many center on the fine distinction between a vegetative state and minimal consciousness.

He said Tuesday that: "It is very difficult to tell the difference."

His studies showed that some 40 percent of patients with consciousness disorders are wrongly given a diagnosis of a vegetative state.

"It is clearly unacceptable. It is four times out of ten that they think the patient is in a vegetative state but in reality he is minimally conscious," Laureys said.

Posted by: Menyambal | November 24, 2009 4:10 PM

Hey, Dave, they are talking about you over on the thread you should be on.

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 4:11 PM

Hello Ol' Greg,

* "It has been a really long time but for me it was mostly about the way properties can emerge because they work which leads to systems that are more complex, some times more complex than they might ideally be. It struck a chord with me I guess because I work with building functioning things with computers, so there was a logic to me that appealed accounting for a lot of the messy stuff when you think about why, for instance, some things have eyes that could be better and some things have eyes that are awesome. "

All of this information is interesting but it has nothing whatosever to do with either theism or atheism.

Richard Dawkins evangelizes for atheism in an unscientific manner by necessity since atheism isn't a principle of science (however you might wish to believe otherwise).

The sad thing is that Richard Dawkins uses his status as a legitimate scientists as a cover for explicitly unscientific activities such as evangelism.

Much of Richard Dawkins' scientfic work is questionable, too, but it is difficult to objectively investigate such matters when he spends his time preaching to the choir and attempting to offend all of the planet's religious people with trollish comments specifically designed to draw a public outcry and provide him with unwarranted news coverage for his sermonizing.

Posted by: Alyson Miers | November 24, 2009 4:13 PM

I doubt that you have seriously investigated the claims of religion and also doubt that you could objectively do so. You already have your own form of non-negotiable dogmatism and that is all you will ever need.

And where did you learn to read minds, jackass? Share the knowledge! Inquiring minds want to know!

Posted by: LadyShea | November 24, 2009 4:14 PM

I don't believe in the existence of any deities I have heard about. The word used for that state of disbelief is atheist.

Why is that a problem for you David?

Posted by: Steve_C | November 24, 2009 4:16 PM

I'm sensing DM is a banned troll. He seems very familiar. I think PZ will let us know which from the dungeon he is.

Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | November 24, 2009 4:17 PM

You could simply be a troll, of course. But I will keep that deep, dark, troubling suspicion to myself, and assume good faith. As a hypothetical, if need be.

Sastra, in the past, you have expressed self doubt about your snark-fu. Trust me, your snark-fu is subtle but mighty.

Posted by: Owlmirror | November 24, 2009 4:17 PM

You are lying about your own history, ChrisP, just as PZ Myers lied about his emotional reaction to the Apollo 8 mission.

Clearly, you are very angry to make such accusations against someone you don't know.

Obviously, your anti-atheism is nothing more than a completely irrational emotional reaction.

Did you have a bad experience with atheism when you were very young and too irrational to know better?

Posted by: Sarah | November 24, 2009 4:18 PM

My bullshit-o-metre nearly exploded watching this video. It's PAINFULLY obvious that the woman is doing ALL of the communicating (there's another video someone linked too in which Dom is obviously asleep but still able to write coherently even with his eyes closed!).

I also noticed at one point in the video the reporter went over to the computer and held Dom's hand. I notice they didn't show him actually facilitating the communication with Dom.

As for the troll in the dungeon, I became an atheist as an adult (although I think, in all honesty, I was an atheist as a child but didn't know what an atheist was). I found christianity lacked intelligent, logical, answers to life's mysteries. I tried Judaism, Hinduism, and several eastern philosophies.

When I went to college I took biology, chemistry and physics (among other things) and found that the sciences answered my questions cogently, and with more honesty and truth than any religion I had studied.

I won't for a moment claim I looked into all the world religions. I still research new (to me) religions as they come about and have yet to find one that matches, let alone surpasses, the honesty that I find in atheism and science.

BTW other than being expelled from the catholic school system for asking "inappropriate" questions in the 3rd grade I've never had a "traumatic" religious experience.... Well, there was that christian revival meeting I went to in my teens but I've blocked most of those memories out. :)

Posted by: flyonethewall | November 24, 2009 4:20 PM

FYI,

Dave Matthews of the Dave Matthews band is an atheist (at least that's what I read), so let's not confuse him with this troll.

Posted by: Knockgoats | November 24, 2009 4:20 PM

Is it really possible the TV journalist in that clip didn't see what a load of crap this story is? Any journalist worth his salt would have made some effort to check it out - like whispering his questions into the patient's ear. If he asked to do this and they refused - it's fraud. If he asked and they accepted but it didn't work - self-deception. If it worked - it's real. But, as the clip says, it was both "terrifying and uplifting". Just the thing for a slow news night, and screw the people for whom it raised false hopes.

Posted by: Steve_C | November 24, 2009 4:22 PM

David,

Are you a Mormon? Do you wear magic underwear?

Posted by: Mark A. Siefert | November 24, 2009 4:23 PM

Atheism isn't merely a denial of the existence of gods.

No. "Denial of the existence of gods" IS all that atheism is. That's atheism very definition, moron! It makes no other propositions; not about morality nor ethics, not about the origins of the cosmos, not about life on Earth. You need much more than a statement pertaining to the existence of a deity to create a philosophy or a religion. Anything else you tack onto "atheism" is just you projecting your own biases onto it.

Now, until you get a clue, I kindly suggest you shut the fuck up. You have the gall to lecture us about our alleged ignorance of other religions, but you are obviously and grossly ignorant about what atheism actually is.

Posted by: Dirty Hairy | November 24, 2009 4:24 PM

#445-And I thought the conversation was getting stupid BEFORE this...

Quick raise of flippers, idiots, who was ACTUALLY thinking this was the famous musician Dave Matthews?

Thanks for participating. Here's your ribbon.

Posted by: sinned34 | November 24, 2009 4:24 PM

David Mathews: hardening hearts to the gospel, one misleading, insulting comment at a time!

Posted by: ConcernedJoe | November 24, 2009 4:26 PM

Wow DM - you got to be a Poe! Right?

I am not being mean - I really mean it - several times I found myself like laughing out loud. Your fluff supported by vacuousness has to be well tuned satire. I am being serious - you are good.

But if you are for real I'll make several comments:

1. Even little kids come to the realization that Santa ain't for real. But they cling a bit longer for the perks and to satisfy social expectations. Carrying on...

2. Religion is a very powerful social force - it is the power structure in many societies. With such societal pressures one might cling or be in denial longer (even forever) of what they really feel. Gosh in some countries or even in some parts of the USA being a outright-atheist can be downright hazardous to your social standing, welfare, or freedom. Go with herd - less costly the inner mind says - and it is right in many ways! Carrying on ...

3. Except for religion we mostly expect children to start to think realistically and separate fantasies from reality at least minimally fairly early. In my day our parents expected us to recognize flying was only for birds or Superman in the comics regardless what we saw, heard, or read.

4. So science of a sort (the critical thinking part) starts to develop early on - helpful for the survivial of the species. Except when it comes to religion we generally demand children and adults to recognize fantasies from reality.

5. God or other woo-woo beliefs may develop in some even if parents are devoid of it. First there is that pesky god centric society even children interact with. Further there are mental conditions innate or fostered by natural or artificial "chemistry", etc. In otherwords shit happens. Again religion is powerful in most societies.

6. I outted myself as an atheist as a young man. I was not mad - nor did I really have to think about it much at all. I just "woke up one day" in early manhood and knew this god stuff is hocus pocus. Perhaps science education helped but mostly I think it all became so patently silly and immature. I've never looked back, been unsure or scared of my ephifany, nor doubted that I am as moral as an imperfect normal person can be. I just do not believe in magic or the raving or wishful thinking of primatives.

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 4:29 PM

Hello Dutch Delight,

* "Like many atheists, I never believed in gods. And there's really no reason for me to research all of them before rejecting them (even though i have researched more then most religious people I've ever met). It's the theist who has to explain why he chose to accept a particular supernatural belief and not another. Atheists are not the hypocrites here, they treat all supernatural nonsense the same. "

Personal boastful claims of this sort are, intrinsically, subjective and beyond the reach of verification or refutation.

If atheists spend all of their time praising their own self this sort of talk still doesn't amount to much.

It is common for people to elevate their own opinions ... atheists engage in this sort of silliness with a gusto which serves as a substitute for actual rational, scientific thought processes.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 24, 2009 4:31 PM

A Jew, a Muslim and a Christian came upon Jesus. The Jew, being a charitable fellow, said "There is a somewhat misguided rabbi who had some commendable teaching." The Muslim said "there is a great messenger, who was not crucified as some say." And the Christian said: "There stands God, creator of the universe, and risen from the dead."

Irreconcilable differences.

Not at all. If such an occurrence were to actually happen, I'm sure the three would have no difficulty at all resolving the truth of his claims to be Jesus the Saviour (provided Jesus wasn't fucking them all around with any "Do Not Test the Lord Thy God" bullshit), and centuries of bloody fighting would have been for nought but God's misanthropic amusement.

Posted by: John M | November 24, 2009 4:32 PM

#416 amphiox

Err... Iranians do - execute their disobedient children that is. Those that suffer from confusion about what is culturally acceptable sexuality, right about the time of life when they are immersed in puberty, get to be legally strangled courtesy of the theocracy there.

Posted by: pigeon | November 24, 2009 4:33 PM

I actually laughed out loud when I watched the video!! TOTAL HOAX, people!!! Too bad the media didn't vet these scam artists before reporting on this miracle story.

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 4:34 PM

Hello Alyson,

* "Wrong again. Either there is a god/gods at work in our universe, or not. Based on the available evidence, we conclude that there is no reason to think there are any gods to be found. If someone can give us some usable evidence of at least on god in our intersubjective reality, then we'll no longer be atheists. But of course that evidence will have to be something better than pareidolia/Pascal's Wager/Yay Jesus!/the Holey Babble/Everyone's Doing It. To date, such evidence has not been presented. "

Have you considered the possibility that a human demanding evidence for God makes about as much sense as an amoeba attempting to comprehend quantum mechanics?

You aren't speaking to a person who is at all impressed by humankind or human intellect or the human manner of thinking and especially not by the human manner of life.

When you say "I cannot see any evidence for God" all I can say is, "The cats cannot comprehend astronomy either and they cannot even know that they don't comprehend".

I have very low expectations regarding the thought processes of a primate. Humankind's behavior on the Earth doesn't merit any claims regarding the quality of human thought processes.

Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | November 24, 2009 4:35 PM

Heddle, this is the wrong thread but on this subject, I completely agree with you.

Posted by: Mark A. Siefert | November 24, 2009 4:37 PM

How so? You'd better present some evidence on behalf of these extraordinary claims.

It's simple, moron. You make a testable, reproducible claim and conduct an experiment. I take you slept through seventh grade science class.

I doubt it. Atheists would still find a reason to deny such evidence even if it existed...

No, fucktard. Once again, atheism has nothing to say about ESP, psychic powers, UFOs, bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, or any other supernatural claim ... other than the existence of a "god."

Show us the proof and then we'll be convinced. If you don't have said proof, your blowing moonbeams and rainbows out of your ass.

If you say so ... but you've left yourself an escape.

That's not "an escape," pig-shit-for-brains. That's how science works. You make a testable, reproducible claim. Then you prove a testable, reproducible claim by collecting evidence through observation and experimentation.

Posted by: Sastra | November 24, 2009 4:37 PM

David Mathews #448 wrote:

How so? An intellectually vacant idea is beyond the reach of falsifiability.

Apologists have made many attempts to use science to find God -- Fine Tuning, the Argument from Design, Quantum Consciousness. People who believe in supernatural forces have parapsychology. There are frequent claims that some specifically religious beliefs -- reincarnation, life after death, miracles, prophesy -- have been "scientifically validated."

If this were the case, and any one of these examples stood up under scrutiny --just like natural claims -- then a reasonable atheist/naturalist/materialist would be forced to admit that their working theory wasn't sufficient to explain the results. It could happen. It just hasn't.

I doubt it. Atheists would still find a reason to deny such evidence even if it existed, and legitimately so, because these things are actually irrelevant to the question.

Well, it depends on how the terms are defined, but I think most atheists could and would think that, if these were verifiably true, then theism is either most likely, or more likely, than it currently is.

Most honest atheists. If you're going to talk about what dishonest people would do, you're going to lose your audience.

Secular humanists don't possess any special status in my mind so I have no reason to regard any of their opinions as worthy of attention.

But you're asking questions and making statements about atheism, which really apply to secular humanism, or at least Naturalism. As others have pointed out, "atheism" is too broad a category.

Posted by: John | November 24, 2009 4:40 PM

"How could such a belief originate if atheism is humankind's perpetual default viewpoint?"

Because people looked up and needed an explanation to why the sky was shooting lazerbeams.

Go watch gorillas, they to, are pissed at the sky

Posted by: realinterrobang | November 24, 2009 4:40 PM

I "became" an atheist (inasmuch as I never became anything else) through basically the same logical process Alec describes in his beautiful little snippet of propositional calculus.

The culture at large introduced me to this "religion" idea (in my case, Christianity), and I looked at the claims it was making, and I looked at the world around me, saw that the claims Christianity was making were contrary to what I was observing with my own eyes, and decided to trust my lying eyes instead of the local Liars for Jesus. I distinctly remember a period where I neither believed the claims nor disbelieved them; I was still thinking about them, and I'd filed them off in the side of my head until I had enough evidence either way. I'm still waiting for some actual evidence for gods. In the meantime, I'm running with "No evidence, no gods."

I don't think I'd ever even heard of Richard Dawkins until I was well into my 20s; when I thought through my primitive logic and came to my conclusion that gods probably didn't exist, he'd just gotten famous in scientific circles for The Selfish Gene, but kids in small towns in rural Canada don't have access to current science books. I didn't even know another open atheist until I was almost finished high school!

My atheism predates loud, public atheism by a good 25 years. My parents claim they're religious, but are generally too lazy to actually go to church, and I've never seen either of them read any religious text whatsoever, not the Bible, not the Torah, not the Qu'ran, not the Vedas and Upanishads, not the Tao Teh Ching.

Posted by: Mighty Atheist | November 24, 2009 4:42 PM

DM: Let go of the argumentum ad populum. It is meaningless that the majority of humanity believes in a single or multiple divinities. Also, it is irrelevant how long the idea of religion has been around. People believed that diseases were caused by the influence of the stars, possibly for thousands of years. This does not make the idea true. Just because a lot of people believe something for a long time doesn't make it so.

Posted by: David Estlund | November 24, 2009 4:44 PM

Wow. I haven't seen trolling like this since my IRC days, but I've pretty much avoided the blogosphere for years until lately. David Mathews, atheists (especially "new" atheists) are agnostics who are fed up with people like you posing every fallacious argument in the book against our lack of faith in a desperate attempt to justify your own. We get emotionally charged because the hypocrisy quickly reaches hazardous levels. It's exasperating. If you were to spend much time around us, you'd notice that we get along very well with people of faith when the discussion is more like the following:
Christian: "Do you have a church?"
Atheist: "I don't believe in God."
Christion: "Really? I wish you did. I enjoy church. Have you had lunch?"

Posted by: idle.pip.verisignlabs.com | November 24, 2009 4:46 PM

The one thing that would put this all to bed, would be to have a "facilitator" who doesn't speak, or cant type in the language he speaks in. If his answers make sense, bingo. Or just ask questions about things only he can see, but she cannot...

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 4:46 PM

Hello Martha,

* "Atheism is not making a claim that there is no god. It is saying that there is no evidence of a god and from what we know about the world and people, it doesn't seem as if evidence is forthcoming so the atheist is going to waste her time on the issue. Just like we don't waste time on Santa or the tooth fairy. This is the essence of rational and scientific thinking. "

You claim that your opinions are the essence of rationality and scientific thinking. I'm not so impressed either by your opinions or your thought processes. But self-praise is enough for atheists because without self-praise they wouldn't have any praise at all.

* "In contrast, religion makes positive claims. Religions positively asserts the existence of god or gods and positively asserts claims about the nature of god or gods. You can make all the claims you want, but there is no reason to believe a claim without proof. "

Considering the intrinsic nature of the god idea I really doubt that a primate's mind could actually contain it within any sort of objective argument. Humankind has difficulty enough thinking about a time span of 1000 years duration, how then might a primate get its mind around the idea of god?

I'd just as soon as a cat to think about god than offer proof to a primate that god exist.

There are some ideas bigger than the primate manner of thinking. The human mind is one imperfect, flawed and perpetually prone to error tool.

Posted by: BdN | November 24, 2009 4:48 PM

DM : "When you say "I cannot see any evidence for God" all I can say is, "The cats cannot comprehend astronomy either and they cannot even know that they don't comprehend".

I have very low expectations regarding the thought processes of a primate. Humankind's behavior on the Earth doesn't merit any claims regarding the quality of human thought processes."

Then, what is it with your "it's true because humans have thought it for 40 000 years" bullshit ??? You cannot have it both ways.

Posted by: heddle | November 24, 2009 4:49 PM

ConcernedJoe,

Thanks for the kind words. My family is well. I'll try to stay in lurking mode on this thread and save the violent disagreements for another. I'm getting old--have to pick my battles with greater discernment than before!

Posted by: Mark A. Siefert | November 24, 2009 4:50 PM

Have you considered the possibility that a human demanding evidence for God makes about as much sense as an amoeba attempting to comprehend quantum mechanics?

Special pleading.

You aren't speaking to a person who is at all impressed by humankind or human intellect or the human manner of thinking and especially not by the human manner of life.

Wow! Talk about self-loathing! They make medication for that.

When you say "I cannot see any evidence for God" all I can say is, "The cats cannot comprehend astronomy either and they cannot even know that they don't comprehend".

Again, that's special pleading, dipshit. What is it about the magical, invisible, sky tyrant that makes him/her beyond human comprehension? An allegedly omnipotent being can find a way to make himself obvious to us poor, limited, mortals.

I wonder why it doesn't. Hmmmmmm....?

Posted by: AdamK | November 24, 2009 4:52 PM

David Matthews started off this thread clueless, and remains so, despite reasoned argument. My prediction is that he will continue in his cluelessness, despite continued reasoned argument.

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 4:54 PM

Hello Sastra,

* "No; presumably there is some basic core which every "religious" belief shares, which sets it apart from secular claims or beliefs. If the broadest understanding of the concept fails, then there is no need to quibble over details. "

You are engaged in a circular argument. You must first objectively demonstrate that there is "some basic core" shared by all religions and then you can attempt to refute it, but until you've demonstrated the first you aren't allowed to assume the last.

* "Of course, one can define God so broadly, and/or with so little specific content, that an atheist can either believe in it, or not be able to say anything about it, one way or the other. But that's a big price to pay, because people seldom stick with those kinds of verbal-trick Gods. "

You aren't speaking in an accurate manner. The diversity of human thought about god contains the above idea and such ideas have persisted for thousands of years.

* "Once it has content, you can measure the evidence for it against natural explanations. PZ doesn't just argue against religion intruding into science's territory -- he brings science into religion's presumed "territory." God becomes an unnecessary hypothesis. Not conclusively disproven, no. But irrelevant and unlikely enough. "

To say "God becomes an unnecessary hyposthesis" is to make a rather substantial positive claim regarding atheism.

Unfortunately the atheists have reached a consensus that no such positive content exist within atheism.

Posted by: Souljacker | November 24, 2009 4:57 PM

"How could atheism forbid an atheist from engaging in violence, warfare, mass murder and genocide?"

It couldn't. Neither could the concept of drinking from a cup. That's why I drink all my coffee straight out of my hands. You can't very well strangle a hooker to death with hands full of boiling hot coffee and Christ knows I need a good reason not to strangle hookers to death. It's not like it's a self evidently awful thing to do or anything.

"Have you considered the possibility that a human demanding evidence for God makes about as much sense as an amoeba attempting to comprehend quantum mechanics?"

So are you saying amoebas should stay agnostic toward the idea of quantum mechanics or that they shouldn't be skeptical when a professor with too much time on his hands tries to tell them everything they never wanted to know about quantum mechanics from it's preferred race of people to the folks it doesn't want marrying?

Posted by: Anri | November 24, 2009 4:57 PM

Hey again, David Mathews.

Any chance you're actually going to answer my post waaay back up at #331? Or should I just stop waiting?

Thanks!

Posted by: WMDKitty | November 24, 2009 4:59 PM

Facilitated Communication?

*bangs head on wall*

Posted by: BdN | November 24, 2009 5:01 PM

DM ; "You must first objectively demonstrate that there is "some basic core" shared by all religions"

That there is a God???

And I found your whole refutation of the Santa Claus thing really telling : "Not in the least. Santa Claus is quite obviously a mythological entity established upon the memory of an actually existing human who possessed none of the traits ascribed to his legacy [...]Children naturally have an emotional reaction to the Santa Claus story but this story loses legitimacy the first moment that a child discovers his parents shopping for Christmas gifts, wrapping them and putting them under the tree."

If you are unable to see how it EXACTLY applies to religion, well, you're a lost cause...

Posted by: IaMoL | November 24, 2009 5:03 PM

PRATT fatigue - can't deal with David Matthews' Dunning -Kruger effect.

Posted by: eddyline | November 24, 2009 5:04 PM

Considering that this thread has devolved into a David Mathews harangue, it's titled perfectly!

Posted by: tsg | November 24, 2009 5:05 PM

It couldn't. Neither could the concept of drinking from a cup. That's why I drink all my coffee straight out of my hands. You can't very well strangle a hooker to death with hands full of boiling hot coffee and Christ knows I need a good reason not to strangle hookers to death. It's not like it's a self evidently awful thing to do or anything.

cat coffee | nose > keyboard

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 5:07 PM

Hello Linzee,

* "DM - The only way you're going to convince anyone here that they're mistaken in their non-belief in gods is to provide us with evidence for your beliefs (whatever they are, I don't understand why you're so secretive about them).

* "So tell us, what do you believe, and how do you know that's true? If you give me one good reason I'll convert to whatever it is you believe."

I'm not in the conversion business. Sorry. My religion isn't available to primates, especially not to self-exterminating planet-destroying primates who are perpetually violent and happily so.

Does the Universe lose meaning after the H. Sapiens are extinct? No, it does not. Of course not.

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 5:10 PM

Hello PZMyers,

Thank God that you have returned from your fishing trip. Care to clarify your atheism conversion story?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 24, 2009 5:10 PM

Until then, though, have fun for a little while playing with him.

Posted by: shaunotd | November 24, 2009 5:12 PM

What is it with people named David Ma-somethingorother?
DM sayeth:

"I'm not so impressed by modern humans nor by the thought processes which have led humankind to destroy the planet, [..]and drive itself extinct.

Crikey! We were all so wrapped up in our childish and irrational defence of atheism to notice that the world had 'sploded and we'd all died!

Wait, what?

Posted by: WowbaggerOM | November 24, 2009 5:15 PM

You are engaged in a circular argument. You must first objectively demonstrate that there is "some basic core" shared by all religions and then you can attempt to refute it, but until you've demonstrated the first you aren't allowed to assume the last.

Ah, the 'until you've shown all religions to be untrue you cannot - by default - assume they are all incorrect' defence. How oleaginous. Exactly how many religions have you analysed, David? Would you like to provide your findings for each and every one so we know you aren't being hypocritical?

You aren't speaking in an accurate manner. The diversity of human thought about god contains the above idea and such ideas have persisted for thousands of years.

Argumentum ad populum combined with argumentum ad temporum? Lots of people have imagined lots of different gods over the thousands of years since they evolved the capacity to contemplate such things; ergo, one or more gods must exist?

Poppycock. By that logic witches, vampires and dragons must exist. Can you prove they don't?

To say "God becomes an unnecessary hyposthesis" is to make a rather substantial positive claim regarding atheism.

No, it is the only conclusion an intellectually honest person, on viewing the evidence (and lack of evidence) can reach. If those things gods is said to be wholly responsible for can be shown to be explicable via other means then that those gods becomes unneccessary - at least for that thing. Start adding up the things that gods were considered to control but have been found to have natural explanations - rain, thunder, lightning, rainbows and so forth - and gods become more and more unneccessary.

And it's independent of atheism. Deists and atheists have identical opinions on the interventionist qualities of gods; they simply differ on whether the gods who show no indication of existing ever existed at all.

Posted by: jonnerk | November 24, 2009 5:16 PM

Hello David Mathews,

First let me commend you on your fantastic rhetorical wit. You are currently the number one contender for our “2009 Dr. Jerry Bergman award� for saying so much, yet saying nothing (of substance) at all. This is quite an honor, you should be proud.

The following is your initial question to Dr. Myers, along with your argument in bold arguing why his reaction as a child disappointed you. Please note that you proposed the question and formulated the argument (including its false dichotomy). You set the rules so to speak.

Which seems an irrationally emotional response to the quoting of scripture from the moon's orbit. Did you really expect a science lecture delivered by the astronauts and become an atheist simply because the astronauts failed to deliver such a lecture?

Such a disappointment response doesn't seem to merit dogmatic intolerant atheism. Either there's more to this story than you reveal or you invented this tale after the fact as a mythologized "Road to Damascus" conversion to atheism account.

Since, as a general rule, children aren't well versed in science, and since especially you as a child were not very well aware of science (i.e. you felt you needed a scientific lecture about the moon delivered from the moon's orbit to your living room), I wonder exactly what inspired your atheism at such a young age.

I would appreciate some elaboration because the Irrational Emotional Disappointment argument for atheism doesn't sound very scientific to me, especially when delivered by a child.

I am puzzled how you can approach this question objectively or rationally given your later statement?

If you set the rules for the argument you cannot help but set them up to your own advantage. You cannot possibly approach this question objectively or rationally. Nor scientifically, either.

Having set your own rules for the argument (see false dichotomy) you have set it up to your own advantage (well done!). However, it then follows that you are not able to approach this question in a rational objective way (which explains a lot of your posts on this thread). Failing that, it would be very hard to approach it scientifically (you know, lacking objectivity and rationality).

Thank you for trying, while we are unable to accept you as a coherent rational agent at this time, you are still in the running for this year’s prize.

Best of luck in the future,
JXK

P.S. Please feel free to quote certain parts of this comment e.g.("Hello jonnerk, "insert selective quote here" and then fail to address any questions, followed by some new question/attack/poor reasoning).

Posted by: Anri | November 24, 2009 5:17 PM

David Mathews sez (in part):

I'm not in the conversion business. Sorry. My religion isn't available to primates,

Wait - what?

You're claiming to not be a primate?

Oooookay...

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 5:18 PM

Hello Wowbagger,

I'm not presently engaged in an argument with you or any of the other nobodies on this blog. Iim engaged in an argument with PZ Myers, a cowardly atheist who cannot defend his opinions by any means except cloaking them in a mantle of science which is unearned and indefensible.

PZ Myers cannot possibly win this argument so he will hide away like an atheist.

Posted by: steve | November 24, 2009 5:19 PM

Wow, upwards of 30,000 annotated pictures at DMs flickr site.

This guy has way too much time on his hands.

I wonder if he stole the pictures just like he stole the ideas he endlessly regurgitates ?

Posted by: Owlmirror | November 24, 2009 5:20 PM

My religion isn't available to primates,

So you're saying that you yourself are not a primate? Please, tell us what you are. An archosaur? A gorgonopsid? A mollusk? An insect?

especially not to self-exterminating planet-destroying primates who are perpetually violent and happily so.

Like the humans that you argued have believed in gods for 40,000 years?

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 5:23 PM

Hello Owlmirror,

* "So you're saying that you yourself are not a primate? "

I made no such claim. I said what I said and you can interpret it however you wish.

Humankind hasn't lived well on the Earth. Humankind will go extinct.

Don't worry, though, the Earth and Nature and the Universe don't need humankind.

The loss of humankind is no great loss.

Posted by: Sastra | November 24, 2009 5:23 PM

David Mathews #495 wrote:

You are engaged in a circular argument. You must first objectively demonstrate that there is "some basic core" shared by all religions and then you can attempt to refute it, but until you've demonstrated the first you aren't allowed to assume the last.

I'm not making an empirical claim, so much as searching for a definition. What do all 'religions' have in common, that allows us to classify them as "religion," and not a secular activity? What is the basic definition of "God?" It would have to capture what the vast majority mean when they use that term, and not be something an atheist believes in, too.

How do you define God?

You aren't speaking in an accurate manner. The diversity of human thought about god contains the above idea and such ideas have persisted for thousands of years.

I think that outlier definitions of God which are either perfectly consistent with atheism -- or so empty, vague, and nebulous that they could refer to anything at all -- are poor definitions, and they are not really representative of the ideas of the divine which have persisted for thousands of years. People who claim to believe in a God "above human conception" -- or who agree that God is really just a metaphor -- really do seem to tack this on to much more concrete views.

Like Greta Christina, I suspect that this claim is an armor designed to deflect criticism, their own, and others. It is not the God people believe in, when they aren't being watched.

To say "God becomes an unnecessary hyposthesis" is to make a rather substantial positive claim regarding atheism.

If you'd rather; it still doesn't shift burden of proof. Vitalism is an unnecessary hypothesis (to the scientists -- it's alive and well in religion, and 'folk' science.) But it would be accepted into physics if it was a better explanation for some new data. Whether scientists believe there is no vital force -- or simply don't believe there is a vital force -- is wordplay, and will make no difference.

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 5:26 PM

Hello PZ Myers,

* "Um, yeah. David Mathews…fuck off. Everyone is having fun toying with you right now, but you'll be gone tomorrow. "

Spoken like a true angry, bitter atheist BS artist.

Can't stand the heat?

These poor atheists come here because they feel like an oppressed powerless minority. You people don't repesent the cutting edge of human thought, either.

But you are all very good at boasting and self-praise.

Posted by: WMDKitty | November 24, 2009 5:27 PM

"I'd just as soon as a cat to think about god than offer proof to a primate that god exist."

Excuse me, but, we ARE gods. Now where's my tuna and chicken, lowly hoomin?

Posted by: WowbaggerOM | November 24, 2009 5:28 PM

PZ Myers cannot possibly win this argument so he will hide away like an atheist.

Coming from someone who lies like only a Christian can lie.

But that's irrelevant since he's already won the argument by default; you've been asked by the rest of us to justify yours (or, in fact, anyone's) religious beliefs and you've failed to do so. Until you can show that atheism is somehow incorrect, he needn't bother to justify the logic behind holding what is - until demonstrated otherwise - the parsimonious position.

He'll just ban you, block you and delete all your posts. We've had our fun ripping your nonsense to shreds so we won't mind.

Posted by: DiscomBob | November 24, 2009 5:29 PM

Mr. Matthews- you appear to be confused on what an atheist is. I know others here have attempted to elucidate for you (big words are fun!) but apparently it's not getting through to you. You may attempt to correct me if I'm wrong, but an atheist does not make the positive assertion that "there is(are) no god(s)" but that they have seen no evidence for such and therefore are not compelled to believe they exist.
I’ve seen repeated requests for such evidence, but so far they have gone unaddressed. In response you have asserted that there is no evidence for the claims of the atheists, but atheists are not making any claims except that (so far) they’ve seen no evidence. I’ve seen you put forth the fallacious assertion that this is invalid because they haven’t investigated all religions. I’ve also seen you state that atheists reject evidence presented to them out-of-hand because it does not fit their “atheist convictions�. What you fail to understand is many atheists have had information presented to them as “evidence� many times which, on examination, proves not to be anything of the sort. They have come to the conclusion that most so called evidence is not worth the effort unless it immediately provides something compelling.
Again, if you have something compelling please present it.
I realize that the concept of cessation to exist is frightening to many people and they find solace in the concept of an all powerful entity that will provide for them (with others of like mind) after they cease their earthly existence but, given the lack of compelling evidence to the contrary, this is wishful thinking and has no basis in reality.

Posted by: Ol'Greg | November 24, 2009 5:29 PM

Hmmm... You ignored the bulk of what I said Dave. I'm disappointed in you.

Looks like you were just looking for a way to show some attitude. If you're hoping to get under my skin I'm afraid you're taking the wrong road but I gotta go to happy hour so see you around, although probably under a different name since it looks like you'll get banned soon. I'd say it's been fun, but you're kind of boring and not very personable. Maybe if you'd try not to pretend to have the upper hand all the time you could enter into one of those conversations with people where you both learn something.

Well I hope you've gotten some lulz.

Have a great day!

Posted by: steve | November 24, 2009 5:31 PM

David Mathews,

Present evidence that you did not steal the pictures on your flickr site.

Although, some of the annotations are so insipid, they must have been done by you.

Posted by: Dutch Delight | November 24, 2009 5:32 PM

"The loss of humankind is no great loss."

For most Abrahamic interpretations of god and his lesser deities, thats probably true.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 24, 2009 5:34 PM

PZ Myers is a natural born evangelist. Not so much of a scientists, though.

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 5:34 PM

Hello Dutch Delight,

* "For most Abrahamic interpretations of god and his lesser deities, thats probably true. "

From an evolutionary standpoint it is also true. Nature can afford to lose humankind. The loss of humankind is no great loss to anyone except humankind.

So the species will go extinct.

Posted by: Mike Crichton | November 24, 2009 5:35 PM

Wasn't pupil-tracking software supposed to be the Next Big Thing with assisted communication technology? Whatever happened with that? If such systems are available, they should be able to solve the problem of "Is this complete bullshit or not?" pretty quickly.

Posted by: BdN | November 24, 2009 5:36 PM

DM "I made no such claim. I said what I said and you can interpret it however you wish."

Wow, you aren't even able to understand the implications of what you say. And this one didn't need a thorough analysis...

You say that your religion isn't available to primates. But since it is YOUR religion, it means it is available to YOU. Therefore, you can't be a primate.

Posted by: Paul W. | November 24, 2009 5:37 PM

s.k.graham@
Why wasn't he talking with a computer like Stephen Hawking or some similar arrangement?

I once asked Hawking one question, and he asked me one question, and that brief exchange---well, it wasn't so brief.

So my first thought on watching the video was that if that woman's actually that good, Hawking should hire her away from her patient.

Posted by: Acronym Jim | November 24, 2009 5:38 PM

menyambal@460

What happened to his foot-tapping? Why is that not being used?

Perhaps he didn't want to be confused with Larry Craig?

Nerd of Redhead

My teeth thank you. Chew toys are good at removing tartar.

While troll meat does'nt get stuck in the teeth, their substanceless spewage does tend to stick in the craw.

Posted by: Sastra | November 24, 2009 5:38 PM

David Mathews #546 wrote:

Our argument has ended. The cowardly BS artist from Nowhere, Minnesota has returned and he is hiding away from the argument because he knows that this is an argument that he cannot win.

Ah, ok. Bye.

I suppose that means that you won't be defining "God." I was curious, given that you were claiming it was incomprehensible, at the same time you were pointing out that most people believed in it. I don't think you could define it, in a way that meets both those traits.

Actually, the first one would be hard enough.

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 5:38 PM

Hello deadman,

* ") If you really wanted to engage only PZ, you could have sent him an email, correct? "

No, the atheist evangelist and unsuccessful scientist from nowhere, Minnesota -- that is PZ Myers the BS artist -- spreads his message of atheism on his blog.

I'll challenge him right here.

He won't speak to defend himself, though, because his atheism is indefensible.

PZ Myers is a cowardly atheist. He can say whatever he wishes whenever there is no one to challenge him. But once someone stands up to disagree he'll run away and hide.

PZ Myers had made a full-time business of preaching for atheism and he has neglected his science. His priorities are in order as he reconizes his own lack of scientific talent.

Posted by: mk | November 24, 2009 5:40 PM

Hello David Mathews,

We've all enjoyed your ignorance and cowardice. Your inability to reason. You Palinesque childishness.

Please do pop over again real soon, eh?

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 5:41 PM

Hello wistah,

* "For someone who is "not presently [sic] engaged in an argument with you or any of the other nobodies on this blog" you have posted over 80, that is EIGHTY comments not arguing with people on this blog. "

I distracted myself while waiting for my quarry to appear.

PZ Myers has appeared and he has returned to his cowardly hiding.

Our argument has ended, though.

If PZ Myers wants to argue he can argue. I don't care about the rest of you nobodies. My argument isn't with you it is with the cowardly BS artist atheism evangelist PZ Myers.

Posted by: strange gods before me, OM | November 24, 2009 5:42 PM

Re: #5: Q. What's worse than being in a locked-in state for 23 years that's misdiagnosed as coma?

A. Having someone use facilitated communication to speak for you, while you are helpless to protest.

It's all over, folks, Jim Lippard won the thread. Wrap it up. That goes double for you, David Mathews; you don't have to go home, but you can't stay here.

Posted by: Knockgoats | November 24, 2009 5:44 PM

Is it at all possible for an atheist to engage in an argument without egregious self-praise and self-adulation? David Thick-as-two-short-planks Mathews

Oh, I'm not claiming anything exceptional, just telling the truth - but then, that's a concept so foreign to you I'm not surprised the possibility didn't occur to you. Many people here realised religion is garbage much earlier in life than me. It's only the very immature, such as yourself, who don't manage this by the time they reach adulthood.

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 5:45 PM

Hello Janine,

* "Bullshit. The only people you have been engaging in debates are the phantoms of your mind."

Don't blame me for P Myers cowardliness. His inability to actually engage in an argument explains his absence.

The rest of you people are nobodies and your arguments wouldn't fill a thimble with their intellectual content.

PZ Myers will spend the rest of the day hiding away. He's too much of a coward to argue. His arguments would fail, too.

His atheism isn't scientific. His atheism isn't even rational.

Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | November 24, 2009 5:46 PM

I don't care about the rest of you nobodies. My argument isn't with you it is with the cowardly BS artist atheism evangelist PZ Myers.

Thank you for proving my point that you have no been engaging with people. All you have are your army of strawmen. But damn, your strawmen are more intelligent than you.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 24, 2009 5:47 PM

David Matthews, you have presented no evidence. Until you do, you are the loser, and will remain the loser until you show the conclusive evidence for your imaginary deity. So for, you are a total loser.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 24, 2009 5:47 PM

@

Fodder Boy:
"We need not be angry at our childhood to be angry at irrationality, wilful [sic] ignorance, prejudice and all the other fun things your religions bring with them, like sexual oppression, repression and abuse."

No, fuck you. It's people like you who promote blatant promiscuity and transsexualism / homosexuality, child pornography, and the legalization of useless illegal narcotics. It's people like you who are turning the world into even more of a piece of shit than it already is.

And WTF is prejudice? EVERYONE is prejudice, if you are talking about racism/"sexism" etc, that's doesn't exist anymore...

It's fuckheads like you that are the reason murderers and terrorists are still alive and well. One cannot even win a war now (read: Iraq), because everytime we kill an enemy, fuckheads like you come and criticize us saying, "you should have just stood there and gave them a chance to shoot at you". We could have just killed all the terrorists in 2 days instead of 10 years, but fuckheads like you make it impossible.

Wow. My favorite bunch of non-sequiturs of the whole thread and it wasn't even David.

Fell better Mr. Dumbass tough guy?

Posted by: steve | November 24, 2009 5:48 PM

David Mathews,

Time to scurry back to your flickr site, there are so many photos out there the steal, time is of the essence. Hurry, hurry, hurry.

I challenge you right here to prove those are your pictures (other than the butterfly and flower ones, those could be yours).

Posted by: BdN | November 24, 2009 5:52 PM

Here is the link where the Belgian man seems to be sleeping while typing at the same time... And he is writing a freaking book...

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/975121/belgian-coma-man-was-just-awake-for-23-years

Posted by: jonnerk | November 24, 2009 5:52 PM

Hello David Mathews,

Please address the question at #521 regarding your ability to ask questions and argue with PZ.

Thank you.

JXK
P.S. enjoy the dungeon, you will be in good company.

Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | November 24, 2009 5:54 PM

Don't blame me for P Myers cowardliness. His inability to actually engage in an argument explains his absence.

Once more, you are making a claim that I never said. I am not your strawwoman to be smacked down.

If you have anything to prove, it does not have to be at PZ's expence. You can do it on your own. And if you had anything, you would be able to show up we army of nobodies.

Instead, you have echoes bouncing around in your head. And in your delusion, you ask questions of PZ about things he never said.

You are a sad sack of walking shit.

Posted by: Margaret | November 24, 2009 5:55 PM

"Childhood atheism isn't based upon sound scientific or philosophical principles because children aren't well informed about either. Therefore child-onset atheism is automatically suspect especially when it becomes a person's defining core principle later in life."

David, I assume that you apply the same test to "child-onset" theism?

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 5:59 PM

Hello jonner,

* "Please address the question at #521 regarding your ability to ask questions and argue with PZ. "

I'm not engaged in an argument with you.

I'm engaged in an argument with the cowardly evangelist for atheism, PK Myers.

PK Myers has become a ghost in this thread because his opinions are indefensible.

PK Myers will remain invisible until he has silenced his critic and returned this blog back to its Worship & Adulation mode with all of you parroting his opinions and telling each other how good you are and how excellent you think and how much better you are than those who have different beliefs than you.

PK Myers needs a mindless audience of parrots to feel comfortable on this blog. He could never engage in an argument on behalf of atheism. His atheism isn't either scientific or rational.

Posted by: deadman_932 | November 24, 2009 6:04 PM

Come, come, Dave...it's okay for you to admit that you don't really want a protracted debate on the merits of your claims and instead only want a hit-and-run quick bannination here.

And here I thought that you'd leap at a chance to demonstrate all those self-vaunted skillzorz you tacitly claim to have.

You're a disappointment, Dave...all bluster and no substance. All hat and no cattle, as they say in Texas.

Tsk.

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 6:04 PM

Hello deadman,

* "Well, admittedly, I'm not as famous as YOU, "Dave Mathews" and I'm almost surely (in your mind, at least) cowed by your mastery of logic and reason.

* "Alas, I ony have a couple of degrees, but there are many Ph.D-types at AtBC that would be willing to amuse themselves with your childlike reasoning.

Like hell if you think I care about your education, degrees or claimed accomplishments.

I am in an argument with only one person here, the so-so scientist and perpetual atheistic BS artist, PZ Myers.

Now you know and I know that the cowardly PZ Myers is hiding away until his critic is banished forever. He won't engage in an argument because he cannot. He will engage in censorship because his viewpoint cannot survive any sort of criticism.

The mindless drones of this blog will praise him, though, and life will return to normal as PZ Myers praises himself and you praise yourself and all the atheists tell each other how much better you people are compared to everyone else.

No matter ... you people will still be angry, bitter nobodies tomorrow and PZ Myers will still be a coward after I'm gone.

Atheism really is an intellectually vancant indefensible opinion. You know it already but protect yourself from the thought by load boasts and bluster.

Posted by: Whatever | November 24, 2009 6:07 PM

Wow, GO David Mathews! I truly have to hand it to you: When it comes to shooting yourself in the foot, your post #448 has truly shown your true potential!

Atheism is not falsifiable? Of course it is, you dumb-witted lunatic. Just show me proof of a god (lower case, upper case; who the fuck cares?) and I will gladly surrender. Until then, I will continue not to believe. And no, despite what you might think Atheism is not a belief.

Belief in god or any other mythical being(s) is not falsifiable and therefore scientifically and rationally not viable. That's the difference you seem to neglect. You seem to think we need to provide you with proof that there is no god, when the burden of proof is on you! You have been asked countless of times, but you have never shown us any proof for your god. Common now, I will give you a fair chance: Show me your god!

And to refer back to your original post. I think you misread PZ Myers account quite a bit. He is just and event that made him think, an impetus, even though you seem to regard that all 12 year-olds need a facilitator to communicate which is not true. I would actually go as far as to say that they tend to be more rational and coherent than you. Also, it is quite obvious this wasn't a traumatic event in PZ Myers' life; an important event yes, but not a traumatic one.

I also do like the fact that you seem to be able to answer everything that is directed your way with a statement a la 'I reject your X'. You haven't presented any argument in a long while, you just keep telling people they are wrong without providing any evidence or counter-argument. That is very, very weak.

So could I finally just ask you to maybe start preparing your nativity plays? Christmas is only a month away and I am sure, little naked baby Jesus needs your full attention right now!

Posted by: Victor | November 24, 2009 6:09 PM

Dave Matthews,
You yourself are not willing to question any of your presuppositions, but the fact remains that your basic premise invokes supernatural claims that ought to be supported through demonstrable, empirical evidence. You’ve dodged that call for evidence by disingenuously claiming that the atheist position is irrational and unscientific. Is this not willful ignorance on your part??

Posted by: truebutnotuseful | November 24, 2009 6:10 PM

For those keeping track at home, David has invoked the following fallacies (at a minimum): Ad Hominem, Appeal to Emotion, Argumentum ad Populum, Quoting Out of Context, Reductio ad Hitlerum, Special Pleading, Straw Man, and Tu Quoque.

If you could somehow take every logical fallacy in the book, mold them together into a ball of clay and then, Genesis-like, breathe life into that ball of clay, the resultant being would be indistinguishable from David Mathews.

Click here to see a diagram of David's brain (or whatever lump of material controls the flappers slapping against his keyboard).

And Jesus Christ, David, you can just refer to him as 'PZ.' We know his last name is Myers. For the love of Gods, stop. Typing. His. Last. Name. Every. Fucking. Time.

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 6:13 PM

Hello truebutnotuseful,

* "For those keeping track at home, David has invoked the following fallacies (at a minimum): Ad Hominem, Appeal to Emotion, Argumentum ad Populum, Quoting Out of Context, Reductio ad Hitlerum, Special Pleading, Straw Man, and Tu Quoque. "

Whatever. You people are united in the fallacy of possessing an intellectually vacant idea without any defensible attributes whatsoever.

PZ Myers knows that he has a BS message. All your self-praise is only a means of protecting yourself intellectually from an unpleasant reality.

Posted by: steve | November 24, 2009 6:16 PM

The pictures, Dave, the pictures. 'Fess up, you'll feel better.

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 6:16 PM

Hello David Estlund,

* "Is that all you're really here for? Just to attack PZ and get banned so that you can feed your own need to play the victim? Can't you already see how dishonest that is? And can't you already see how low you're having to stoop to accomplish this? "

God, atheists really have to stop whining and weeping.

I'm not the one who spent the afternoon fishing and the evening hiding and I'm not the one who will spend tomorrow banning.

If PZ Myers could defend his atheism he would do so. He cannot so he won't.

Don't worry, though, the mindless drones will return to praising him tomorrow for his bold brave stand against theism.

Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | November 24, 2009 6:17 PM

My argument isn't with you.

Most of us get it. What you do not understand is that your argument is not with PZ Myers, it is with the PZ Myers that dwells in your own mind.

Pretty fucking funny that you are now crying that your argument is not with the nobodies. You just spent hours addressing the words that you imagined that the nobodies said.

Fuck you and everything you stand for.

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 6:18 PM

Hello Wowbagger,

* "Have you considered the fact that you haven't yet presented any arguments he needs to address? "

Atheists need self-praise like a junkie needs cocaine.

The mindless drones cannot stop praising PZ Myers.

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 6:20 PM

Hello Janine,

* "Pretty fucking funny that you are now crying that your argument is not with the nobodies. You just spent hours addressing the words that you imagined that the nobodies said. "

Too bad for you. Don't worry, though, you people can return to self-praise and the mutual admiration society tomorrow.

You are a no-name nobody just as PZ Myers is an incompetent nobody of a scientists from nowhereville.

Posted by: baldywilson | November 24, 2009 6:20 PM

Dave Mathews:

I'm engaged in an argument with the cowardly evangelist for atheism, PK Myers. PK Myers has become a ghost in this thread because his opinions are indefensible.

Who's "PK Myers"? I think you mean "PZ". Anywho.

If you're "engaged in an argument with the cowardly evangelist for atheism, PK Myers"... I mean, "PZ Myers". Why are you responding to people who are not PK? Sorry, PZ?

The only thing you are engaged in argument with is your own only too fertile imagination.

And, just as a heads up. A FYI if you will. You know, a kind of "keep you in the loop". Think of it as a "My people will talk to your people" (if either of us actually had people to talk to): you've still not addressed the somewhat important issue of you lying in your initial outburst. You know the (unless you're out of the loop) small fact that you misrepresented someone, then lied, then kind of pretended you couldn't read.

I'm actually still waiting on a response. It's only been some 500+ responses since it was pointed out to you, but I understand. Busy schedules. Rocks to crawl under. I understand.

Posted by: BdN | November 24, 2009 6:23 PM

DM "You are a no-name nobody just as PZ Myers is an incompetent nobody of a scientists from nowhereville."

Well, why the fuck do you lose your time here, then ? Why don't you go talk to somebody who deserves your higher intelligence, someone who is not a nobody ?

Posted by: Fodder Boy | November 24, 2009 6:24 PM

@lol

No, fuck you. It's people like you who promote blatant promiscuity and transsexualism / homosexuality, child pornography, and the legalization of useless illegal narcotics. It's people like you who are turning the world into even more of a piece of shit than it already is.

Wow.

Wild Bigot has appeared!

Is this a Poe? It feels like a Poe. In case it's not, let me run through it real quick.

Promiscuity? Check. I support people being comfortable with sex and sexuality.

Trans and homosexualaity? Check. See above; nothing wrong with either.

Useless illegal narcotics? I'm fairly straight edge, myself. I don't drink, smoke, or have any desire to partake of illegal narcotics. I'm not sure where I stand on issues of legalisation, either, but I lean slightly toward letting people do what they want with their bodies.

And WTF is prejudice? EVERYONE is prejudice, if you are talking about racism/"sexism" etc, that's doesn't exist anymore...

Consult a dictionary. I'm pointing that statement at people like you. And are you really so ignorant that you think racism and sexism no longer exist, and not only that, but that homophobia isn't also actually a problem?

It's fuckheads like you that are the reason murderers and terrorists are still alive and well. One cannot even win a war now (read: Iraq), because everytime we kill an enemy, fuckheads like you come and criticize us saying, "you should have just stood there and gave them a chance to shoot at you". We could have just killed all the terrorists in 2 days instead of 10 years, but fuckheads like you make it impossible.

Man, don't blame a random Australian for American military greed and ineptitude. Our soldiers aren't the ones out there strafing allied tank columns.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | November 24, 2009 6:25 PM

Another goddist crying, "Pay attention to me, PZ, pay attention to me."

Posted by: deadman_932 | November 24, 2009 6:26 PM

Here, Dave Mathews...allow me to restate your position as outlined in all the many, many posts you've vomited up thus far:

Shorter Dave Mathews "Wahhhh, PZ won't pay attention to me even though I have no idea of what he's actually doing at the moment. He's scared of my massive pulsing neocortex, because I'm a great debater"

Pfft, I offered you a devoted thread at Panda's Thumb, which is intimately connected to Talk Origins and AtBC...yet you can only focus on your self-imposed martyrdom in this silly thread -- a thread unrelated to your pounding egotistical needs.

I believe you're not nearly as good as you seem to think you are, Dave Mathews. See all your posts above as evidence.

Posted by: Jesso | November 24, 2009 6:27 PM

"You are a no-name nobody just as PZ Myers is an incompetent nobody of a scientists from nowhereville."

Wasn't this a Beatles song?

Posted by: jonnerk | November 24, 2009 6:28 PM

Hello David Mathews,

Jerry? Is that you? Is this about the debate?

Maybe you are some kind of bot. Why not just e-mail PZ, not that he will respond, but that would at least be a better way to (try to)argue with him. Go directly to him. Sitting here hoping he will respond, calling him names is NOT arguing, let alone a serious means of communication.

It's your time. Good night!

Best,
JXK

Posted by: strange gods before me, OM | November 24, 2009 6:28 PM

Don't worry, Steve, I'll be at the beach tomorrow and you'll still be a sad bitter angry atheist. Live as you wish and I'll live as I wish.

It's true. Atheists never go to the beach. And if we do, we don't enjoy it.

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 6:30 PM

Hello jonne,

* "Why not just e-mail PZ, not that he will respond, but that would at least be a better way to (try to)argue with him. Go directly to him. Sitting here hoping he will respond, calling him names is NOT arguing, let alone a serious means of communication. "

Yeah ... the great bold evangelist for atheism isn't at all reachable on his blog. No, no, no ... he's way too busy!

PZ Myers is one great atheist ... not so great a scientist, though!

Posted by: gr8hands | November 24, 2009 6:30 PM

David Mathews, it just sounds like you need to get laid. Really, you can admit it to us, you don't have sex with other people very often, do you? It shows.

It appears you're just jealous of the rest of humanity that is having wonderful sex, so you have to be so terribly rude.

What a wasted life.

Posted by: Owlmirror | November 24, 2009 6:33 PM

Sure as hell you don't know a whole lot about religion.

Excuse me, but my logical chain was not in the context of "religion" in general -- as any fool could plainly see -- but in the context of your religion; the one that you made a claim about.

You really should educate yourself.

Since I do not have clairvoyance, I cannot possibly educate myself about your religion unless you describe it clearly, logically, and rationally.

So far, you have not done so.

Otherwise you'll come across as a fool.

It is true that you come across as a fool.

If you cannot comprehend why I am saying about humankind it is only because you are too impressed with yourself and your species.

I cannot comprehend what you are saying because you have not been saying anything comprehensible.

Humankind is headed to extinction. The loss of humankind is no great loss.

You said that already. And as I already responded, your genocidal nihilism is noted.

A self-exterminating primate species doesn't merit any religion, especially not my religion.

1) "Self-exterminating" is not logically supported.

2) The word "merit" is not well-defined.

3) Assuming that "primate species" refers to humans, do the religions of the past 40,000 years that you referred to not exist, or were they all "unmerited"?

4) You once again imply, logically, that you are not a primate. Then what are you?

For such an animal to believe in God is an insult to God.

1) How is believing in something an insult to that thing?

2) Does it not then follow logically that atheism is actually less insulting than theism?

God isn't in need of humankind's belief, worship or love.

Oddly enough, this is one of the very few things you've said which is itself logically sound, albeit with no supporting logic or evidence.

If God exists as defined as an eternal all-knowing, all-powerful entity, then God cannot possibly need anything at all (and of course "anything" would include belief, worship, or love).

Now, it looks like you're ultimately arguing for a Deistic entity with a vast and indifferent attitude; cold and incurious, with no emotions whatsoever. A giant formless void, staring at everything and caring about nothing.

However, it would also follow that such a being cannot be "insulted" by humans believing in it, worshipping it, or loving it -- because that implies that God needs to not be believed in, not worshipped, and not loved.

No, you can't get to that conclusion. Not needing anything, including belief, also means not needing disbelief.

God existed before humankind existed and God will still exist after humans are extinct.

Again, also logically sound, from the above definition, albeit with no supporting logic or evidence.

So much for humankind ...

Here and now, though, we are alive.

Your genocidal nihilism notwithstanding.

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 6:35 PM

Hello whatever,

* "Care to back that up? "

I would but the brave, bold, rational, scientific PZ Myers is hiding away from his blog.

Hard to argue with a phantom. PZ Myers has become a ghost on his own blog.

Posted by: Helvetica | November 24, 2009 6:37 PM

You know, it's also entirely possible that PZ Myers doesn't take the time to read through 500+ comments to locate and respond to every poster who's got an axe to grind.

Just sayin'.

Posted by: Fodder Boy | November 24, 2009 6:38 PM

David:

You might as well with all this atheistic self-praise. This is one big atheistic circle jerk. You people tell each other how great you are and everyone agrees!

Who the fuck even said anything like this? You can set up the strawman if you like, but it fails in the face of the truth: we don't all think we're all great. We think you're fucking pathetic.

Though we do agree on that, I'm sure.

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 6:41 PM

Hello Owlmirror,

* "No, you can't get to that conclusion. Not needing anything, including belief, also means not needing disbelief. "

Yes, Owlmirror, you are learning. Now you know why my religion isn't offered to primates, especially not the planet-destroying self-exterminating primates who have filled the entire world and their own souls with an infinite inexhuastible supply of sorrows.

Nature doesn't need humankind. God doesn't need humankind. The Earth doesn't need humankind. The Universe doesn't need humankind.

Humankind will go extinct, soon. Humankind will be forgotten forever. Nature preserves no memories, God preserves no souls ... so what you people believe or do not believe is absolutely irrelevant.

God simply doesn't care about the opinions of atheists or theists or humankind.

God has given up on the misguided perpetually sorrowful gleefully violent primate.

The Earth will be a much better place after humankind has finished exterminating itself.

There was life before humankind and there shall be life after humankind.

From that standpoint, then, humans are absolutely irrelevant, thoroughly expendable, and eminently forgettable.

Atheism thinks too much of humankind. Too bad for atheism!

Posted by: AJ Milne | November 24, 2009 6:41 PM

I would but the brave, bold, rational, scientific PZ Myers is hiding away from his blog.

(B-movie Sigmund Freud voice on...)

Eenteresteenk! And vhai do you figure he needs to be present for zis? You feel you can not make your case vizout his presence? No?

If I vere to suggest perhaps you vish to have sex vis him, vould zis perhaps explain sings to you? He vould have to be present for zis, yes?

Hrm... Yes? (Nods...) Eeenteresteenk... Six years you have had zis fantasy, you say? Do you have nocturnal emissions vis zem?

Yes... Yes... Eeenteresteenk... Tell me about your muzzer...

(/No, not because I care... but I could use the material fer some 'Yer Mamma' jokes...)

Posted by: SEF | November 24, 2009 6:42 PM

Aside: David Mathews reminds me of Facilis.

Posted by: Helvetica | November 24, 2009 6:43 PM

If there'll be life after humankind, can we have it be dinosaurs? Dinosaurs are hella sweet.

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 6:44 PM

Hello deadman,

* "This from a guy that nobody's ever heard of. "

Well, there are 6.7 billion people on the planet and nearly all of them are more important than you.

PZ Myers, though, is a great scientist, a Nobel Prize winner, a bold defender and evangelist for atheism, and a pretty wonderful person all around.

Thank God for PZ Myers. He has restored my faith in humankind!

Posted by: WowbaggerOM | November 24, 2009 6:45 PM

David Mathews wrote:

PZ Myers has become a ghost on his own blog.

You haven't answered the question of why a man in a fast-moving 4x4 need slow down because of a solitary turd on the road. If you can answer that then you'll understand why PZ isn't responding to you.

If you can't answer it, go away until you can.

Posted by: steve | November 24, 2009 6:47 PM

Don't worry, Steve, I'll be at the beach tomorrow and you'll still be a sad bitter angry atheist. Live as you wish and I'll live as I wish.

So you steal your pictures at the beach ? See, just like a said, confession is good for the soul. Open up the floodgates, Dave, let it all out.

I expect to see some original shots of seagulls and starfish on the ol' flickr site tomorrow, and some really, really tedious annotations.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | November 24, 2009 6:50 PM

Nature doesn't need humankind. God doesn't need humankind. The Earth doesn't need humankind. The Universe doesn't need humankind.

And humankind doesn't need gods.

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 6:51 PM

Hello Steve,

* "So you steal your pictures at the beach ? See, just like a said, confession is good for the soul. Open up the floodgates, Dave, let it all out. "

Say whatever makes you feel good, Steve!

PZ Myers is the best! He's a scientist and an atheist! He's rational and reasonable and he won't stand for Apollo astronauts quoting the scriptures on Christmas Eve, damn those Apollo astronauts ... they should have given a science lecture from the moon!

Posted by: David Mathews | November 24, 2009 6:55 PM

Hello deadman,

* "How could you possibly know how important or unimportant I am, comparatively speaking? "

My mistake, dead man!

Let me correct it ....

You're the best! You're great! Atheists are intelligent, wonderful, happy, rational, scientific and a whole lot better than everyone else on the planet ... even if they are an extremist minority that spends that talks perpetually about their oppressed minority status and unhappy childhood and how offended they are whenever someone, anyone, happens to mention God or religion or anything non-atheistic.

You are the best, deadman, just as PZ Myers is the best. Atheists are great! Atheists are also happy, happy, happy!