Banner

Login Form



Like it? Share it!

THE IDIOT'S TALE PDF Print E-mail
Swift
Written by James Randi   
Wednesday, 20 January 2010 10:59

I give you here a transcript I prepared of an exchange between a BBC commentator and the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu. It was sent to us by our UK friend Ian Rowland. I present it verbatim, with the bad grammar, wrong verb tenses, and the uncertain umms and ahhs of the actual interview. You may listen to the audio here. (Scroll down to minute number 0831.) The archbishop’s responses are so infuriating, disconnected, vapid, meandering and evasive, that he sounds like a child — an uninformed one. If this is the best that the Church can do, I suggest that they stick to Bingo…

Just as we post this, it seems that God sent Haiti another earthquake, strength 6.1, as his reminder that he has a sense of humor. Very funny, you capricious, malicious, merciless, vengeful, egomaniacal deity… But I’ll let your quavering servant Sentamu speak for you.

The interviewer’s words are in bold type, the archbishops are not, though readers will have no difficulty sorting them out. The churchman's words could serve as a model for Shakespeare's MacBeth: “…a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” Here it is:

Why did God allow this to happen?

He created a world which is so beautiful, full of power, ah, full of, ah, possibilities that at times — water, for example, a fantastic, ah, reality, can at one time, ah, be a devastating thing. Is God, God, a slot machine in which we put in things, and good things come out and bad things come out? No. I actually believe that God is fully engaged, and I have nothing actually to say that makes sense of this horror. All I, all I know, is that the message of Christmas, the message of the death and resurrection of Jesus, is that he’s with us. Um, Rabbi Hugo Green, is, I think said something more beautiful, when he was asked “Where was God when Jews were being gassed?” And he said, “God was being blasphemed and violated.” And what makes it more difficult because if you believe that everybody is made in the image and likeness of God, disaster like this actually make it appalling and very difficult, because what you are seeing is the face of God being disfigured, ah, and that is quite — pretty, pretty, pretty appalling.

But we are told two things, aren’t we? We’re told that God is merciful and all-powerful.

Yes.

How can those be reconciled with what happens to a country like Haiti at a time like this?

Well, for the Christian, you’ve got to see the God who is very much like Christ-like, and in him there is no un-Christ-likeness. Ah, you know, St. Augustine of Hippo said, he lies in a manger but contains the world, he feeds at the breast but also feeds the angels, is wrapped in swaddling clothes but vests us with immortality, you see.

I’m not sure I understand that answer, to be perfectly frank with you. I don’t quite see what it has to do with the question.

The question is that the God we’re dealing with, who is merciful and powerful, has shown his face to us in the person of Jesus, and if you believe that God is very much like Jesus of Nazareth, questions of power, questions of mercy, ultimately find their answer not in a sort of a slot-machine-type God, but actually a god who is with us alongside us, and his power is made more stronger, not in dictatorship, but in terms of mercifulness, in humility, and coming alongside us.

But what you seem to be arguing for here, is precisely the slot-machine-type God, because slot machines are random. The suffering that is imposed, that has been imposed upon these people of Haiti – clearly entirely innocent people, many, many children amongst them – that is random, just like a slot machine.

No, no, no, no, no! Jesus was asked that question, ah, when there was a Tower of Siloam* which killed a lot of people. People were assuming that those who died because they were wicked. And Jesus said, “No not at all." Don’t be complacent! Don’t think you can comfort yourself by saying that bad things only happen to bad people. Everyone needs to be aware of their fragility and vulnerability, and of their need for one another, and for God. You see, we are a family. When one weeps we all weep, and I’m, I’m afraid the world as it is, has got tremendous beauty, tremendous power, within it, earthquakes, uh, fire, this can be devastating, and it depends on where you live, and you think, well, why did they live in that place? Now with science, now, for example you know, that the early warning system for the tsunami can actually warn people when this is happening, because our world is a world which we are not masters of.

So what do you have to say to somebody like Pat Robertson, the American evangelical preacher and candidate for president of the United States, indeed, at one point, who seemed to be playing, blaming Haitians themselves for what has happened to them — the country, he says, swore a pact to the Devil at its creation. So in other words they deserved it.

No! I, I think anybody who talks like this need to sit at the foot of the cross of Jesus. Where what actually you do is don’t throw stones. I think he’s absolutely wrong, ah, Haiti is very close to America, and you would have thought that for these generations when the, the, government nearly collapsed, the United Nations was the only thing that giving sense of it, that America would have come to their aid, and I’m very grateful that, and thankful, that president Obama is taking a more proactive, ah, umm, on, help on their doorstep. So Pat Robertson, I’m sorry — he’s totally wrong, he should reread his Bible properly and he should realize that, like my mother said, never point a finger, because when you do, three other fingers are pointing back at you.

Archbishop, many thanks.

 

*Thank you to reader DavidNYC for coming up with the phrase "Tower of Siloam." Previously, we had marked this place in the transcript "undecipherable."

Trackback(0)
Comments (126)Add Comment
...
written by ConTester, January 20, 2010
The ability to ad lib vacuous bulldust is a requirement to join the upper echelons of the clergy, it seems. If this “archbishop” were a student of mine defending his thesis, he’d fail in short order, that much is certain.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +25
...
written by popsaw, January 20, 2010
No wonder people shun religion if this is a typical interview. Certainly not representative of anything that is in the bible.
I also think the time has come to cease building cities on known fault ines. This was a case of inaction against a known potential disaster. I say man is to blame.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking-news/story/1423819.html
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -9
...
written by William, January 20, 2010
Don't judge an entire faith based on the mindless ramblings of 1 person. Or 2. OK, 3. (Conservatives, mind your trap!)

William
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
Where's Satan ?
written by Dr.Sid, January 20, 2010
I thought all bad comes from Satan. Did they changed that ?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +18
weeeeeeeeee.........
written by CasaRojo, January 20, 2010
That's hilarious and very sad at the same time. Methinks the archbishop is trippin' on some moldy jesus crackers.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +15
It's simple, really.
written by Rustylizard, January 20, 2010
The befuddled, incoherent Archbishop could have answered the question easily - just by quoting the Bible. Isaiah Ch45 Vs7: "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."

Works for me.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +21
Take his remarks at face value
written by hopfen, January 20, 2010
Why are you all being so tough on the Archbishop?
He made himself perfectly clear right in the first paragraph:
"... I have nothing actually to say that makes sense ..."
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +73
Ask the mericiful/all powerful question of anyone else.
written by Smiledriver, January 20, 2010
Imagine any decent person, if they were merciful and all powerful, and imagine how they would've responded to the impending disaster about to befall Haiti or the pitiful aftermath. They would've stop it. They would stop any human suffering be it poverty, disease, violence, racial bigotry and you can imagine the rest.

But this man, presumably educated, says God like Christ is with us. God is not with us, nor is Christ. At best Christ was with "us" for about 30 years a few centuries ago. He seems on most accounts to have been a merciful man and did what he could to relieve suffering. Only now that he sits on his father's right hand he seems incapable of convincing his dad to flex his all powerful muscle to save innocent men women and children from profund pain and hardship.

Wonder what Jesus think about that?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +12
The "undecipherable" portion
written by DavidNYC, January 20, 2010
In the second to last response, where the transcript is marked "undecipherable", the Archbishop is saying "Tower of Siloam." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Siloam
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +6
It's really not fair, you know....
written by Hutch, January 20, 2010
..to ask a modern-day Christian that question. They've all gone over to the Kind and Merciful, Jesus loves the little children, God loves us all version--and are left speechless when tragedies like this strike. You'd need a St. Augustine to give a good apologist answer to this, and Archbishop, you are no St. Augistine.

Now for those who believe in the Old Testament God, who never tired of exercising His Holy Wrath on the heads of both believers (Babylonian captivity anyone) or non-believers (goodbye Sodom), It's an easy answer--He's God, he can do whatever he wants, and we poor sheep are not fit to judge His Holy Ways. Islam has the perfect term--In'shallah (As God wills it).

As for me and mine, we will dwell in the House of Plate Techtonics forever.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +26
...
written by MadScientist, January 20, 2010
@Hutch: I don't think Augustine of Hippo would have helped. His response was to invent "original sin". Augustine was as much an idiot as that archbishop. It's really nothing more than playground chatter - ever notice how some kid on the playground would say something and when another kid asks a question something else is invented? In fact the archbishop in this case is trying to use Augustine's invention - these people are being punished for their original sin, they haven't really accepted jesus so their original sin had not been washed away. Hmmm ... that gives me an idea for a new product: Soap on a Cross. Now what is the biblical (ahem) evidence for "original sin"? Well, none whatsoever - it's just a lie Augustine made up. Now with about 2000 years of history, the christian cult has an enormous collection of lies invented around their book of myths (which itself is packed with demonstrable lies).
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +13
Its the old question that has never been answered
written by MJG, January 20, 2010
That is: "given the world we observe, how can God be both benevolent and omnipotent?" Never been answered satisfactorily.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +11
...
written by bigjohn756, January 20, 2010
He did make one true statement.

"...because our world is a world which we are not masters of."
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +11
...
written by rvitelli, January 20, 2010
This is a very old question. Debating why God causes natural disasters goes back centuries. Nobody has ever really answered the question.

http://drvitelli.typepad.com/p....html/url]
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
earthquake
written by rvitelli, January 20, 2010

http://drvitelli.typepad.com/p...lisbo.html
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by Willy K, January 20, 2010
A few comments:

#1
If I were the interviewer I would have asked “Why is it that your Sky Fairy hasn't dropped a house on you yet? Is one ditzy poof, living freely on the “donations” of a gullible public, worth more than the thousands of people dead in Haiti?


#2
After reviewing the responses by Mr. Sentamu, I can assure you that he would not pass a Turing test.

#3
His whole babbling blather reminds me of a scene from Life Of Brian.
“Boring Prophet: And there shall in that time be rumours of things going astray, and there will be a great confusion as to where things really are, and nobody will really know where lieth those little things with the sort of raffia work base, that has an attachment…at this time, a friend shall lose his friends’s hammer and the young shall not know where lieth the things possessed by their fathers that their fathers put there only just the night before around eight o’clock...”
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +25
a better question for the clergyman
written by pete n, January 20, 2010
I would ask, do you believe that god is omnipotent omnicient and merciful? Then describe how one could be all those things and still let thousands of people die needlessly? If he knows everything how could god make a man that he knows will go to hell before he makes him and yet he makes him and then sends him to hell for doing what god knew he was going to do?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +9
...
written by Twm Sion Cati, January 20, 2010
Readers outside the UK probably don't realise this is not some tin pot archbishop of some remote town in the UK. The archbishop of York is number 2 only to the archbishop of Canterbury, who is the Anglican equivalent of the pope. It is widely believed that Sentamu will succeed the present Canterbury and therefore his views will be the views of the Anglican church i.e. millions of people will listen to him and follow his lead.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +15
Thank you BBC
written by Insert clever name here, January 20, 2010
Most comments so far are aimed squarely at the Archbullshit...Archbishop, and rightly so.

Let us, however, give thanks for the unnamed BBC reporter who asked tougher questions than many reporters would have. He could have been more aggressive, but makes good points while remaining civil.

The world needs more reporters like this, as well as more Randi's.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +31
...
written by Rrose Selavy, January 20, 2010
The interviewer in question is John Humpreys - a self professed agnostic/"failed atheist " who has written a book on the subject as well as made some programmes which might account for his puzzlement/lack of satisfaction at some of the answers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Humphrys
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +8
...
written by LuigiNovi, January 20, 2010
My God. I can't believe it.

Former Miss Teen South Carolina Caitlin Upton changed her name to John Sentamu and was appointed Archbishop of York??!!??

When did this happen?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +10
...
written by FrankH, January 20, 2010
Let us, however, give thanks for the unnamed BBC reporter who asked tougher questions than many reporters would have. He could have been more aggressive, but makes good points while remaining civil.

John Humphrys http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi...414824.stm
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
God is a lie
written by Son of Rea, January 20, 2010
The bottom line is, we all could do a better job than "God". Humans show far more compassion and forgiveness than is purportedly shown by God.

Goddamn, but this next statement sounds simplistic, but if I were God, I would have all the good without the bad.

No suffering required for building character. No evil required to exercise free will. No parent would ever lose their child. No elderly would ever suffer agonizingly debilitating disease. I would not be so petty as to require gratitude and love for the gifts that I give my children, just as I do not require that from my children now.

You might say that without bad, you can't know good. Tough crap, I'm God, I'll change that rule. Hardship builds character? B.S. I'll change that rule too. I'm all powerful. Without evil, people would be forced to love me? Nope. I wouldn't even let them know I existed. As a perfectly loving father, my joy would come from seeing my children happy.

If you still think evil is necessary requirement, how do you think "Heaven" gets on without it?

report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +16
...
written by Steel Rat, January 20, 2010
#3
His whole babbling blather reminds me of a scene from Life Of Brian.


Classic, WillyK, classic! Life of Brian pretty much sums up religion for me.

"Alright I am the Messiah! Now F*** OFF!"
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +8
Plenty of blame to go around
written by kdv, January 20, 2010
Amazing, isn't it. This is one of the most senior of their fraternity, and this is what he comes up with. To be fair, I would probably be much less erudite speaking off the cuff in an interview than if I were writing an opinion piece. Having said that, though, I still think I could give a better extemporaneous interview about, say, the history of Norway, than this senior archbishop gives us speaking in his field of supposed expertise. ( To make it clear, I know nothing whatsoever about the history of Norway. Sincere apologies to Norwegian readers. )

I'd also point out, though, that whatever criticism is (justly) directed at these imaginary god-things can also be directed against the self-proclaimed psychics. If, improbably, their claimed abilities are real, where are the warnings to the Haitian people about the disaster about to unfold? They might have saved tens of thousands of people from horrible injury and death. Not a word was heard.

I once put that point to an acquaintance who believes in these things. Her reply was that, because of skeptics like me, the warnings would not be believed, so there was no point. My reply to that was, yes, many people might not believe ... the first time. Sadly, natural disasters are not all that rare. If somebody had been on ( verifiable ) record as having predicted ( in reasonably specific terms ) the Indian Ocean tsunami and the Haitian earthquake, and if that person then predicted a new Genesis-type flood, I'd be out there building an ark as fast as I could!

Of course, we are pretty sure they're all liars and frauds. But if not, then they are even more evil. They don't even have the "god works in mysterious ways" excuse. On payment of a few dollars, they can warn Aunt Mary that something bad will happen to her next year, but they can't be bothered to warn huge numbers of people of impending doom. Perhaps if we offered them some money?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +11
...
written by likelystory, January 20, 2010
On the spot nonsense from on the spot Bishop.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +6
Theodicy
written by StarTrekLivz, January 20, 2010
The Archbishop of York has slammed into a problem better minds than his have failed to answer: evil.

If there is a god, then either:

God is amoral (good/evil are irrelevant categories). Theists reject this, though idiosyncratically (according to a prominent "holy" book, slavery & genocide directed against certain tribal groups are OK, eating a shrimp cocktail will land you in hell.

God is omnipotent but lacks compassion.

God is compassionate but futile.

If there were such a god, would s/he be worthy of worship? And in any case, the universe and even morality can be explained without invisible & capricious sky wizards.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +6
...
written by Bruno, January 20, 2010
Debating why God causes natural disasters goes back centuries. Nobody has ever really answered the question.

Well I daresay it has, and quite often: There seems to be no God at the reins. When people say that the theodicy question has never been answered, they really mean that it has never been answered in a way that includes a benevolent and omnipotent being.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +5
...
written by Soapy Sam, January 20, 2010
To be fair, most of us, faced with a question so antithetical to our beliefs, might stumble and hesitate. I suspect many interviews, unedited, would sound equally incoherent.

But you have to wonder- what's wrong with "I don't know" as a reply and why do people find it so hard to admit ignorance?

I don't think the Bishop's god exists outside his own mind- but if it did, I see no reason why this guy should be expected to understand the thinking of an alien superintelligence.

Next time someone asks a question you can't answer, bish, just tell them you don't know the answer. At least you'll look like an honest man faced with an awful dilemma and not like a complete plonker scrambling for an authoritative sounding lie.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +5
...
written by vino, January 20, 2010
I find it interesting how apologist for the bible can claim to have some elements of the book completely understood (the birth and resurrection of Jesus, what one needs to do to be "saved", for example) but then spout silly inane crap about gods mercy, mystery and engagement when a question of substance is ask.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +4
Also listen to...
written by JimD, January 21, 2010
the same program on Saturday 16th, scroll to 0854. There's a short piece by AC Grayling on the same subject.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by advancedGIR, January 21, 2010
Son of Rea, I'd like to disagree with you.

1-if there is one constant in human history, it is that when someone tries to make many other people happy without their consent, it always ends very bad.
2-This world is a hard place, but it is also a place of wonderful opportunities, and I don't believe we could grasp them without some incentive. As I once read, "happy people enjoy the world, unhappy people make it better".
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by Son of Rea, January 21, 2010
advancedGIR,

That's why I added the last line. How is Heaven supposed to work if evil is needed for happiness? In Heaven, there is supposed to be not only happiness, but true happiness without any evil.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +4
@DavidNYC
written by bkthorp, January 21, 2010
Good catch! Article changed.

Many thanks...

- BKT
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
@StarTrekLivz
written by Davis, January 21, 2010
You should have titled your post "The Idiots Tale", but I guess it was already taken. You are an arrogant buffoon. You said, "the universe and even morality can be explained" without God. Atheism offers ZERO answers about the universe and morality. At least be honest about your beliefs or you'll be just like us ignorant believers.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -43
Can't Help but Notice...
written by Jefoid, January 21, 2010
I am struck by the similarity of the nonsensical responses to simple questions here and those given by more earthly practitioners of woo when directly confronted with their failures. Their explanations for failure often drift incoherently from on sentence to the next, never quite finishing a thought or saying anything of substance. I wonder if this gives us some insight in to the mind of the Archbishop. He knows that his hope of a just god cannot be reconciled with the events in Haiti, just as the dowser or the fortune teller knows they have been exposed as a fraud.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +4
Sticks & Stones - for Davis
written by StarTrekLivz, January 21, 2010
I perceive that like many religionists you resort to name-calling and insults rather than reasoned discourse or courteous dispute.

Moral behavior (including cooperation, sharing resources with sick & elderly, care of young, etc.) has been observed in a number of species, including non-primates. And of course the moral lives of just oodles of atheists and agnostics give further evidence.

Not to mention the morality of religionists themselves -- leaving aside the shady behaviors of Ted Haggard, Jim Bakker, Jimmie Swaggart, Peter Popoff, Benny Hinn, et al, consider how much gross immoratlity is enshrined in the various holy books, where slavery, denigration of women and outsiders (or infidels), rules of no apparent logic (ostrich meat will send you to hell?) and other absurdities. Stone any witches lately? And lest you think I'm being flippant, in various countries in Africa scripture is being used as a basis for laws condoning the murder of witches and homosexuals.

To believe in a supreme being with creative powers is to merely transfer the problem: where did the deity come from? If the deity is (as many christians posit) eternal and outside of time and space, how does the deity interact with (let alone create) matter, time, and space? If the deity can be eternal and self-existing, why not the natural world? Isn't that simpler than adding the complication of another being, whose attributes cannot be known, detected, nor tested?

And which deity? If I say Thor is eternal, self-creating, self-existent, and self-sustaining, and the source of all life, goodness, and truth, would you consider my position ludicrous? Is it substantially different from your own?

We don't know the source of the first living organisms, but that doesn't mean that we won't figure it out given enough time.

I used to be a devout theist, in fact in the same Church as the Archbishop of York, and came to see the error of my ways ....
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +25
@startreklivs
written by Davis, January 21, 2010
You believe the "natural world" can be eternal? Impossible, unless you disregard common sense, which darwinists are known for. And just because hypocrites and crooks have posed as christians does not prove or disprove anything. That would be like me saying Timothy McVeigh repersents all atheists because he knew (in his mind anyway) that he answered to no higher authority and could practice any moral code that suited him. As a side question- just who are you to say that what he did was wrong?
To quote you: "Moral behavior (including cooperation, sharing resources with sick & elderly, care of young, etc" has been observed in nature. What if another Mcveigh doesnt want to view morality this way? Are they wrong? If not why not and by who's standard?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -27
50 Voices
written by Son of Rea, January 21, 2010
In 50 Voices of Disbelief (http://bit.ly/6g1qT2) one author shows a perfectly logical argument for the existence of a purely evil god, using the same rationalizations that people use to defend the perfectly loving god.

The "loving god" defenders claim that evil is present so we can know good, build character, etc. etc.
The "evil god" theory uses the same argument in reverse: an evil god only allows good so that people can feel true evil, etc.

Every rationalization for a good god can be used as "logic" for an evil one.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +5
@son of rea
written by Davis, January 21, 2010
You might have an argument except for the gentleman that was born about 2000 years ago. If you find an "evil" Jesus then your view is correct.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -17
Babylon 5
written by StarTrekLivz, January 21, 2010
Hello, son of Rea -- your note on "50 Voices" reminds me of the Vorlons and the Shadows -- two ancient and inimicable civilizations of aliens that influenced human and other later civilizations in the TV science fiction series "Babylon 5." The Vorlons were like the "light," with the rules, do good, etc. The Shadows were like the dark, who believed strength and value came through struggle and conflict.

In the end, they were more similar than different ......

report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
Davis, you can't think of one? Really?
written by MarkNS, January 21, 2010
Davis, when you say "Atheism offers ZERO answers about the universe and morality." It sounds as if the only way you can decide if something is right or wrong is solely based upon what your god has decreed. Are you saying that, other than because god said so, you can't think of one reason why you shouldn't rape or murder? If your god suddenly changed his mind and said pedophilia is ok, you'd go along with this decision? Yoiks! I'll take the morals I got through evolution thanks.
BTW...just so ya know, your bible condones rape and murder...now I'm getting scared.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +10
@Markns
written by Davis, January 21, 2010
So every moral you practice is based upon eons of trial and error? What are you, a robot? (my apologies to robots everywhere)
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -16
I Robot
written by Son of Rea, January 21, 2010
Yes, Davis, we are all biological robots. You are driven by desires and urges that "you" cannot control. You are a pawn of genetics, and environment.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +7
@son of rea
written by Davis, January 21, 2010
What if my "desires and urges" are different than yours? Am I wrong?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -9
@Davis
written by Son of Rea, January 21, 2010
Depends on your definition of wrong. There really is no inherent right or wrong. There is no good or evil. There is only society's definitions of those words. If an animal kills another in the wild, we call it nature. If a human does it to another human we call it evil, or wrong because it threatens the happiness of us all.

If your desire is to take something that doesn't belong to you and you do so, then you are "wrong" by societies standards. But it is not "wrong" in and of itself. Is a parasite wrong to live off of its victim? No. It's just nature.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +5
...
written by MJG, January 21, 2010
What if my "desires and urges" are different than yours? Am I wrong?


Given that you appear to have the urge and desire to make nonsensical arguments on a skeptic board, E'd say that yes, you are wrong about many thing.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
@son of rea
written by Davis, January 21, 2010
You are incorrect. There IS "inherent right or wrong". Unless of course you believe society to ALWAYS be correct. What if society decides we should eliminate a certain group so as to "improve the herd"?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -11
@MJG
written by Davis, January 21, 2010
Example of "nonsensical" please? How about the belief system that states this vast universe arose from literal nothing and then somehow created complex life forms? Or even more absurd, this vast universe is an eternal entity, yet an eternal supreme being is impossible? Evidence please? Oh yeah, "we are still working on that" and "its not important so dont ask". The song of the atheists..........
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -11
@Son of Rea & Davis
written by houdin654jeff, January 21, 2010
Son of Rea, well spoken sir. I am, however, going to try to start a class action lawsuit against several murderers out there in the following cases: Deer V. Wolf, Fly V. Spider and Cockroaches V. ... Aw, just kidding. Nothing kills roaches...

Davis, morals ARE basically trial & error; that's how we learn EVERYTHING. You break a valuable lamp and your parent (hopefully) explains that doing so is wrong. You therefore learn not to do it agian (hopefully). Hurting people causes pain, most of us learn about physical pain in elementary school and decide against it. A few don't or discover they like it, hence murders, sadists and other such societal luminaries. Just because religion is a working tool to control people's morals & values doesn't make it any more right than just being a good person.

Imagine, just for a moment, there isn't a Heaven or Hell; No God, no Satan, no other world. That when we die, nothing whatsoever happens. Can you imagine how the world would be if people weren't trying to build up afterlife credits? Doing good things, not because they will get you into Heaven or because not doing them will condemn you to Hell, but because doing good is RIGHT. How evolved a race would we be if we could make a choice without eternal punishment or damnation hanging over us? If we could be compassionate and give two s#*%s about our fellow man out of sheer compassion, rather than fear of a deity & his "eternal love" we'll be missing in Hell? Just my theory.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +8
@ houdin654jeff
written by Davis, January 21, 2010
Well worded, but you are still avoiding the question. Is society ALWAYS to be trusted as the final authority of right and wrong? Extreme cases such as Hitler teach us that some segments of society (and individuals) can do what seems incredibly wrong to the others, while convinced in their on minds they are correct? What standard should we use? Majority?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -9
@Davis
written by Son of Rea, January 21, 2010
Your example just proves my point. Societies define right and wrong. It is a matter of perspective. The Nazis believed their actions justified. They did not call themselves evil. Suicide bombers do not consider themselves evil. They believe that their actions are good and holy.

From the perspective of other societies, their actions are evil. Nobody ever perceives their own deeds as evil; they always have reasons that justify their actions in their own minds.

The standards that should be used will never be agreed upon as long as there is great diversity in the world. I think the standards should be based on logic and reason, from which would stem fairness for all.

With all due respect, this ends my participation in the discussion, since it could go on forever, and it really isn't the best place to have it.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
@Davis
written by houdin654jeff, January 21, 2010
And what are you suggesting we use instead? The Bible? You won't get a lot of Muslims, Hindus or Buddists to agree with your standards. A book that advocates murder, homophobia, slavery, bigotry and many, many, many other horrible things is not a good basis for a life, in my humble opinion.

As for majority, yes, that is how America was founded. We're not a perfect country by any stretch of the imagination, but we can constantly change to suit societal norms. We had the bloodiest battle in our history about slavery, prohibited alcohol for a breif period and are currently going through a sweeping change in how we view family units. The majority of people believe that murder is wrong, thus it is wrong in general society. I'm sure you could get the majority to agree about theft, pedophilia and rape as well. We get into gray areas about people's sexualities & drug usage, but again these things should be logically discussed, not dogmatically shunned.

God says homosexuals are not allowed in Leviticus, but God doesn't live in our country and isn't gay (so far as I'm aware). I have a problem with someone who doesn't live where I live and doesn't do what I do TELLING me how to live my life. I, for the record, am not gay either, but I support people who are. WE should be trusted to decide for ourselves, not to have some intangible parent shaking a finger at us. Holding us up to a supposedly divine book that was written hundreds of years before our grandparents even existed seems magnificently backwards to me.

Catch you later Son of Rea, I don't mind long conversations.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +8
...
written by MJG, January 21, 2010
Example of "nonsensical" please?

Everything you have said thus far, inclusive.

How about the belief system that states this vast universe arose from literal nothing and then somehow created complex life forms?Or even more absurd, this vast universe is an eternal entity, yet an eternal supreme being is impossible? Evidence please? Oh yeah, "we are still working on that" and "its not important so dont ask". The song of the atheists.......


I hate to be flippant but really, there is no entry point into your argument that allows for even the beginning of rational debate. You seem to have a basic lack understanding of everything that science has to say about the world, as well as a fundamental antagonism toward rational thought. I'm not being antagonistic or insulting, I'm just saying I can't argue anything with you until you come up with a coherent statement to argue against.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +9
@MJG
written by Davis, January 21, 2010
If you want a coherent statement to argue against, how about whether or not you believe the evidence supports that the universe is eternal or did it have a specific starting point. Also- do you believe that evidence supports the belief that life can arise from non-life?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -10
MJG Don't Be Drawn In
written by StarTrekLivz, January 21, 2010
Hello,

Davis (and I wonder if he has used other pseudonyms in the past) if you notice does not quite play fair; he does not answer questions, he appeals to irrationality rather than evidence, logic is waste of time, and he's frequently rude & abusive. It's been a while since I've had the leisure to post here, once I realised with whom I was dealing, I ceased to respond. It isn't worth the time & effort.

As Dante wrote about the damned in Hell, "These are they who have lost the good of intellect." Make sure they are not arranging the science curriculum in your local public school and move on.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +9
...
written by okwhopooped, January 21, 2010
The real question here, is do you think when the big asteroid hit the earth that led to the demise of the dinosaurs they looked up to the heavens and asked why dino-God why? Why have we been damned by our dino-God? Just a thought, everyone needs some to look to for answers and to blame....
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
@Davis
written by TF, January 21, 2010
Aren't you the guy who keeps posting the Depeche Mode video all the time? Just kidding, though it would make sense to me...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
DIno-God
written by StarTrekLivz, January 21, 2010
we all know it was the all-merciful Thor who wanted to clear the ground for humanity -- it just took a couple billion years, required wholesale slaughter of a number of species, and was in so many ways grossly inefficient, but who are we to question the ways of the Almighty Thunderer?

smilies/grin.gif
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
...
written by Steel Rat, January 21, 2010
If you want a coherent statement to argue against, how about whether or not you believe the evidence supports that the universe is eternal or did it have a specific starting point. Also- do you believe that evidence supports the belief that life can arise from non-life?


My answer would be that we don't know and probably never will. Attributing said things to a magical sky daddy isn't an appropriate answer.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by Steel Rat, January 21, 2010
Davis (and I wonder if he has used other pseudonyms in the past) if you notice does not quite play fair; he does not answer questions, he appeals to irrationality rather than evidence, logic is waste of time, and he's frequently rude & abusive. It's been a while since I've had the leisure to post here, once I realised with whom I was dealing, I ceased to respond. It isn't worth the time & effort.


I agree, sounds like Truth64 or whatever its name was. Never answered questions, just ignored them.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
York Cathedral
written by mackhitch, January 21, 2010
The York Cathedral is an impressive architectural structure with beautiful stained-glass windows--a testament to man's ingenuity and work ethic. It is partially surrounded by an ancient city wall that welcomes foot traffic. The whole place would make a wonderful museum.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
A message to Davis.
written by JohnRatti, January 21, 2010
May I suggest taking some time to discover and learn about Ethics. Pure Ethics. The baseline of ethics that I try to live is to not cause undue harm to others. There are many different views on ethics in the world. The one recurring one I see from the skeptics in this forum is Social Contract Theory. The unwritten contract we make with each other NOT to harm one another. Social Contract is the basis for most "laws". It is what the society as a whole deems "right" or "wrong". As human beings, for the most part, we have come to the conclusion that things like murder, theft, and assault are bad. We have "learned" that harming each other makes it hard to live with each other. We learned very early on that we in fact need each other to survive. Humans are very pack oriented because of this need. So we gave up the freedom of being able to do harm to each other in order to survive. This is the essence of social contract and laws. This is also the basis for religious morality. The leaders of the first religions took this into their hands and molded it into their religious beliefs as a way to further stop people from killing, thieving, and assaulting each other. However they added the system of reward and punishment to it, which is something I'll get to in a minute...

report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +4
A message to Davis continued...
written by JohnRatti, January 21, 2010
What you have been saying a lot of is some religious morality, and a good amount of Subjective Relativism. An ethic I generally dislike and occasionally loathe. The idea of "What's good for you, isn't for me, and vice-versa." It leaves to much open for personal meddling. It basically allows someone to do whatever they want no matter what harm it causes others. I implore you to steer clear of this line of thinking. Even if different societies have different social contracts, they all stem from the general ethics of doing no harm to others. Whereas Sub. Rel. can to easily become all personal gain with disregard to those around you...

report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +5
Continued again...
written by JohnRatti, January 21, 2010
Now as i said I would like to discuss the underlying problem with religious morality. It's one of the things that first made me question my beliefs (I used to be Catholic. the gateway religion). I used to be an altar boy. I, at one time, considered the priesthood. Being as close to the religion as I was, I often contemplated the system of Christian religions. The system is as follows; Do good and repent = eternal reward in heaven, Sin and be unrepentant = eternal punishment in hell. The first thing that grabs me about this is that if your focus is to get to heaven and receive your eternal reward... then you automatically won't. You won't because your goal was heaven. Your goal is reward not purity. Read your scripture closely Davis. If you follow the commandments, never once sin, and do good deeds from birth until death, if you did it to get into heaven, you automatically don't get into heaven. St. Peter must have a LOT of free time on his hands. You would essentially have to do all of the above, and then find out on your death bed the existence of god and Christianity, except Christ, THEN find out about heaven for the FIRST time... then suddenly die to actually be allowed into heaven. Remember god knows what you are thinking (according to the bible). So even if you aren't SAYING that you are doing these things to get into heaven, GOD knows your true motives. Due to the Bylaws of the Christian faith and the bible; Preachers, Ministers, Priests etc... have been dooming their congregations to hell for 2000 years. Thats the part that got me. No matter how hard I might have tried, I was already doomed by the time I realized this. Which made me question. Everything.
As I questioned, I realized that ethics can have no system reward or punishment. If you are doing something for these motives you are simply bartering. If you do these things without these motives you are being a ethical and moral person.

report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +8
Last part of: A message to Davis...sorry for the length.
written by JohnRatti, January 21, 2010
The next thing I realized is, "WHAT A DEAL!!" I mean people in Jesus' time had an average lifespan of what, 30-40 years? Which meant that 30-40 years of being nice would fetch you an ETERNITY of bliss. Of course people signed up for that. They didn't have to slaughter expensive animals every month or so, obey odd and out of date rituals, etc. All they had to do was be nice to each other for 30 some years. This has got to be the all-time best deal ever. Its like me offering you 100 Trillion dollars...times infinity... in 40 years for a small one time investment of 1 dollar. Course no one realized the fine-print from the last paragraph. It's almost like a pyramid scheme.
What's more... even with a deal like this people STILL couldn't stick with the plan. So they throw in repentance for small handling fee. I know a scam when I see one. When I started learning about other religions they almost all follow this same outline. Some wackier than others, but generally the same idea.

So yeah, I became an atheist for philosophical reasons instead of scientific reasons. When I found out the religion I thought was one thing turned not only to be another thing.. but shared that other thing with all of the other religions. I suggest to you this Davis, find out what ethic works for you. I mix a little Kantian: Categorical Imperative ( a sense of duty) with a little Social Contract and a dash of situational awareness. The few minutes before you die, you should be able to look back on your life and know you made a positive impact on the world as a whole, and be able to truly "rest in peace". There is no known, quantifiable, tangible afterlife, when you die thats the end. Nothing else is left. That makes what you do while you ARE alive all the more important. So live your life trying to do as little harm to others as is possible, while at the same time doing as much as you can to help others.

Well that was a little long winded, I originally wrote this altogether.
I apologize for the inconvenience...
lol
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +7
@JohnRatti
written by Dooyoowoowoo, January 22, 2010
Word smilies/cool.gif
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
@JohnRatti
written by CasaRojo, January 22, 2010
Great post, JohnRatti!!!
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
@mjg
written by Davis, January 22, 2010
I wouldnt put much stock in anything Startrklivz says. He posted once on this site(not sure which thread but it was similar to this one) that he believed in spontaneous generation. When I asked him to provide any hint of evidence (which is impossible of course) he claimed I was being abusive and closed minded.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -7
Lies and Fears
written by StarTrekLivz, January 22, 2010
For the record, I never said I believed in spontaneous generation. Davis seems to be confusing spontaneous generation with abiogenesis. In an earlier thread I pointed out the Urey experiments in the ?1950's? ?1960's? which demonstrated that amino acids can be created from non-biological processes under conditions similar to early earth, and from amino acids to self-replicating proteins, RNA, etc. is not that dramatic a leap, especially over epochs of time.

May Thor forgive him for his falsehoods .....

BTW, great post, JohnRatti -- I've frequently thought most Christians are buying fire insurance rather than living a faith tradition .... I've also noted most "faith" is a response to Fear:

Fear of Death. Not just one's own, but all one's friends & family.
Fear of Nihilism. That life without a divinity has no meaning, no purpose, no value.
Fear of immorality. That without a vindictive deity to threaten with, people will descend into selfishness and chaos.
Fear of impotence. That without a divine yet conveniently absent authority to appeal to, one will lose ones power over others (for clergy this has a major influence, for they would lose not merely power but income), and a fear that society would devolve into anarchy.

Once people break free of their fears, it's amazing how quickly they discover that the current fads for religion (like Christianity, Islam, etc.) are as easily discarded as Zeus and Odin and Marduk and Ra and Mithras and Asherah and Ishtar .......
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +4
@johnratti
written by Davis, January 22, 2010
I ,too, enjoyed your post but I must question some of your points. Obviously, you have thought about this topic quite a bit. However, you have a very simplistic view of christianity (especially since you say you once were a believer). We (at least I) dont try to do "good" merely to obrtain some future reward or to avoid some future punishment, thats an atheistic myth . Think of it like this, as an adult you do good things for your parents not because you want to avoid getting punished or to "stay listed in the will". You do these things because of your feelings for them. Its the same thing in christianity, its relationship based- regardless of who tries to distort it.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -5
@StarTrekLivz
written by Davis, January 22, 2010

Seriously, "amino acids to self-replicating proteins, RNA, etc. is not that dramatic a leap, especially over epochs of time." ?

This is the best you can produce as evidence that an inanimate object can later become living? I think Frankenstein's monster contained less science fiction.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -12
Waste of outrage
written by Didactylos, January 22, 2010
I'm not a fan of John Sentamu, but why is Randi (and all these commenters) so angry that Sentamu disagrees (strongly) with that horrible, horrible Pat Robertson?

Now, if you had caught Sentamu on a different topic, you may have found a LOT more to criticise. But this?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -4
Defense of the ABY
written by StarTrekLivz, January 22, 2010
I don't think Mr. Randi is denouncing his grace's denunciation of Pat Robertson's outrageous comments. (In fact ++Sentamu has been on the Good Side of a number of issues, including denouncing the Ugandan anti-homosexual laws -- his grace was born & raised in Uganda).

I think it's more of a comment of the paucity of Christian thought (by someone who has an earned doctorate in theology, his thesis was on soteriology) when confronted with a fundamental question: why do bad things happen to good, innocent people? If (a) there is a god, and (b) this god is good & loving, how do such terrible things happen. The nearly incoherent ramblings do not reflect well, especially coming from the 2nd most senior prelate in the entire Anglican Communion (even the interviewer in the transcript acknowledges his confusion at the ABY's answers).

(Oh, for you non-Anglicans, ABY = Archbishop of York. We also use ABC = Archbishop of Canterbury)
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
Two Thumbs Up - johnratti
written by MarkNS, January 22, 2010
@Davis,

johnratti gave a very coherent, rational explanation of why he holds certain ethical beliefs. I followed his logic quite easily; I understand why he holds some things to be "good" and some "bad". Judging by the beliefs he holds, I think he'd be a really nice guy who would generally do good things.

The only reason you, Davis, have given for your ethical beliefs is that your god has decreed them. I'll take you at your word that you try to do good things because you want to please your god and not because you are afraid of punishment or hell. This still seems like a pretty unconvincing reason to choose between what is "good" and what is "bad". I'll restate a question I asked you in an earlier post. Can you think of no other reason why you should not rape, for example, other than your god said not to and you want to please him. Can you not see rape as a "bad" thing without guidance from your god?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +6
Augustine and Ethics
written by StarTrekLivz, January 22, 2010
St Augustine, the 4th-5th century Bishop of Hippo and influential theologian (people don't realise how much of Christianity comes from him -- including the concept of Original Sin, as just one example - Jews and Eastern Orthodox do not have a theology of Original Sin because they do not recognize Augustine) wrote famously, "love God and do what you want." He did not mean licentiousness, but that acting out of right relationship, one would choose the good.

But, MarkNS, it is an excellent question you raise: in former centuries Christians cheerfully tortured and killed people accused of witchcraft, heresy, homosexuality, condoned genocide and wars against non-believers and people of what they believed to be inferior races (Native Americans, Africans, among the vitims). There is still litigation in the USA, Canada, and Australia about children forceably taken from their families and put into "Christian" schools which was bad enough, but in many instance the children suffered physical and sexual abuse. In the name of the Christian god.

In countries with a majority Muslim population today, there can exist death penalties for people who convert to other faiths or become agnostic/atheist.

I posit that one can and indeed should determine ethics outside of religion, since the cultic morality can be and frequently is in conflict with the value of human life, liberty, and dignity.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
@Davis
written by pxatkins, January 22, 2010
"You might have an argument except for the gentleman that was born about 2000 years ago. If you find an "evil" Jesus then your view is correct."


The gospel according to Thomas was discarded because it was full of references to JC's naughty side. Like blinding children for laughing at the Holy Family on their flight from Herod; Egyptian parents opening thier ovens and finding their children baked inside for likewise taking the piss out of Hebrews ... you'll have prepared an answer for that of course (or parrot one you baked earlier) but what the accepted gospels account of about whipping the moneylenders? And what kind of twat whithers a fig tree coz the fruit ain't ripe. And why would he pick it when in his infinite wisdom he already knew it wasn't ripe ...

report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
Upsetting the Locals
written by StarTrekLivz, January 22, 2010
@pxatkins, if you REALLY want to stir stuff up, point out:
1. How little evidence there is that Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Peter, James, John and the rest ever existed. (There is some evidence for Paul, and even a little for John the Baptist, I'll concede, but not much).
2. How unreliable and contradictory the New Testament is (Caesar Augustus never sent out a decree that the whole world should be taxed, to start with).
3. That the Gospels appear to be Midrashic writings rather than biography.
4. How as late as the Council of Nicaea New Testaments included the Shephard of Hermas, the Letters of Polycarp, the Letters of Irenaeus, but NOT the Revelation (Apocalypse) to John.

Then let the fun begin .....
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
Reply to Davis
written by JohnRatti, January 22, 2010
Yes I do think about it a lot. As should everyone. I look at ethics almost in the same sense as a foreign language. If you don't think about your ethics or use them enough, you start to lose them. Much like if you don't use languages you have learned you start to forget them. My view of Christianity (and all religions for that matter) is simple because I am look at the underlying system involved, a system of reward vs. punishment. Most religions are quite complex and diverse, however they all boil down to this same system (at least the ones I have looked at, there are plenty I know little about; Zoroastrianism is one example). It is this system which I take issue with.
As much as I don't like to generalize people, the vast majority I see on on t.v. or read about in the news, or even meet, speak of there religious morals in relation to heaven and hell. I am willing to bet if you did a simple poll of Christian believers asking WHY they do the things they do (in relation to good and evil) they will answer its so they get into heaven and won;t go to hell. If your motives are indeed not to achieve eternal bliss or avoid damnation, then good on ya.

The problem is (to quote John Locke) is we are born "Tabula Rasa", meaning blank slate. We have to be taught and have to experience things in order to learn. We aren't born with 16 credit hours of ethics hard coded into our brains. We must be taught them, and we must learn them. So if we are taught incorrectly from birth, we have nothing else to fall back on and say no thats not right. Which is why religious people often have a hard time understanding ethics without reward and punishment. Once again, if you can grasp the concept than good, continue that path.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
@LuigiNovi
written by gfpatterson, January 22, 2010
>Former Miss Teen South Carolina Caitlin Upton changed her name to John Sentamu and >was appointed Archbishop of York??!!??
>
>When did this happen?

Hey! I'm from SC -- same town as Ms. Upton. And I'm a bit touchy about this; she's supposedly a sweet girl and not really that dumb.

But this was freakin' funny. smilies/grin.gif
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
...
written by Herc, January 22, 2010
the Archbishop sounds ok to me, what exactly are you slagging off?

God why do bad things happen? ask a stupid question, you should rename this thread to The Idiot's Argument.

Now these are the words of a childish mind:
Very funny, you capricious, malicious, merciless, vengeful, egomaniacal deity…


Herc
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -12
...
written by MarkNS, January 22, 2010
Herc wrotethe Archbishop sounds ok to me, what exactly are you slagging off?

Please, for us dullards, paraphrase the Archbishop's answer as to why god allowed this tragedy to befall the Haitian people...particularly innocent children.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by Herc, January 22, 2010
OK, God has to abide by the laws of physics and probability.

Your argument is that we evolved from microbes, but you don't like the fact we share the planet with disease?

Earth is 50% rich fertile soil, but you think we shouldn't have to put up with deserts and ice caps.

Earth cooled from a molten planet and still has a molten core, but you want to live on a planet with no volcanoes, storms, lightning, and God forbid meteorites, why couldn't he make the laws of physics right so there would be no darn meteorites, I mean how capricious, malicious, merciless, vengeful, egomaniacal to strike a few people down from above every century. And what about those darn spiders and sharks killing people, how capricous is that? We should have horses and koala bars.

If Hitler was never born, we would just use someone else's name as a symbol of evil.

Evolution works through trial and error (actually it's directed to create Adam (me) and Eve but let's not do too much in one day). Genetic mutations are MISTAKES, usually BAD things.

Bad things happen!

Herc
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -7
...
written by Steel Rat, January 22, 2010
Please, for us dullards, paraphrase the Archbishop's answer as to why god allowed this tragedy to befall the Haitian people...particularly innocent children.


Actually the question is why does "god" CAUSE natural disasters, especially on already downtrodden peoples.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
...
written by Steel Rat, January 22, 2010
OK, God has to abide by the laws of physics and probability.


He/she/it does? Why? Isn't much of the babble an indication that he/she/it doesn't abide by the laws of physics?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by Herc, January 22, 2010
does it matter? using the argument God = Utoptia therefore there is no God is naive.

It's more an atheism campaign than logically reasonable.

Try getting nailed to a cross or suffering 8 years of continuous sonic weapons. You have it easy.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -7
...
written by Steel Rat, January 22, 2010
You need to ask the people who say natural disasters are acts of god. To say there is a god is naive, anything after that is just silly.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by Herc, January 22, 2010
You're all fools. I applied for the paranormal prize and my address on the application was 4 Macintosh Street.
That just doesn't happen in the atheists universe, you can rebuke it 10 different ways until sunset, so what?, what about 2 Eden Road, blah blah blah. You are so fucking naive it's not funny, I've been saying for 8 years PROOF ON SIGHT I am Genesis Adam, just find a fucking idiot skeptic to meet me in public, the proof takes 2 seconds and like THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE who already know I am Adam, he will believe instantly.

I walked across the road to the shop yesterday and it was like the Beatles had flown in, a group of girls were yelling "your the son of God", dodged them and another goes "it's genesis Adam".

I'm buying a conference mode voice recorder next week it should pick up the comments, then I'll upload the audio.

Herc
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -12
...
written by Dooyoowoowoo, January 22, 2010
Herc, your tinfoil hat is slipping.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +5
Son of God?
written by AndyD, January 22, 2010
Adam, the son of God, needs to but a voice recorder in order to make his point? This just gets less and less impressive as the years go by.

The Archbishop has another transcript on his own website. It's a different interview with much longer answers - and it still makes as much sense as this one.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by Herc, January 22, 2010
Well the more evidence I give the more "critical thinking" you demonstrate to rebuke everything.

I answered 10 questions running by opening a book to a random page, on video, and you said I was "seeing patterns".

You didn't make any effort to try the experiment, analyse the answers, just hey ho critical think my way out of this one.

I'm impressive enough for your government to blow $50 million on me with dozens of full time staff working around the clock using the latest tech. on me, namely sonic weapons, none of you BELIEVE in, now a recording is UNIMPRESSIVE before you've even heard anything.

Fuck you AndyD and fuck the lot of you, when you listen to the mind probe and dozens of people calling me God, you'll realise your freedom is limited, it's a matter of time before I'm King, and the renegging Randi institute and all the fucking cunt skeptics in the world will be rounded up and put into Fag prison with big fucking fag rapists in every cell. You and Jeff Wagg will share Randi's bed.

Herc
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -11
@ Herc
written by houdin654jeff, January 22, 2010
Wow. Quite the mouth on the "Son of God."

Herc, we asked you a very simple question a few posts ago. Why does God allow bad things to happen? Your response was an off-the-rails attempt to point out the laws of physics and natural disasters. Then you declared yourself "Adam." Then you simply said, "Bad things happen." Yes, we understand that point, which is why we asked the question, but WHY? Yes the Earth is a complicated system, but why do earthquakes happen in places where innocent children will die? To sum it up, here is the simple question we want an answer to:

Why does an all powerful, benevolent, omnipotent God allow bad things to happen to innocent people and their children?

Please tell us, oh Son of God (who resorts to using foul language rather than logical points to drive home ideas that make sense to him and him alone) that we may follow you into enlightenment, so sayeth the... Me.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by Herc, January 22, 2010
I don't understand your objection.

If God could or would give every child perfect health, food, parenting, protection from natural disaster,
why wouldn't he just do it for everyone?

How would it be possible to allow thieves, murderers, torturers, $1,000,000 prize renegers to operate
in the adult world, but child kidnapping was somehow celestially exempt from ever happening?

BTW, the good news is blasphemers to my face who didn't realise I was Adam only do 12 months in Fag Prison.

Herc
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -8
...
written by Herc, January 22, 2010
By the way you lying cunt Randi.

I posted a notarised application in 2000. You stopped replying to my emails.
6 years later I see my application in the Challenge Forum section.

I challenge you to produce documentation of you ever replying to my notarised application.

Herc
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -8
...
written by Herc, January 23, 2010
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=34200

Apparently JREF can discard notarised applications into a REJECTED file without notifying the claimaint of this.


inspired me to check for his name in the files. There it was, in the REJECTED section.

His initial claim, as follows, was received here in 2001.

============================================

I can see two varieties of tests, and will try either one or both.

1- I am given about 20 cards of a single question each, each day preferably before I am exposed to any sources of information I hold one card and turn on a television to a random channel of my selection.

2- Each day I say aloud or write a question then turn on the television. The test runs for 5 or 10 days until the television answers are considered random, or it is considered improbable the answers are random.




Not sure why it was rejected, I rambled on a bit about getting a significant result, but getting
the TV turned on at random to answer questions in test conditions should qualify as supernatural.

I told Kramer I was being rejected from paranormal tests because I'm like "the chosen one"
and he said it's definitely mental illness to claim you are the chosen one and JREF cannot do a test.

This is a serious flaw in the challenge protocol, as well as discarding applications and not being 100%
transparent. Basically, if you put you're Adam on the application, or if you mention it any time you
are not eligible. You have to be a normal person to take the paranormal challenge.

Skepticism is just an extension of atheism.

Herc
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -7
@Herc
written by TF, January 23, 2010
Hey Herc,
you are taking yourself a little bit too important. Haven't Monthy Python taught us that the real Son of God denies his heritage? And wouldn't the Son of God know enough to see everything is part of God's Masterplan, which meant he wouldn't have to insult people? (Like calling one very nice man cunt, you know. And this is also showing disrespect to women in general. What would Eve say? Or Lilith?)
I will put this another way:
If someone existed who was enlighted by the holy spirit (which might not be the case at all), then he or she was most likely not to be found in this forum, nor posting stupid ideas around the internet, nor warming him/herself in the people believing. (You know, like bein invited to parties and stuff...)
Her or she would maybe spend less time telling people what he or she is, but just doing good stuff, which you don't do.
Herc, go around and do good. THAT is worth spending time, not hanging around in a forum with us skeptics. You don't have to prove yourself here, because your arguments are not strong.
And read the forum rules, don't call people names here.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by Herc, January 23, 2010
Fuck, just make up a paranormal claim, send it to Randi on the contacts page and listen to the REAL FOUL garbage and insults he spins every time.

I get TORTURED, I am being TORTURED as we speak, I have been TORTURED 8 years every second, I get interrogated in my DREAMS.

YOUR GOVERNMENT is fucking satanic. YOU offer $1,000,000 which I can easily win, and I NEED to evade torture.

I'm the quietest guy you'd ever meet, I get bombarded with abuse from laser to sonic weapons from helicopters I presume, for the last 8 years. My thoughts are stripped straight out from my mind and broadcast to everyone in hearing range. I am FORCED to verbally attack people without the decision to say anything. When I see disabled people I try to control my thoughts and they say to me (this happened today) "Oh I'm a Mongoloid am I?"

Randi and your fucking stupidity COST ME EDEN. Eve was 21 when I met her for 3 minutes, now she is 32.

I've helped the blind see and the crippled walk, don't tell me what I've done or haven't done fool.

Is it that fucking hard for your diminished mind to test my claim?

You're not a skeptic you're a fuckwit, you don't have a fucking clue, apes are fucking stupid idiots.

Herc

report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -12
@Herc
written by TF, January 23, 2010
Thank you for explaning your mental condition to everyone. I now understand you completely. Live long and prosper.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by Herc, January 23, 2010
what gave it away? the angry lord bit? ah the mindreading that's impossible isn't it.

Herc
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -5
...
written by AlmightyBob, January 23, 2010
I generally have great respect for Randi and his writing. When, however, I saw the line " I present it verbatim, with the bad grammar, wrong verb tenses, and the uncertain umms and ahhs of the actual interview", I knew what was coming.

Take issue with the man's ideas as you wish, but attacking an off-the-cuff oral presentation for its form is incredibly lame.

Coincidentally I read in Orson Scott Card's online column today (http://www.hatrack.com/osc/rev...1-10.shtml), a statement that puts this better than I probably could:

"
... we often interrupt our statements as new thoughts occur to us. Oral speech is a mess (and immoral reporters use this to destroy those they despise, by reporting their oral lapses word for word instead of cleaning them up the way they always do with their friends).
"

Enough said, thank you.

report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -3
@AlmightyBob
written by Dooyoowoowoo, January 23, 2010
What you say is true, but I don't think it's asking too much to hear one coherent thought come from the very qualified theologians mouth is it?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by Steel Rat, January 23, 2010
You guys know "herc" is just having us on. No one as mental as he appears to be would even be able to operate a computer, much less use more or less proper punctuation, etc. He's just throw rocks and seeing who pops their heads up.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
RANDI THROWS NOTARISED APPLICATION IN THE BIN
written by Herc, January 23, 2010
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=34200

inspired me to check for his name in the files. There it was, in the REJECTED section.

His initial claim, as follows, was received here in 2001.

============================================

I can see two varieties of tests, and will try either one or both.

1- I am given about 20 cards of a single question each, each day preferably before I am exposed to any sources of information I hold one card and turn on a television to a random channel of my selection.

2- Each day I say aloud or write a question then turn on the television. The test runs for 5 or 10 days until the television answers are considered random, or it is considered improbable the answers are random.



Great test protocol where you get to select which psychics you want to test.

Herc
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -6
...
written by MarkNS, January 23, 2010
Herc,

has anyone (outside of these forums) ever suggested that you may be schizophrenic or that you should consult a doctor?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
To Herc/ Graham...
written by JohnRatti, January 23, 2010
Herc, or Graham Cooper,
whichever your name may be. A true skeptic would never turn away someone who TRULY could do the things they claim. We would love to discover some new branch of science involving some form of psychic power. If someone TRULY had these powers it would open a wide range of possibilities and help advance science in great strides. However, the things you are saying (beyond your claims of paranormal abilities) are textbook delusional paranoia. This is a real mental illness, not to be taken lightly. If you do not seek serious psychiatric treatment soon, you may become a danger to yourself or others. Your beliefs due to your condition may also become a danger to yourself or others. One must be skeptical of themselves first and foremost. Hopefully you heed these warnings and seek help as soon as possible.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +4
...
written by Herc, January 23, 2010
yes, but I'm actually smarter than the whole planet combined, and anything I don't know I can open a book to a random page and read the answer.

This is a bit like a neanderthal grunting at a homo sapien his rights to a slain deer.

You could always arrange for a skeptic to test my claim and you'd be quite surprised at the result.

I don't think you have the aptitude, but just make a hypothetical assumption I am Adam, and reread
what I've written assuming everything is true. Where is the contradiction?

You are actually the homo sapien, I'm the first homo sapien 2.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o960h_ba64s

Funny when I point out Randi's breach of contract the topic changes to mental illness,
exact same response on sci.skeptic

Herc
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -5
@Herc
written by Son of Rea, January 23, 2010
Wow. Adam. Father of mankind. So sad to see that you've been reduced to incoherent whining in the comments section of a dead post on a relatively obscure website. It's rather beneath you, don't you think? BTW, how did you survive the flood?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
Reply to Herc.
written by JohnRatti, January 23, 2010
Your illness is blatantly obvious. There was no breach of contract, because there was NO contract. I read the forum link YOU posted. You never followed any of the guidelines. You never filed a formal request, or negotiated the exact terms, time, place etc of the test. You just rambled on and became incoherent. Your actions made it seem apparent that your were mentally unstable. You talked about people recording, and rebroadcasting your thoughts. Which would either require technology no one has yet to invent, or some form of magic, which would just add to your delusions. I assure you, to the best of my knowledge you need to seek psychiatric intervention. For your own sake.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by Herc, January 23, 2010
I followed the guidelines to the letter.

I raised my right hand and swore in front of a judge that my application was the truth.

Read the challenge rules, you write a couple of paragraphs about what you can do, then work together on the test protocol.

NASA has done experiments taping a microphone to people's throats and can listen and recognise different words that they think. Your voice box never stops, there's no ON OFF switch between thinking and talking. Reading minds from a distance is not that far fetched given it can be done directly.

Herc
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -3
...
written by Herc, January 23, 2010
Wow. Adam. Father of mankind. So sad to see that you've been reduced to incoherent whining in the comments section of a dead post on a relatively obscure website. It's rather beneath you, don't you think? BTW, how did you survive the flood?


If you know another forum that offers to INVESTIGATE PARANORMAL CLAIMS and isn't full of shit then let me know.

Herc
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -3
The contradictions you requested.
written by JohnRatti, January 23, 2010
You said that you first sent the application in, in 2000 and you didn't hear back in 6 years. When in actuality it was in 2001 and you heard back from the JREF again in 2005 thats 4 years later. You start out saying 1,000 people have witnessed your talents, then 10,000, then 100,000. You claim a young woman named Eve aged 11 years in 3 minutes and that this is somehow Mr. Randi's fault. You are either purposely made statistics and happenings up, or you truly have lost all touch with reality. I hope you have family or friends that will intervene on your behalf and get you the help you desperately need.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
...
written by Herc, January 23, 2010
what the hell does that prove? apart that you misinterpret most of what you read.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -4
...
written by Herc, January 23, 2010
I said I applied in 2000 and Kramer wrote it was 2001. That's your contradiction? You're that desperate to refute me to stoop and point out something that trivial. You are truly pathetic. I saw Eve for 3 minutes 11 years ago, GOT IT?

Herc
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -4
...
written by Herc, January 23, 2010
Now THIS is a contradiciton.

A true skeptic would never turn away someone who TRULY could do the things they claim. We would love to discover some new branch of science involving some form of psychic power. If someone TRULY had these powers it would open a wide range of possibilities and help advance science in great strides. However, the things you are saying (beyond your claims of paranormal abilities) are textbook delusional paranoia.



Firstly, you don't know if a claimant can truly do anything paranormal, his claim is exactly the same as any frauds.

Secondly, ANY claim of psychic powers is text book delusional, so you have made yourself a guaranteed cop out.

Keep investigating those sane scientifically accepted claims!

Herc
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -3
Calm down, I am not trying to upset or iritate you Herc.
written by JohnRatti, January 23, 2010
So who is this Eve and why/how is it Mr. Randi's fault that you lost her and Eden? you also said 6 years after when it was at most 5 if we are to take your word for it (which right now is slightly hard to trust). You believe in your own supposed powers to such an extreme that you are blind to any evidence to the contrary. Everything you experience becomes twisted to your delusional state, and feeds it further. I am only trying to help you see the truth.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
...
written by Herc, January 23, 2010
Seen the movie 10?

If I could prove I was Adam then she should believe she's Eve.

Here's an excerpt from my novel.


Chapter 2

Eve

At high school all my friends used to talk about our perfect wives. Mine had long blonde hair, green eyes, was an Olympic gold medal gymnast and had a PhD in mathematics.

Now you have to think, figure it out, the bible says to search for God and nobody did. I was waving my arms doing supernatural tricks on the internet for 10 years and about three people said I might have some powers. Eve is a 10, that’s easy, it’s a given, any religious researcher worth his salt should be able to make that assumption. What’s her name? Where does she live? Look for clues. Her name rhymes with ten, her initial is the 10th letter, it’s easy, Jen. Jennifer Brooks, gender water, the woman. It’s funny God named her “wet pussy” and I’m “wife finder”, Graham Cooper the groom computer, sex machine! I wonder what names the Adam’s and Eve’s on other planets take on in their different languages. Where does she live, you know Adam would be born in Melbourne Australia, look at the states there. Victoria, Western Australia, New South Wales, South Australia, Northern Territory, Tasmania, Queensland. See it’s easy, straight out of Eddy Murphy‘s Coming To America where they visit Queens to find their Queen. OK pick a city in Queensland, Toowoomba, Brisbane, Townsville, Mackay, Gold Coast, Caloundra. World media isn’t centered in California, the stories are all based on events in Caloundra. Of course I lived in Townsville for a while too, what other town would suit Adam? Where would Eve work? The main industry is real estate. Guess where I met her, Ray White Real Estate, LJ Hooker Real Estate, Henzells Real Estate. Where do you pick up chicks, hen-sells. This real estate agency hen-sells is in the middle of a town called Caloundra, in Queensland, the shop, city and state all spell “here she is”, a perfect woman worked there for years, and no one caught on. I walk around wondering at the people here “What state are you in?” Where do you think Eden is, where do you think Eve lives? Crackton?

Eve’s name contains another clue that she is Eve. When I was watching the Xfiles I saw Laurie Holden and said “I’m going to marry her” and followed her on the show for several months. Then I was watching Logan’s Run and fell for the character Jessica 6. When Jennifer handed me her business card “Jennifer Brooks” I thought this must be some kind of sign, she looked exactly like Laurie Holden with one exception, bright green eyes. Jen stands out from the crowd so easily it serves a purpose, after only seeing her for 3 minutes 11 years ago, she’s easy to recognise, you only need a glimpse. It’s odd after telling her she’s Eve she doesn’t believe it, it’s obvious on sight, truly stunning.




Herc
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -3
The Truth Is Out There
written by Herc, January 24, 2010
I bet you didn't guess Xfiles was about little green men?

Herc
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -3
...
written by Herc, January 24, 2010
....little green man at this stage, thanks to Randi. smilies/angry.gif

Herc
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -3
@Herc
written by Son of Rea, January 24, 2010
If you are the Adam what the hell have you been doing for the past 6000 years...slacking off? You would think someone with your temporal advantage would be exceedingly wealthy by now, and have no need for a measly million anyway. Couldn't you just sell your fig leaf on eBay or something? I mean come on! Bill Gates has only been around for like 54 years and he's the richest man on Earth! And what the hell would the Father of Mankind need with money anyway? Clearly you don't need it to survive. So earn some paranormal credibility here and now: who is going to win the Super Bowl, and what's the final score gonna be? Bonus points if you answer before we know who's even going to the Super Bowl.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by Steel Rat, January 24, 2010
Again people, just let this troll die.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by Herc, January 24, 2010
I'm 38.

Apes >> Homo Sapien >> Homo Sapien 2

The final phase of human evolution is quantum evolution of telepaths

I've already made a billion. I own Camgirls.com, the biggest camgirl site makes over $100,000,000 per year.

Herc
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -2
...
written by Herc, January 24, 2010
Steel Rat, wasn't your first argument to me that Hussain Bolt could have been referring to a steel bolt?

Don't be so naive.

Herc
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -2
...
written by vino, January 25, 2010
Why do people riding roller-coasters and attending fundamentalist church meetings raise their hands up in the air with fingers extended?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
...
written by syphyre, February 04, 2010
This is my first time posting here, although I have lurked and read quite a while, and I'm always somewhat perturbed by how some skeptics have their own set of biases that won't go away. If I may, this is a quote from another article:

"But your audience for this article is largely unbelievers. For those who do believe in a deity, it's not likely any of them are fundies here on the JREF enjoying all this reason and elightenment."

Agreed. I consider myself Christian, and enlightened as well. The skeptics here REALLY need to start befriending more and more of the enlightened Christians and those of other faiths, instead of alienating them. An atheist or agnostic will never convince a fundy to change their mind. Those of their same faith, but different beliefs might. Anecdotal evidence has led me to that conclusion (though indeed, anecdotal).

Skeptisism can be as strong a belief system as Fundamentalists have. Make sure you're not pounding your beliefs into other's heads using the exact same methods others are accused of (which I see SO very often)

On the other side, every single Christian/Religious person here and around the world has a duty as well, to make sure that we remain in enlightenment, and don't slip into the Dark Ages.

This isn't particularly related to this exact article, or any other article, but I needed to express these thoughts. It's usually more productive at parties and meetings as a whole if, instead of throwing someone out, you nudge your friend who is their friend and say "hey, can you ask him to calm down?"
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by CasaRojo, February 04, 2010
"I consider myself Christian, and enlightened as well."

What is an "enlightened Christian"? Do you believe that God required the horrific sacrifice of his son in order to save you from your sins?

"Skeptisism can be as strong a belief system as Fundamentalists have."

I believe that skepticism is a process that helps us to find the truth in any given topic or situation. Often it's knowing the right questions to ask. 'Belief' within the context that you used has nothing to do with the method of skepticism IMHO.
"Skepticism: A methodology that starts from doubt and aims to acquire certainty"
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/skepticism"
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by Steel Rat, February 04, 2010
An atheist or agnostic will never convince a fundy to change their mind.


I don't recall anyone attempting to Atheize anyone else. We may point out how silly their beliefs are, but those are just observations. What atheists really want, I think, is less religion forced down our throats.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1

Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy
Last Updated on Thursday, 21 January 2010 10:01