Hermione. She gets it.

“… what about the stone, Mr Lovegood? The thing you call the Resurrection Stone?”
“What of it?”
“Well, how can that be real?”
“Prove that it is not,” said Xenophilius.
Hermione looked outraged.
“But that’s – I’m sorry, but that’s completely ridiculous! How can I possibly prove it doesn’t exist? Do you expect me to get hold of -of all the pebbles in the world and test them? I mean, you could claim that anything’s real if the only basis for believing in it is that nobody’s proved it doesn’t exist!”
Hermione
She gets it.

110 thoughts on “Hermione. She gets it.”

      1. The evidence is that Harry discovered it before he went into the forest to meet Voldemort. Sorry if I spoiled anything for you. Yet if you didn’t know that you probably aren’t actually a fan, therefore you don’t care.

        1. At this stage of the book, the existence of the stone hasn’t been established for hermoine. Whether it exists or not is not the point. Hermoine asks for evidence. Instead of providing evidence, Lovegrove says she can’t prove that it is not real.

          Lovegrove has made a positive claim. He now has to provide proof of his claim. If he can’t provide proof for his claim, the default position is that his claim is false.

          1. ijs, this is just a book.That ideal however is very applicable to the real world.Last time I checked, anyone can right a story in which the protagonist doesn’t believe in the artifact, but eventually finds it to be real.

            1. all books are “just books”. but that really doesn’t mean anything. their being books doesn’t take away from the important place they have in society.

          2. This is called an argument from ignorance. Although I do agree that one cannot assume that something is true simply because there is not proof to the contrary, the same applies in the opposite situation. One cannot claim that a deity does not exist simply because of lack of proof that there is. Therefore, your claim that there is any sort of “default position” is logically fallicious.

            1. The “default position” is no belief, not an active belief of the contrary. Not holding belief is not a claim and therefore does not require proof. Until one believes something, there is no belief; so yes, it is the default position. For example, babies don’t have active beliefs in a diety, but that surely does not mean they have active beliefs that a diety does not axist (the latter being a claim that babies do not even have the mental capacity to make).

          3. This is what is commonly known as an argument from ignorance. One cannot claim that there is a deity (or stone of any kind) because of lack of evidence that there is not. Conversely, another cannot say that there is not a deity (or stone) because of lack of proof otherwise. Therefore, your claim of any “default position” because of lack of proof is logically fallicious.

            1. No. The default position in any debate is that there is nothing until it is proven. The default position is not that there is something until it’s disproven. Or are you prepared to accept the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorn (etc)?

              You always start with nothing. You may then succeed in proving something or fail. That’s the debate.

              Only people who don’t understand logic or debate think that you can start with a premise (eg, something exists) and then try to disprove it.

    1. It would make the claim true. The original argument was still a fallacy of logic. Mc Donalds claims that they have sold billions. If I say that it must be true because the sign said it is so then I would be a moron. The fact that it is true does not validate my bad argument.

    2. The point is not whether or not the stone exists. The point is that the argument used that you cannot prove it doesn’t exist is completely invalid. Whether or not the stone actually exists doesn’t change the fact that Lovegood made a terrible argument to support it.

  1. So guesses that turn out true are good, Your-argument-is-invalid?

    Mr Lovegood was not able to produce evidence for his claims.
    The onus of evidence always lies with the person making the claim.
    By your argument, will anything Mr Lovegood claims in the future be true?
    The credulity shown in your comment is how religions get started.

  2. @Your argument is invalid – I don’t really understand your questions: What did she “get”? The point is that she was appropriately skeptical. She did not believe in something simply based on an unreliable source’s assertion. If it ended up existing in the end, then the evidence surfaced and that is the appropriate time to “believe” (or, actually, more appropriately, “accept”) it’s existence. Until there is evidence surfaces, there is no value in “believing” any assertion.

  3. She gets that, a thing doesn’t exist simply because someone says that it does.

    There has to be some kind of evidence, to back up a statement that something exists.

    I could claim that I have an invisible mini-pink [unicorn]* in my pocket
    without some kind of evidence, to back my statement up, no one will believe me

    Sadly this kind of critical thinking does not happen very often in the U.S.

    * [Edited by admin cause I think that’s what niteowl wanted to say. Please message me if I am mistaken, niteowl.]

  4. “Your argument is invalid” is caught up on the idea that Hermoine was wrong. She wasn’t wrong because her method was right. She quite rightly asked for evidence and rejected the idea that she had to disprove the existence of a thing.

    If you make a positive claim, like: “my god exists”, you have to offer evidence for it or the default position remains that your god does not exist. As niteowl points out, “your argument is invalid” could claim anything using the same technique. Are we supposed to just credulously accept any claim? Will you accept any claim “your argument is invalid”?

    What if I claim that I am god and you can cut out the middle man and tithe directly to me now? You would automatically be skeptical. You can’t prove that I’m not a god. You could track me down and look at me and say: “you don’t look like a god and can’t do supernatural things like a god” but I would just use the old “if I prove I’m a god, the kind of god you should tithe to, then you wouldn’t have faith and faith is my test”. That argument has been working for millenia. Will it work on you today? What’s your paypal ID? I’ll start debiting you today.

    1. Why do so many people “tithe” to the claimed middle man (TV preachers, faith healers, churches) where we all know the money buys luxuries for the “chosen” ones (who chose them?) and so little goes to help those that truly need help? How did those TV preachers get surrounded by gold plated (or even solid) furniture in their studios? Must be lots of misled tithers who believe without any proof! Perhaps they will all go to the place the humans in religion created: hell to live with their other god, the devil incarnate as religious leaders.

  5. @Charlie:

    Yes, Harry Potter is fiction. But that does not mean it’s random, it doesn’t mean it’s meaningless, and it certainly does not mean that it has nothing to do with real life. Since it was written by a real person and read by real people, it has everything to do with real life.

    “Fairy tales are more than true: not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten.” – G. K. Chesterton

  6. What Hermione gets is the search for evidence, since this became a serious disagreement. She’s begging him to ponder his convictions rather than just accepting them without question. You don’t have to bash religion by questioning it. This is simply asking, “Have you thought through your choice?”

    1. Religion absolutely should be questioned because it has offered no proof of its claims. It demands blind faith and allegiance. It tells its patrons not to think through their choices; that those choices have been made for them. If questioning religion is bashing it; bash away.

      1. There are many things people accept without proof. We accept them because they’re reasonable based on the evidence. There IS evidence for the resurrection, and therefore the validity of the Christian worldview. YOU have to determine if it’s good or bad evidence. C.S. Lewis said his conviction of the veracity of the New Testament rested on several things, but one is that it has the “ring of truth”. I encourage all who are curious to read a few books in the New Testament…try Luke and Acts…shouldn’t take more than a couple hours. I’m a skeptic, and I like evidence, but to demand 100% proof is unreasonable. If God is who he says he is, then he could compel you to believe by providing the incontrovertible “proof” you demand…but would you then love and obey him? He’s too much of a “gentleman” for that.

        1. Thanks for your comment, John.

          I’ve got a good idea. You are, apparently, a Christian. Go and be a Muslim or a Jew. I think you should so just go and do it. Lots of people like it. There is as much evidence for Zeus, Allah or the Jewish God as there is for Jesus. Thor might be the god for you. You could be a Wiccan if you’d just read a few books on it. I’m sure that the Koran will convince you that Islam is the one true religion. There are plenty of people who write children’s books who subscribe to these religions too, so don’t worry, you’ll be able to formulate arguments from authority around those authors.

          This is equivalent to the arguments you have offered me. I am to just take up being a Christian because you think it’s a good idea and are comfortable basing your life on faith positions. If you want to take a faith position and live by it then go and do it. But don’t expect me to: give it the respect of a proven position, treat it differently to other faith positions, meekly comply with laws based on your faith, and pretend that I don’t lose respect for you when you make statements like the above.

          Demanding proof is not unreasonable if we are going to model our society on any book. That book’s veracity should be our first concern.

    1. No one likes a person who tries to change what is set. Its the same reason the emperor of the qin dynasty, Qin Shi Huangdi had burned the writings of Confucius. If no one knows there is another way everything goes according to plan. Keeping people’s minds locked down is how they keep their system running. So thinking vanilla ice cream is better than chocolate would be the work of Satan as well.

  7. I know you murdered your mother. i can’t prove it, but I believe it is true. So unless you can prove that you did not murder your mother, you must be a murderer because that is the core of my faith.

  8. And yet, J.K. Rowling, who created Hermione’s character and has described Hermione as the character in the HP series most like her, herself is a Christian. How can one see the many recurrences of the Fibonacci sequence in nature, and believe that all is random in the world?

    1. Order does not necessarily imply intelligence. Just because patterns exist does not mean that there must be a god that made the pattern. Just because someone does not know why the pattern exist does not mean that it must have been an intelligent being. There is much about the universe that we do not know, However we know much more about it than we did in the past Just because science does not have all the answers does not mean that it will never have those answers.

      There are patterns that do not exist in nature. Why?

      1. What patterns don’t exist in nature? What is your definition of nature? If it exists somewhere in the world (physical, philosophical, metaphysical, whatever), it exists. The fact that we humans denominate something as “natural” does not mean it is limited to that denomination. And while I agree that being skeptical is a good thing (rational thought is much underutilized in this society), just because something can’t be proven by a physical production of the thing to be proved, does not mean it does not exist. Obviously – atoms exist, and yet I’ve never seen one, and I bet you haven’t either. But I bet you believe they exist!

        1. @Corina

          Wow! Full circle anyone? 360 degrees of duh. So you’re saying there is no evidence of atoms simply because YOU haven’t SEEN one? Oh boy. Corina is a perfect victim for this debate. :-)

          1. I don’t get where you think I’m saying there is no evidence of atoms just because I haven’t seen one. I wasn’t saying that at all. On what basis do you believe atoms exist? You haven’t seen one, correct? You have perhaps read books or studied physics with a teacher WHO TOLD YOU what the scientific “evidence” of the existence of atoms is believed to be. And weren’t atoms at one time believed to be the smallest particle to exist in our universe? Wasn’t the scientific “evidence” that that was so? And then scientists split the atom, and found there was a nucleus and neutrons and photons, all smaller than the atom. Isn’t your belief in the existence of atoms, nucleii, neutrons and photons essentially faith in the truthfulness of physics teachers and publishers of scientific texts? What “proof” do you have that atoms exist, other than faith in scientists and science? If you can believe in things people (scientists) say are real and exist, even if you can’t see, touch, smell, hear or taste them, or otherwise prove YOURSELF that they exist, how can you complain that people who believe in God do the same??

            1. I’m not a physicist, but if I wanted to see that atoms were real I could look through a microscope and see them. If I had enough clout I could go to CERN and see some of the fundamental pieces of atoms. The difference is that there is no way that I could find out if “GOD” were real unless HE came from heaven and said “look at me, look at me I’m real”, and even then you probably wouldn’t believe him. There is no telescope that can peek into the heavens and spy on “GOD”.

            2. My point is that we humans accept a lot of things on faith; i.e., that what doctors tell us about high cholesterol leading to heart disease is true, that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, that men have landed on the moon (and there are a LOT of people who don’t believe that!), etc. What some people believe is evidence of the existence of God is obviously good enough for them, and not good enough for others. None of us will know for sure whether God exists until we die. If it gives comfort to some people to believe in a god until then, what’s the harm? Why all the vitriol aimed at believers? I don’t believe that anyone should force their religious views on anyone, and I don’t believe in denigrating people who don’t believe in God. Everyone is entitled to find their own truth, and cutting people down for what they believe neither helps persuade nor advance the debate.

            3. Corina: I don’t take things on faith. I ask that things are shown to me. If my doctor wants me to do something, I ask him to show me that it’s real. I do not take faith positions.

            4. Corina, as far as I’m concerned you and everyone else can believe whatever you like. I will support you and fight for your right to do that. But if your beliefs impinge on me – what I can do, whom I can marry, where I can live – then we will have problem. And if you try to make those beliefs into laws that tell me to do or not do things, then we will have a major problem.

            5. @Corina

              We are forgetting a fundamental aspect of religion. More people have suffered, tortured, and died at the hands of religion than anything else in history. Even today people are persecuted, judged, and killed as a result. If people want to believe in something for their own comfort that’s fine, but fundamentalist religion has never stopped there, and still doesn’t to this day. Religion holds back progress by deluding people that there is some unspoken law of the universe stating some things shouldn’t be questioned or sought after. Could you imagine where we would be today if not for the centuries of religious intolerance and backward thinking throughout the ages? Religion teaches love, to those with blind faith, and judgement for everyone else. Anything important decision made in life is not accepted on a basis of faith, and if it is you are a fool. Are you a parent, if you had a child and a doctor told you that your seemingly healthy child was going to die and needed a dangerous surgery that may also kill them you wouldn’t ask for a second opinion? You wouldn’t ask for more evidence? If the President informed the nation that he received a ‘message from GOD’ stating all first born children should die to save humanity you would accept his basis of faith with no further questions, proof of the validity of the message? If humanity followed in blind faith like that, that sure wouldn’t be a world I would want to live in.

      2. And further to your comment that “order does not necessarily imply intelligence.” Doesn’t it? I do not know a single person I consider to be “orderly” who is not intelligent (which is not to say that some I consider to be not very orderly are unintelligent – wow, a triple negative!). I think order does imply intelligence, but the lack of order does not necessarily imply lack of intelligence.

        1. Actually order does not imply intelligence for a SPESIFIC reason.

          Patterns like the fibonacci patterns or other patterns in nature arise because of the strength of the electric charge of the atoms that make up the substances that make up the patterns, and the configuration of molecules that arises from those ‘magnet-like’ attractions as random wind vulcanos etc mix substances togeather.

          These magnet like atoms cause ALL of the patterns in biology. All the chemical reactions ARE attractions between eletrically charged atoms that make up a substance.

          If the wind blows down a forest an ignorant person could argue the forest was designed to be lying down in a certain direction, while it truly begin an unthinking force of nature that did it.

          A more easy to GET example might be this: Lets say sand in the desert by random coincidence of wind or a lizard, or thumbleweed flows down a cliff wedge, at the bottom of the cliff it forms a cone-shaped pile like in an hourglass.

          OH MY GOD ITS A MIRACLE THIS PILE IS DESIGNED TO BE CONE SHAPED!!!

          No, gravity combined with randomness caused it to occur.

          Same things can be said of the wave patterns in the desert from wind, or the waves at sea. Gravity, Electric charged between the atoms, heat. These things make it.

          If you know all the steps by which a crystal pattern forms by forces and randomness there is no room for a designer to step in undetected.

          Similarly the electric charge on atoms causes patterns in chemistry(in other words in biology).

          This reduces the argument from design into an argument from “who made the laws of physics”. But at least if you go that far you have to admitted argument from design is superflous.

          PS: The argument from “who made the laws of phyiscs” has a structure completely analogous to “who throws down lightning from the sky? Zeus? Thor?” Why is a who assumed in the question?

          The people at the time coudln’t imagine the real explanation for lightning and fallaciously treated it as a 2-choise argument either Zeus or not Zeus. A false dichotomy.

          This is wrong, the fact that there might be, and in this case were, unknown possibillities must be taken into account. With no evidence for Zeus the odds of him being the right pick approaches zero as having an unknown number of unknown possibillities approaches infinity. Only by getting evidence for Zeus can you isolate that ONE possibillity out from the unknown possibillities. In other words possibillities without evidence are trivial and demand no attention.

          1. If “gravity combined with randomness caused [the Fibonacci patterns] to occur,” then why do they occur even in space, where there is zero, or near-zero, gravity? And if it were true that the “strength of the electric charge of the atoms that make up the substances [are what] make up the patterns,” then we would have to accept the premise that ALL atoms in ALL substances are subject to the SAME electric charge in EVERY instance that produces a Fibonacci pattern. That is a faulty premise (kind of like the one posed to Hermione by Mr. Lovegood!), and as such, the conclusion must also be false.

            1. Then try playing with a magnet under a sheet of ice with those same filings, or under a piece of paper with some all-purpose flour. In all three scenarios, you will NOT get a Fibonacci sequence pattern.

            2. I’d hazard a guess that the reason you don’t get Fibonacci patterns is related to the relative strengths of the magnetic forces, the weights of the particles you’re experimenting with, and the timespan involved.

              As for your assertion regarding “…ALL atoms in ALL substances…”, that sounds like a strawman argument that you rightly debunk.

        2. In some cases believing in something leads to catastrophe. Take your example that “we humans accept a lot of things on faith; i.e.,…that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction…”

          Critical thinking by more people might have averted the tragedy of the Iraq War. It was based on misinformation that “we humans” accepted. As you say, “Everyone is entitled to find their own truth” and in this case,their own truth led to a catastrophic war. Other examples of someone’s own truth might have been the racism and antisemitism that led to Holocaust. Accepting one’s own truth without critical evaluation based on evidence, is a recipe for disaster.

          1. Dear Books:

            I agree wholeheartedly that “critical thinking by more people might have averted the tragedy of the Iraq War.” However, you take my statement “everyone is entitled to find their own truth” out of context. I do not make the argument that people should be able to decide which “facts” to believe and which to ignore without impunity, particularly if their actions taken in reliance on what they believe negatively affects other people. But how does my believing in a supreme being, without my forcing my beliefs on you or anyone else, harm anyone? That is my argument – people are entitled to find their own spiritual truth(s), and as long as they don’t force those beliefs on others, why should anyone complain? Do you tell all the children you know they are stupid to believe in Santa Claus? (Note that this is different from kindly pointing out the reasons that the “facts” of Santa Claus as a flesh-and-blood being can’t be logically supported.) If you wish to persuade a devoutly RELIGIOUS person (note again that this is different from someone who believes in a God) that the “facts” of their religion cannot be logically supported, argue away! Cogent, rational arguments may sway even some die-hard believers. What I am certain will not be effective is saying that all people who believe in God (or a religion) are stupid and a waste of air. Of course, if your aim is not to persuade, but merely abuse, then blogs are a perfect vehicle for vitriol.

  9. Conventional Logic :
    Person A – I have a baseball.
    Person B – Oh yeah? Prove it!
    Person A – *Pulls baseball from pocket* See?
    Person B – OK.

    Faulty (Religious) Logic :
    Person A – I have a god.
    Person B – Oh yeah? Prove it!
    Person A – YOU CAN’T PROVE THAT I DON’T!
    Person B – …

  10. “This is harry potter (with witches, goblins, trolls and giants), not real life”

    I’d just like to point out that, in well-written fiction, the setting may be fantastical, but a good character is one who responds to it in the same way a real person from the real world would. In other words: logic isn’t different just because magic happens to exist.

    1. No. The argument was still a fallacy of logic. She was not wrong to state that one cannot be asked to believe in the existence of a thing without any evidence of its existence. By presenting proof, as in the actual stone, you are not proving her wrong. You are fulfilling her requirement for belief, proof.

  11. So, that leaves me wondering how a properly skeptical person should respond when told that one plus one equals two. When you ask for this to be proven, all that one can really answer is that by DEFINITION, it is true. So has it really been proven? I mean, I could define anything in any way that I want.

    1. As with most arguments, premises must be set. Yes, there are people that will argue the definition of a number or even that math is an abstract concept where one plus one equals nothing because being abstract implies nonexistence. This has been done time and time again and lends little to the conversation because of the denial of the premise, no matter how stable it may be. This would be like saying “what is the definition of existence?” This might be a good question for a different conversation but it lends nothing to the current discussion.

    2. Keep fishing, Esther, keep fishing. Philosophy can always take us places that don’t exist. Philosophically speaking, 1+1 is not always 2, we might not exist, and you and I might not be having this conversation. Religiously speaking, don’t ask, because asking doesn’t help. Scientifically speaking, 1+1=2, you and I are having this conversation, and there is no god.

    1. Do you mean like the love of god? Like how he rewards those of us who don’t believe in him and his son (and a ghost) by burning us in hell? Like how he makes sure that the flames of hell don’t actually consume our flesh, so the agony never ends?

      Why don’t you explain love?

  12. The feeling of love is caused by the release of endorphines in the brain, oxytocin mostly if I’m not mistaken. There’s a great video on TED about it. Interestingly, the feeling of love doesn’t, to me, seem so far from many different types of drugs. Things like marijuana, nicotine, and other substances raise levels of other neurotransmitters in our brain, bringing different kinds of sensations similar to the euphoria, giddiness, speechlessness, etc. that love makes us feel. You will now undoubtedly call me the spawn of Satan now, for even deigning to make a connection between love and drugs, but be that as it may, I stand by my observations, and if you don’t like them, don’t read them.

  13. I used to belong to the atheist crowd for a good long while, until I found my own proof. God is not something that can be understood with a finite mind. No one can show you proof of a higher power. It eventually presents itself to you in the most perfect and beautiful way you can ever imagine. A way that you can’t logic away. You’ll even feel like you knew the answer all along. Either it happens to you in this life, or it won’t. You will learn eventually, when it is right for you. I’ll give you all a hint, you won’t find it in a religion. Religions (especially Christianity) are largely misunderstood by mainstream followers. There is a much more meaning behind the literal. Too many people get stuck in semantics that really have nothing to do with the actual point and message behind what’s written in the bible. Not to mention, the actual words been fucked with over the centuries due to corruption. But the essence of it can still be found. You just have to be open to it.

    That being said, never discount another person’s beliefs. Just because it’s not a truth in your world doesn’t make it not true.

    1. Jess,

      Your comment was is not rational. If the bible is so corrupted… Wait! Why would an almighty god let his word get corrupted especially if he wants us to believe it? Anyway, if the bible is so corrupted, how do you know which parts to keep and which to accept. The answer you will find is secular morality. We now no longer keep slaves, not because god changed his mind, but because of an increase in morality that has led to a positive gain in our ability to live and thrive together on this planet.

      Now, instead of talking about some way to confirm your claim, you just waste time telling us we will just come around to your point of view. NONSENSE!

      Read the section selected from Harry Potter. Absorb what we are trying to say. Lovecraft (or whatever the character’s name is I could give a damn about the story) said prove my nonsense wrong and Hermione says, “no, you need to prove your claim.”

      Even though Lovechannel’s assertion did turnout to be correct, Herhiney was correct at the time to be skeptical of his claim and reserve judgment until some evidence was provided.

      For instance, I went to buy a house this month and the lender asked me for proof of my salary and money in the bank.

      Then, I said, “well, prove I don’t have 1,000,000 dollars in the bank.”

      And he said, “HAHAHAHAH, no loan for you.”

      Them I replied, “Your infinite mind cannot handle my massive bank balance. But, someday you will have a feeling that it is true and you will believe me. Don’t let your corrupted notion of finance get in the way of this loan. Just be open to my fortune and give me money without any evidence of collateral.”

      Lender: “Wait, what you are saying is inherently falsifiable, if you are rich, where is your sports car, and why would you need a loan for 150K house”?

      Me: “That is not an adequate test of my fortune. Don’t you logic your way out of my claim.”

      What really happened? I got lots of paperwork verifying my claim about the money and salary I do have. The lender did not actually see a pile of money, but he received sufficient evidence that my claim was true.

      If god is real and he interacts with our world, then we could find evidence for it.

      Rick

  14. Yes !!!!I get what you theists are trying to say!! with the Hermione quote, which in my opinion is lame the fact that atheist are just running out of ways to shut god out haha Now using Harry Potter references lol to each his own:) if god does not exist to you . Why does it bother you so badly that others do believe I mean why should you care?Seriously ask yourself right now! anyway Yes Hermione says,” that just because it cant be dis proven does not mean it to be true, however the same can be said about Science i mean even facts can change over time Shocking isn’t it?? No not at all We live in a Cosmic Universe and we are primitive Life Forms . How could any one of us possibly know the actual truth think about it whether or not There is A God or Not. Not one Person could Possibly know at least not in this lifetime SO with that said. live and let live, Be happy and don’t try to endlessly look for answers that are simply not there. Does anyone Even think about the Bigger Picture Anymore. This Society is going to hell and that’s just an expression. Think about the real reason you ask yourself these questions instead of trying to prove and disprove different theory, Try to realize that you simply wish for stability in your life and you yourself depend on the answer of real or fake doesn’t matter what side of the fence you are on.

    1. If religious people base their lives on a Good Book, why are they so illiterate? Look at this meandering tirade. I can barely stand to read it.

      No, you don’t get the point of this. This isn’t really about your god. This is about appropriate skepticism, rules of evidence and logic. Because you filter everything through the idea that everything is about your personal relationship with your god, you assume we do to.

      Is it lame to discuss a point of logic and reason through a fictional character? Theists discuss everything through their fictional characters but, presumably, that’s fine with you.

      I am not shutting your god out. I am asking you to show me your god. Not the natural world attributed to god. Not a nonsensical book attributed to your god. I want to see your god. Just as Hermione quite reasonably asked for evidence for the existence of the philosopher’s stone.

      Your beliefs don’t bother me at all. You can believe in supernatural triune gods all you please. When theists seek to legislate their beliefs and curtail my rights we have a problem.

      You are saying that science being disproved like this is a weakness in science. This is science’s strength. It is open to disproof. If a well established theory, like evolution seeing as it is the favourite bugbear of theists, is disproved the new theory is adopted. I want the theory of evolution to be disproved, if possible. Imagine what discovery would need to be made to disprove the Unified Theory of Biology. It would be a wonderful thing for science to make such a discovery. But it wont be disproved by theists and their rear vision mirror gazing.

      You go on for a little while… varying your capitalization randomly… then, another point: “society is going to hell”. Is it? By what measure? Crime rates and down. Percentages of populations dying in war are down. Standards of living are increasing. Letting go of backward thought is causing societies to thrive. There has never been a better, happier, safer time. People who feel besieged are watching too much b-grade, alarmist news on TV with all of its alarmist rhetoric.

      “How could any one of us possibly know the actual truth think about it whether or not There is A God or Not.” This is a god of the gaps argument. Why shouldn’t we seek to find god/s? If god/s is/are real our understanding of everything will be greatly enhanced by this knowledge. We could look for this creature in holy texts but they are all so muddled, mutually exclusive and backward thinking that they cannot represent the god/s that would create universes. Many theists claim to know this. I am asking for evidence of their claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

      Your last sentence simply doesn’t make enough sense for me to bother. It reads a little like a bible. It looks like it should mean something and I’m sure that someone might assign meaning to it but the text itself is nonsense.

      1. It is not fair to lump together those people who believe in a supreme being with those who believe in a religion. There’s a difference – a really BIG difference.

        It seems to me that Jess came to believe in God through a spiritual event that impacted his/her life greatly. If someone you knew were to tell you they had fallen in love and were very happy about it, would your reaction be to shout “Prove it!”? (If it were, that would be pretty weird.) And what proof would satisfy you? And why would you require proof? Even if you had been disappointed in love many times, wouldn’t you be happy for your acquaintance? Or at least act like you were?

        Tolerance, folks. Let’s all practice a bit of it.

        1. Corina, who is Jess? Is “all of you are shallow” Jess? Are you and Jess trying to work this thread to insert your illogical god idea into it?

          The “prove love” idea is a strawman argument. We can show simply evidence for love. Time spent together. Yearning to be together. Shared interest. Physical attraction. Physical reactions to proximity. That love exists is not evidence of your god/s/deist-position, it is evidence that religion has co-opted love to strengthen their their arguments in the absence of evidence.

          To further your love example, wouldn’t you be a bit suspicious of your friend if they were still talking about how much they were in love but no-one had ever met this person? Perhaps you attended your friend’s wedding, you got to the ceremony and your friend seems to be marrying thin air.

          This is how I see theists with their love of their god. They are talking to thin air.

          Tolerance: why should I be tolerant of illogical thought patterns that lead people to the wrong answer time and time again? Tim Minchin said it well with his song: If You Open Your Mind Too Much Your Brain Will Fall Out. If we nod and smile at a person who says 1+1=4 are we helping them?

          1. Dear Admin:

            Jess is a little further up the thread. S/he said that s/he didn’t use to believe in God, until something happened to change her/his mind.

            Do you tolerate people who have different political beliefs from you? Or who like art or music you don’t like? Or do you call them stupid too?

            If you wish to persuade a devoutly RELIGIOUS person (note that this is different from someone who believes in a God) that the “facts” of their religion cannot be logically supported, argue away! Cogent, rational arguments may sway even some die-hard believers. What I am certain will not be effective is saying that all people who believe in God (or a religion) are stupid and a waste of air. Of course, if your aim is not to persuade, but merely abuse, then blogs are a perfect vehicle for vitriol.

  15. you totally missed the point there^^^^^ oh btw, I am not religous. Also I save my good grammar for issues of actual importance. This entire page your life? lol NO wonder you Believe In absolutley NOTHING , Pitty my Friend That is all You will Take from me this day:) Sorry You are so Bitter about life I hope you learn to let go of all that hate inside you someday and realize that life is beautiful, Religion,Atheism aside. Also thid is pretty legible to me but if you find my grammar unsatisfactory feel free to bash it that is was negativity spreaders do. Keep searching for your meaning of life while i Actually live it:)

    1. “… of actual importance…”
      If it’s not important to you, why are you here writing illiterate tirades and going to the effort of making them sound literate?

      You have to be a theist. Only a theist would say: “NO wonder you Believe In absolutley NOTHING”. Only a believer would build the “atheists believe in nothing” strawman.
      Then there’s the random capitalization. That screams theist. Doesn’t your god have some prohibition on lying? It’s your bible. Do as your bible says, stop lying to people? Perhaps you could stop lying to yourself first.

      I am not bitter about life, I just find theists and their beliefs hilarious. They appear to be adults but part of their brain is still clinging to their teddies at night. Too frightened of both life and death to stand on their own two feet.

      “Also thid is pretty legible to me but if you find my grammar unsatisfactory feel free to bash it that is was negativity spreaders do.”
      Dig up! Does this mean something to you? I’m not wasting time sorting through your muddled statements trying to extract some meaning from them for you. The point of communicating is to clearly make your thoughts known. You have failed to communicate.

      Do you imagine that this site is the meaning of my life? Again you are showing that you are just a theist troll. This religion BS is what gives your life meaning. I laugh at theists for fun, not as a life-fulfilling, meaningful experience.

      Thanks for dropping by. Please try not to do it again. Go and find some other theist trolls to circle jerk with.

  16. Setting all this about whether god is real or not aside, I think we can all agree he’s a royal prick (supposing he does exist). He created man and the universe (being all powerful) and (being all knowing) knew the entire chain of events that would unfold by doing this. Knowing most of his children would deny him for it, he obstinately refuses to offer any tangible proof he exists. In turn, he condemns his children (who he claims to love unconditionally btw) to an eternal hell for doing no more than saying “prove that book you hold isn’t a bunch of hogwash,”. Aside from all that, how can there possibly be this thing called “free will” if the future is set in stone? If you claim it is not set in stone, how can god possibly know future events? And another thing, we have this thing called the “holy spirit” which is an extension of god and fills people with his divine presence and assures us all that there is a god. This is supposedly the proof that people are missing, but if this is meant to be our proof, why would it only offer proof to those that don’t even need it? And why do we even need a bible is this thing is running about? (the normal argument here is that it must be invited into your soul, which suggests god isn’t really all powerful) I’m going to finish off by saying that any god who demands I believe things with no kind of proof, demands I worship him (not as a matter of respect but as a matter of fealty) and would condemn me to everlasting torture the likes of which I cannot imagine for failing to do either of these things, regardless of anything else I did in life, while exposing the most vile of earth’s scum into heaven simply for doing these things is not a god I would worship.

    It’s late, and I’m tired. Anybody with a legitimate rebuttal that doesn’t reference my spelling or some sort of missed punctuation will be welcomed. And no, the “you’ll see when god comes back,” “god works in mysterious ways,” and the classic “I’ll pray for you,” are not legitimate arguments as they miss the point entirely and will be taken as an admission of defeat.

  17. The obvious intelligence of the athiests (or skeptics) of this thread over the thiests says it all for me. The sad part is the theists just don’t get it and probably never will. I feel sad for them missing out on the beauty and awe of the real observable world; the only world we “know” exists… but then I remember the quote “Science flies rockets to the moon, Religion flies planes into buildings” and I’m more worried about there beleifs then sad.

  18. I just came upon this dialogue. I’m a Christian and I’m curious. If a person doesn’t believe God is real, why would that person invest ANY time at all in “debating” against the idea? Why wouldn’t they just let it go? … I don’t believe in Aliens but I don’t waste my time setting up sites to make fun of people who do, or trying to convince people who DO believe that they are wrong. What’s the point? Me thinks thou dost protest too much.( Hopefully you know your Shakespeare so you know what I’m talking about.)

    And another thing…One comment stated, ” I feel sad for them (theists ) missing out on the beauty and awe of the real observable world”. Are you kidding me? What makes you think those who believe in God are missing out on the joy of this marvelous creation? On the contrary, Christians are to enjoy everything that God created in the “real observable world” or VISIBLE world of creation. And we are also to enjoy the INVISIBLE things of this world such as love, joy, peace, gratitude, happiness, and more! Yes, God allows EVERYONE the blessing of enjoying the invisible as well so don’t feel left out.

    One more thing…EVERYONE lives by faith in SOMETHING! It may be God or it may be yourself but we ALL live by faith.And God cannot be proven or DISPROVEN so you’re wasting your time looking for proof. Just choose this day whom you will trust and have faith in. And then move on with your life.
    Now if you’re SEARCHING and STRUGGLING for answers, that’s another thing…

    Oh…And Religion doesn’t fly planes into buildings…terrorists do. If you do indeed want an intelligent conversation concerning your search for truth, then let’s be intelligent about it.

    (Admin edit: link to commentor’s page deleted because it was off topic.)

    1. “Why wouldn’t I just let it go?” Because this rubbish is rammed down my throat every day by theists and I’ve had enough. Just this morning the neighbour came over early to give me some stupid piece of rubbish about Easter and how God loves me. Why can’t these retards leave me alone? Couldn’t they find a poor person to wash or something.

      Masses of tax money and tax breaks are wasted on propping up religious nonsense machines. Thousands of hours of human effort is wasted preaching it. GLBTI people are harmed every day. Kids who don’t believe are bullied. The dying are badgered. Priests rape. Healthcare is denied sick children because god will save them. Women are raped in marriage. Rights are curtailed. Fun is banned. Children’s education is distorted. Do not pretend that your beliefs are harmless, they harm people every day. They harm me every day.

      If you’re going to quote Shakespeare, try not to look stupid by misquoting. “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”
      Typical of a theist, any thought that comes to mind is right, right? It took me 15 seconds to find reputable text to quote. I didn’t even have to go and look on the bookshelf.
      In using this quote you are saying that I believe in your god and am protesting loudly to convince myself and others of my insincere disbelief. I can assure you that you are quite wrong. I do not believe in your god. Just as you do not believe in thousands of gods. I think I’ll let Jack Reacher speak for me: “We’re all atheists. You don’t believe in Zeus or Thor or Neptune or Augustus Caesar or Mars or Venus or Sun Ra. You reject a thousand gods. Why should it bother you if someone else rejects a thousand and one?” I will accept evidence for any god, not arguments from personal credulity, mystical threats and nonsensical stories.

      On feeling sad for theists. You are implying that without your god I cannot enjoy “… love, joy, peace, gratitude, happiness, and more!” So you live your life, clinging to your god, assuming that without your god you will lose those things. That sounds like a life lived in fear. Fear of a tyrant who will suck every good thing out of your life if you don’t believe in him. Having this Sword of Damocles hanging over your head must really taint the way you experience love, joy, gratitude and happiness. I am glad I don’t share this affliction with you.

      I do not have faith in anything. That may sound like a big claim but it is true. Everything in my life is open to objective testing. Please don’t superimpose your confused thought patterns onto others. Before you say “prove that you love your wife”, I say I do prove it to her every day by being loving.

      You say that your “[g]od cannot be proven or disproven”. You are making excuses for this creature now. Sagan’s “The dragon in my garage” and Russel’s Teapot dismiss your assertion that a creature’s existence needs to be disproven. You have asserted that your god exists. I say he is innocent until proven guilty.

      I am not searching or struggling. I am happy with this one world. Why do you need another world? Another life? You are wasting your brief moment of existence bubbling to an invisible creature who hates you so much that it wont reveal itself to you in your darkest hours. Instead it leaves you with a dusty, incoherent book full of nonsense, and you want me to join you in this misery!

      The Muslim men flew those planes into those buildings to kill non-Muslims and earn the best heaven for themselves via martyrdom. If that’s wasn’t their religion flying planes into buildings, we are speaking at crossed purposes. Perhaps we have a different definition of the word “religion”. Your beliefs may be benign, as most are. Their beliefs were not benign. As long as moderate theists give cover to murderous, lunatic theists, religious hate crimes will continue. It surprises me that moderate theists don’t object the most vocally to their beliefs being misused by hate fulled lunatics. Why is it left up to atheists to point these things out?

      Fortunately, most Muslims are, like me, never driven to do unspeakable things. People are people and most just want a peaceful life. I’ll let Steven Weinberg speak for me here: “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” That you cannot see that religion caused this harm answers your question: Why wouldn’t they just let it go?

    2. “I don’t believe in Aliens but I don’t waste my time setting up sites to make fun of people who do, or trying to convince people who DO believe that they are wrong. ” The people who believe in aliens aren’t necessarily trying to influence politics (or education) to reflect their belief in aliens: otherwise there would definitely be websites set up to mock them.

  19. I sense a lot of anger and hurt coming from your words…Why does it make you think people are trying to “ram rubbish down your throat” when they simply tell you that someone loves you? Even if you don’t believe in this so called “rubbish” most people would not be insulted by a statement that offers love. People who respond in such a way are simply showing their true feelings of feeling hurt.

    No one is going to take your rantings seriously. If you want to be taken seriously and convince people that you are correct in your thinking, you better deal with your issues first. Talk about hate filled lunatics!

    Your accusations about what I believe are so silly and misunderstood, they don’t even demand a response. I only speak to the rational. Sorry…

    1. I am not angry and hurt. I am sick of theists asserting that they know what’s best for me and that their moral system is superior. Why shouldn’t I be sick of this? Wouldn’t you get sick of constantly being treated as incomplete? As a project? As less than equal?

      Christ and Christianity offer conditional love, not love. Setting aside his alarming lack of existence: Christ’s love extends only to those who believe in him. It is offered provided I believe. If I cease belief, he hands me over to Satan. Is that love? Is that how you love your family and friends? Sounds more like a good cop/bad cop scenario, or maybe a mob strategy to extort money from people.

      You say that my rantings will not be taken seriously and I wont convince others. You reveal your motive for talking to people about your beliefs: to convince them. You mistake the purpose of this blog. See the title? LOLTheists… I am laughing at them. Laughing at believers. Laughing at you and your beliefs. I don’t care if people lose their beliefs. I see funny pics and videos and I post them here.

      I don’t want to have a discussion with theists. Why would I want that? They just want to tell me what they believe and why I’m wrong. I am not surprised that you came back with a rude, dismissive comment. It happens all the time. Look at the comments on this site. Look at the way theists talk to non-believers. Your world view says that you are superior to the out-group and that god loves you and hates me for rejecting him. Do you imagine that you can keep this out of your posts?

      [edited for tone, spelling and clarity… although sandy will say it doesn’t make sense but she is biased.)

  20. Me again… I have to apologize if my comments above sounded mean spirited. I truly care about people and what they believe. I’m just running into so many atheists online that are so angry and it’s difficult to have a meaningful conversation when people can’t get past their anger. Also the very serious topics being discussed here are complex and require more than paragraphs on the internet to understand each other.

    I agree with you that there is a lot of evil and evil people in the world. I just disagree with you that it is all caused by “theists”.

    You ask, “Why does it bother you if someone rejects a thousand and one gods?” I never said it bothered me if someone rejects ANY God or ALL gods. I am not speaking here to try to convince you or anyone that there IS a God. No simple paragraphs here will make that kind of a difference. You make the assumption that I am asking you to believe in “my God”. I never asked such a thing. I accept you and your beliefs right where you are. If you are satisfied with what you believe then that’s OK.

    The problem here is that you don’t know me and you are making assumptions about me based on what you think “theists” are like.

    I know a lot of Muslims and they have said that the terrorists were not acting according to the true belief of Muslims. People can do anything and then say it is in the name of a “religion” but that doesn’t make it so. Why would you take the word of killers that what they did was based on their religion? My belief is not “benign” and yet it is about loving people not hurting them.

    You ask why I need another world, another life? I do not NEED another world or another life.I am blissfully enjoying the one I have here, thank you. And it is not out of fear that I believe but accepting something that I have found to be true. I simply believe what I found to be true and having a better life after this one is an “extra benefit” so to speak. :) But I’m not asking you to believe this just because I have found it to be true. I am simply sharing what I believe.

    Also I never suggested that you can’t enjoy peace, love, etc without believing in God. Just the opposite if you’ll read what I wrote again. And yet there is nothing being held over my head as you stated. I FREELY enjoy these things as gifts. You have gotten the wrong idea about how the Christian life works. But I will not be able to convince you of it here nor will I try. I am simply telling you what I believe. Not to convince you that you should believe it however…

    I would be interested to know, however, what your story is…How did you become so angry towards those who don’t believe as you do. It’s not about all those evils as you say… You sound reasonably intelligent enough to know that all evil does not come only from those who are theists.

    Gotta go for now… By the way… Am I the only one brave enough to leave my real name and photo here? Have a good day!

    1. First off, I have to say that I am not being rude. You mistake my rejection meaningless arguments in favor of god/s as rude. Perhaps you are unaccustomed to people speaking plainly to you about religion. I don’t think religion is a force for good in the world and am happy to say that to you. If you had walked up to me on the street and started proselytizing I would have said the same thing to you. I am sick of the licence to speak being only issued to theists. I am sick of holding my tongue while they spread their hatred.

      (If this appears angry to you, your interpretation is wrong. I am not angry.)

      Perhaps the reason why your you are unable to express your faith clearly on the internet is that it is emotional only and, thus, needs to be seen and felt because it makes no sense when it’s written out. Perhaps you have rejected my text renditions of your faith because I have held a mirror up to the nonsense. Perhaps they are Strawmen for all I know. Theists have tried their teary-eyed witnessing on me. I am not impressed. I just lose respect for those people because they strike me as gullible with confused thoughts. In the end they only offer arguments from personal credulity and when they don’t work they play the offence card. If they cannot be friends with me, the me me, not the me they want me to be, tithing to their church/mosque… whatever, they can simply get stuffed.

      (I am not angry about being rejected. These people were never my friends, why would their rejection anger me. As far as I am concerned I have saved years of my precious time by not getting involved with such superficial, two-faced people feigning friendship to convert me. I have real friends who have much better use for my time.)

      I am making assumptions based on the crap theists usually present as evidence. (Still not angry, just saying “crap”. You might have to be angry to call religion crap. I don’t. I can do it quite calmly and cheerfully. Crap! :) Crap! :) Crap! :)) If you don’t like the way that non-believers are behaving, why don’t you try to reign in the people who are constantly proselytizing to non-believers? Fix your fellow believers before you seek to propagate nonsense to me.

      (Not angry.)

      The Muslims who commit terrorist attacks say that they are true Muslims. Saying they are not is a No True Scotsman logical fallacy. Religion leaves so much room for subjective interpretation, who are you to tell them that there interpretation of their religion is wrong? Those Muslims who believe that terrorists are reading the Quran wrong need to talk to those Muslims instead of attacking atheists. We aren’t ploughing planes into buildings, blowing up churches, beheading infidels… we are merely pointing out the people who do.

      I am not angry at people who have nonsense beliefs. I am sick of being proselytized to. I don’t care what others believe as long as I don’t have to hear about it or have it legislated so I am required to comply. You don’t want to discuss this with me, you want to lead me to your faith. You can pretend all you like that this isn’t what you want to do but if you are honest with yourself and follow your bible you will be trying to convert and save me.

      (No anger here. Just typing up thoughts. If they are too angry sounding for your taste, go and talk to an agnostic religious apologist. Perhaps you could hone your arguments together.)

      I have never had a belief in god. I have never seen anything that made me think that there is a god. It never occurred to me, until recently, that people actually believed this stuff. They seem to be adults but, in reality, they are clinging to a hopelessly childish and absurd world view. The worst thing of it is that these people are given adult responsibilities like driving cars and voting. Yet part of their brain believes that a magical Jew is watching everything they do and monitoring every thought they have, especially about masturbating! And for some reason they want me to join them in this bizarre state of mind.

      (Still not angry… don’t start misquoting Shakespeare again, please.)

      Brave enough to use your real name? Brave enough to publicly state a belief that is generally accepted and respected. That doesn’t sound brave to me. That sounds like the actions of a herd dweller staying deep in the group for protection. Do you understand that my fellow atheists can be imprisoned or killed in many countries for declaring themselves? Why would I demand their names? They might not follow *your* one true god, but they are theists all the same. Again, go and fix those situations, show me that Christianity works as a means of safety and peace. This wont make it true but at least it will make it useful. It wasn’t that long ago that Christians were killing non-believers and I wouldn’t be surprised if they started again, like Christian groups in Africa kill atheists, gays, albinos and children who they think are possessed.

      (Still no anger. Why would I be angry? This is what I do for fun.)

      To you, because I don’t give my name, my thoughts have no validity. I think they stand quite nicely on their own without me trying to lend them meat world credibility. Your demand of my name sounds like a reversed argument from authority or an ad hominem attack to me.

      I hope you are having a reasonable day full of the beauty and joy of evidence based knowledge, reason and science.

      (edited for spelling, clarity and tone)

  21. You are wrong in saying that I want to “lead you” to my faith. That is why I’m not trying to express everything I believe here. Nobody can “convert” anybody. My belief says that only God can do that. I can merely share what I believe and then the rest is up to you. You keep saying theists WANT you to join them in “this bizarre state of mind”. I see that you have already made up your mind. No amount of discussion here would make any difference to you. And that is why I haven’t really shared what I believe here.

    My faith is not based on emotion. I spent many years in discussions with atheists, agnostics, and those of various faiths seriously seeking the TRUTH with an open mind and listening with respect to many different opinions and many different faiths. The only one that made sense to me with the world that I live in was Christianity. This decision was based, not on emotion, but on reason and yes, science.

    But your faith appears to be VERY emotional. You SAY you are not angry but you, my friend, are in denial. I’m an older person who has spent a lifetime working with angry people. I worked with alcoholics and drug addicts ( angry ), murderers and drug dealers ( angry ), gang members ( angry ) and they didn’t think THEY were angry either. I say you are angry not because you don’t believe the same as I ( most of the people I spent time with over the last 40+ years didn’t believe the same as I did either ) but because you resort to name calling instead of respectful discussion. I have run into more people in my lifetime through the work that I did and through the discussions that I was a part of that spoke VERY plainly and very confrontational against what I believe , so I am very used to this. I was just pointing out your anger to you because until you figure out where it is coming from and deal with that issue, you will always play the blame game thinking that everything is the fault of someone or something else. In your case you are blaming “theists”.

    You make a lot of assumptions… I never demanded your name. I never said that your arguments weren’t valid because you didn’t give your name.Just making an observation. I was not trying to attack you… ( you say “no anger…this is what I do for fun” …That’s what the guys that I worked with always said. They were doing it for “fun” ) I parasail for fun, go sailing for fun…

    Have you ever heard of the works of Dr. Francis Schaeffer? He speaks of evidence based knowledge, reason, and science. I’m having a SUPERB day full of the beauty of evidence based knowledge, reason and science. Thank you! ; )

    I’m on this site, not to “convert” you but I’m always curious about human behavior…Instead of moralizing on what appears to you to be the ills of “theists” ( as fun as that may be ), why aren’t you giving objective knowledge based on your findings of and study of science? What exactly is the purpose of this site?

    Oh… And don’t tell me you’re not “angry”. It is so totally obvious to anyone who knows anything about human behavior that you’re angry. Your words speak LOUDLY!

    I’m off to the beach for some FUN! :)

    1. “Nobody can “convert” anybody. My belief says that only God can do that. I can merely share what I believe and then the rest is up to you.”

      This is proselytizing . This is trying to convert me. Playing semantics doesn’t change that. Saying that you aren’t is simply dishonest.

      “I see that you have already made up your mind. No amount of discussion here would make any difference to you. And that is why I haven’t really shared what I believe here.”

      You are right, my mind is made up. I want evidence. I live an evidence based life. With thousands of religions in the world all saying that they are right it is clear that none of them are right.

      “My faith is not based on emotion. I spent many years in discussions…”

      Discussions: arguments from authority or personal credulity. I’m not interested. Show me evidence.

      “… seeking the TRUTH… ”

      I’m not interested in your uppercase truths. Evidence doesn’t need to be all uppercase. It stands on it’s own merit.

      “… with an open mind and listening with respect to many different opinions and many different faiths.”

      Tim Minchin: If You Open Your Mind Too Much Your Brain Will Fall Out (Take My Wife) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBUc_kATGgg

      “The only one that made sense to me with the world that I live in was Christianity.”

      Confirmation bias

      “This decision was based, not on emotion, but on reason and yes, science.”

      If you are reading Christianity into science, you are reading science with confirmation bias. There is no valid science to support Christianity. Every time Christianity is tested it is simply found to be wrong. Site me valid science that supports Christianity.

      “But your faith appears to be VERY emotional. You SAY you are not angry but you, my friend, are in denial.”

      I have no faith. Show me the evidence. Are you looking at this in a Freudian way? If I am angry it’s because of my parents. If I am not angry it’s because of my parents. You will get nowhere with faux-Freudian psychobabble with me. If I say that I’m angry, I’m angry. If I say that I’m not angry, I’m angry. As you illustrate with your pestering posts, this method does not yeild a workable model to help people. It just wastes their time.

      “I’m an older person… ”

      Argument from authority. I know lots of dysfunctional old people who claim special knowledge of how the world works.

      “… who has spent a lifetime working with angry people.”

      Has this been in some professional capacity? I suspect not given that your discussion with me is going so badly.

      “I worked with alcoholics and drug addicts ( angry ), murderers and drug dealers ( angry ), gang members ( angry ) and they didn’t think THEY were angry either.”

      You overlook that I do not have the primary symptom. I am not an alcoholic, a drug addict or dealer, a murderer, a gang member. Why are you superimposing anger onto me as if I am one of those things? It’s because your bias says that I must be one of those things because I don’t believe in your god.

      “I say you are angry not because you don’t believe the same as I ( most of the people I spent time with over the last 40+ years didn’t believe the same as I did either ) but because you resort to name calling instead of respectful discussion.”

      Name calling is the same as being a murderer? The nonsense machine has just been turned up. If you say that you can help these people, go and do it. Why are you here hassling me to join your death cult. Go and do something useful with your time.

      “I have run into more people in my lifetime through the work that I did and through the discussions that I was a part of that spoke VERY plainly and very confrontational against what I believe , so I am very used to this.”

      Why are you still here?

      “I was just pointing out your anger to you because until you figure out where it is coming from…” and deal with that issue, you will always play the blame game thinking that everything is the fault of someone or something else. In your case you are blaming “theists”.”

      Meh! It’s all psycho-babble. Did you copy that from a self help book or did you see it on Oprah? I dread to think that you are out there trying to council murderers to stop murdering people. You would be causing a lot of damage.

      “You make a lot of assumptions… I never demanded your name. I never said that your arguments weren’t valid because you didn’t give your name.Just making an observation. I was not trying to attack you… ”

      This was why you put that in. It wasn’t just an observation. You were trying to make your arguments look more valid because your had disclosed your identity. You might not know that this was what you were doing or you might just be lying for Jesus. It’s an old authoritarian trick and I don’t fall for it.

      “( you say “no anger…this is what I do for fun” …That’s what the guys that I worked with always said. They were doing it for “fun” )”

      Again, you are conflating my being a plainly spoken atheist with being a drug addicted, murderous gang member.

      “I parasail for fun, go sailing for fun…”

      So? I cycle for fun. What is the point? Did I win the fun-off? Should I list all of my hobbies? Would that convince you that I’m not angry?

      “Have you ever heard of the works of Dr. Francis Schaeffer? He speaks of evidence based knowledge, reason, and science. I’m having a SUPERB day full of the beauty of evidence based knowledge, reason and science. Thank you! ; )”

      I am not interested in Ray Comfort recommended Christian apologetics.

      “I’m on this site, not to “convert” you but I’m always curious about human behavior…Instead of moralizing on what appears to you to be the ills of “theists” ( as fun as that may be ), why aren’t you giving objective knowledge based on your findings of and study of science? What exactly is the purpose of this site?”

      The purpose of this site is to laugh at theists beliefs. LOLTheists. If I want a measured discussion, I don’t have it here.

      “Oh… And don’t tell me you’re not “angry”. It is so totally obvious to anyone who knows anything about human behavior that you’re angry. Your words speak LOUDLY!”

      I am not angry. There is nothing I can do to convince you of this. You say you want to have a discussion but this is a one way lecture from you.

      “I’m off to the beach for some FUN! ”

      I’m packing for a week away on the other side of the country visiting friends, family, new babies, restaurants, cycling on the cities bike hire scheme, museums… In my spare time I will post a few more things that illustrate the hilarious absurdity of religion. I hope you enjoy them.

  22. One more thing…The statement at the beginning of this site that says you can hate the belief and not the “believer”? That totally works for me! Help me understand why you think that doesn’t work.

    1. It is a derivative of love the sinner, hate the sin (obviously). This is used to describe the church and Jesus’ love for GLBTI people. How can you love a person and hate what they are? Hate their sexuality. My GLBTI friends don’t feel very comforted by that conditional love.

  23. oops! the above statement should read, “laugh at the belief and not the believer” Still works for me but the “hate” word is closer to the opposite of “loving the sinner” idea…just sayin…

  24. You are not your sexuality. You are MORE than your sexuality. We are ALL human beings made in the image of God.( I believe we are spiritual beings living a physical existence. ) Your sexuality is a “desire” or “appetite” WITHIN not unlike that of the appetite for food. We were created ( I’m getting into my theist beliefs here but you brought up the church and Jesus so …) with desires and appetites to meet our need for sustenance ( food ) and replenishing the human race ( sexuality ). These are just TWO appetites but without them we would die and the human race would not continue. Jesus loves ALL people no matter what. That is unconditional love. He may not like everything we do but that is true of EVERYONE, not just people who have different sexual desires. Jesus CAN and DOES love them and yet can still not like the behavior as can I.

    1. “We are ALL human beings made in the image of God. ( I believe we are spiritual beings living a physical existence. )”

      So, with this statement, it is not possible for us to have a conversation because we will always be speaking at crossed purposes. I am not created. Humans created your god in their own image.

      “Your sexuality is a “desire” or “appetite” WITHIN not unlike that of the appetite for food. We were created ( I’m getting into my theist beliefs here but you brought up the church and Jesus so …) with desires and appetites to meet our need for sustenance ( food ) and replenishing the human race ( sexuality ). These are just TWO appetites but without them we would die and the human race would not continue. ”

      Again, crossed purposes. As soon as you insert your religious beliefs into a topic it just isn’t possible to have a conversation. I reject the idea that sex is only for procreation. That the only purpose for sexuality is reproductive sex. Have you only ever had sex to have children? This is the where the anti-sex attitudes of Christianity arise.

      “Jesus loves ALL people no matter what. That is unconditional love.”

      You are simply wrong. Your god’s love is conditional. Unless you are in a more liberal church, if you declare disbelief to your church community and they will reject you in the name of Jesus. They will feel closer to their god for doing, knowing that they will be rewarded for their righteousness. Your family will harass you. Your marriage will fail under pressure from the church community. If you don’t attend such a church then you have it better than many. These groups are still theists. You have more in common with them than I do. They harm people and families. Instead of harassing me, go and help people in those situations of of your religion’s creation. If you don’t believe that these situations are really happening, go and listen to the Living After Faith podcast. Rich Lyons will tell you about his experience of religion.

      You said your weren’t going to proselytize, you’ve been lying for Jesus again. Do you expect a supernatural reward.

      “He may not like everything we do but that is true of EVERYONE, not just people who have different sexual desires. Jesus CAN and DOES love them and yet can still not like the behavior as can I.”

      You cannot love a gay person whilst hating their sexual orientation. You are loving part of them. That is not love. That is the twisted, hateful love, one that I want no part of and will call theists out on it.

      Upper case is yelling on the internet. If you don’t stop yelling on this blog I will simply delete your posts, as any good moderator would. I don’t find the content of them interesting and you are off topic (look at the picture) but I’ll let you slide on that because you seem to be enjoying putting them up. The constant UPPERCASE YELLING is annoying. This is the internet, internet etiquette will be observed. You might want to call this censorship. You can if you want, it’s of no consequence to me.

      Still not angry.

  25. I didn’t make any assumptions about you. I was speaking “in general terms”. “You” meaning all of humanity. Sorry about the confusion…I’ll try to clearer when I write…

  26. You brought up “Jesus”, “the church” and what you believe to be their “unconditional love” and that is why I brought it up. How can I speak to that without sharing what I believe about the statements you made?
    Again, you are wrong in saying that I’m here to “convert” you. I wanted to find out more about why atheists believe what they believe. But here instead is what I’ve learned about atheists from you and this site: atheists are: angry, rude, argumentative, asking for evidence and suggesting that theists are supposed to provide it, in denial, unloving, and intolerant just to name a few…And I’m sure by the way you group all theists together that atheists are all alike as well.

    You are absolutely wrong in saying all Christians are like those who throw out people who don’t believe in God. I’ve never known anyone like that but I’m sure there are crazy people in the world who are crazy like that. Imagine that?

    Thank you for providing such insight and understanding into what atheists are like. After learning all this I would be delighted and grateful if you would delete my comments. Nice to meet you and I won’t bother you any more. I’ve learned everything there is to know about atheists and their beliefs ( attitudes ) from you. I’m sure all atheists will thank you..

    1. I doubt all atheists will thank me. There are plenty of atheists who still think that theists should be given right of way to blab on about their invisible friends. I do not claim to represent all atheists. No-one who makes that claim will have wide spread support from atheists.

      You can’t see your own hostility in everything you say because you bring the assumption that your beliefs are the only correct beliefs. Now your playing the offence card. You never wanted to have a discussion. You never asked me what I do believe, merely expressed how angry I was.

      From your very first paragraph you made it clear that your opinion mattered and I am just wasting my time.
      “I just came upon this dialogue. I’m a Christian and I’m curious. If a person doesn’t believe God is real, why would that person invest ANY time at all in “debating” against the idea? Why wouldn’t they just let it go?”
      Just let it go. Just let Christians, who’s opinions matter more than yours, have the world, make the laws and tell you what to do. You’re wasting your time. This is what your paragraph meant to me. It was telling me that you are a Christian, I’m not and I should STFU.

      Later you claim to have counselled people in some capacity. I find this impossible to believe given your confrontational opening paragraph. You closed down all possibility of a measured discussion with that sentence. You set the tone as hostile. If you have experience counselling people, you can only have meant to piss me off with this paragraph. Has this done what you wanted it to do? Will you email this link to all your Christian friends to strengthen your all-atheists-are-angry strawman?

      There is no way that I can have a discussion with you without offending you without sitting quietly and letting me lecture me. This is what theists mistake for a discussion. Them downloading their universal truth to me. Proselytizing.

      “But here instead is what I’ve learned about atheists from you and this site: atheists are: angry, rude, argumentative, asking for evidence and suggesting that theists are supposed to provide it, in denial, unloving, and intolerant just to name a few…”
      Only the asking for evidence bit describes me. You brought all of this with you and confirmation bias has carried you to this conclusion. The fun bit here is that you are offended that I am asking for evidence. In your closed mind, seeking evidence is bad. I can’t even question the existence of your god. How were we supposed to have a conversation if I couldn’t ask for evidence. I was supposed to accept your god without asking for evidence? If you approach every conversation/lecture with atheists with the assumption that they will adopt your religion without asking questions I suspect that you will have your bias that all atheists are rude etc confirmed repeatedly… but that’s what you came here for, isn’t it. You wanted to proselytize and have your beliefs confirmed.

      This conversation could have gone on for years and come to the same conclusion. You should thank me that I was blunt. I saved you a lot of time.

  27. Let’s at least be honest here. You don’t want a discussion about anything on this blog. You said it yourself – you want to make fun of theists. You say above, “How were we supposed to have a conversation if I couldn’t ask for evidence[?]” But you insist that there is no evidence that God exists, and anyone who says there is evidence is a fool or a liar. Now there’s a conversation starter. I’ve read through this entire string, and I don’t recall seeing your description of the evidence you require. What evidence would be acceptable to you, admin, that would convince you that God exists?

    1. I have never claimed to want a discussion. Sandy claimed that she wanted a discussion. But for Sandy, as with most theists, discussions are proselytizing sessions. I am to sit quietly an listen respectfully while they download their special knowledge to me. If I have an objection, I have to “let it go”. Do you call this a discussion? I don’t.

      This was her opening comment:
      “I’m a Christian and I’m curious. If a person doesn’t believe God is real, why would that person invest ANY time at all in “debating” against the idea? Why wouldn’t they just let it go? … I don’t believe in Aliens but I don’t waste my time setting up sites to make fun of people who do, or trying to convince people who DO believe that they are wrong. What’s the point?”
      In what way is this the beginning of a fruitful discussion?

      Show me your evidence for your god. What evidence do you have? What makes you so certain that this fantastic creature exists? Have you seen it? Did you take a photo?

      If a person tells me that they have evidence but wont produce it then “fool” and “liar” are apt descriptions. How else could that person be described? A fool doesn’t know what evidence is. A liar claims to have something that they don’t.

      This blog’s purpose is to laugh at believers and their beliefs. Beliefs such as yours. Your question shows you believe that you can define your way out of the need to give solid evidence for your god claims.

      Evidence for your god would be to produce that god for inspection. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Would you believe in bigfoot if I presented you with a letter from bigfoot claiming that bigfoot was real? Or would you ask for further evidence? Would you ask to see bigfoot for yourself? I would.

      1. I just wanted to know what evidence would satisfy you to prove that God exists. It seems that having God appear to you, “in the flesh,” would be acceptable. In other words, you would want to see God with your own eyes, correct? Would that be all you require, or would you want something else in addition to seeing God with your own eyes?

        1. I don’t understand why people accept anything less. Looking at the way you’ve over-defined what I will accept as evidence, I suppose the word games and tortured logic is about to begin.

          1. No tortured logic, just the regular kind. See my posts regarding atoms to see how you are the one who is not using logic appropriately. Which is not to say your beliefs are wrong (which I would not do), but only your “logic” supporting them. I tire of your round-robin of nastiness.

            1. The difference between the god hypothesis and atomic theory is peer review and results. I don’t have or need to take a faith position on the existence of atoms, I can be shown atomic theory at work. They say it will work, when it will work and what the results will be. If you want your god hypothesis accepted, formulate your hypothesis and produce your evidence.

  28. Believer “There is one horse in the world that is special…it is infact not a horse but a unicorn with a missing horn. It will listen to your wishes and if it chooses to it will make you realise your dreams.

    Skeptic: That’s pretty absurd to say the least. How can you possibly back that up?

    Believer “I don’t need to prove anything. Deep in my heart I know it is true. Why don’t you prove it doesn’t exist”?

    Skeptic: That’s even more absurd. I couldn’t track down every horse (and subsequent newly born horse) and confirm it before I die…and even if I could it would be impossible as I wouldn’t be able to identify a unicorn with an invisible horn…as it would look like a horse.

    Believer: Yeah…it’s something that you feel deep in your heart. You should try to believe…once you believe in it…the true wonder of the unicorn with the invisible horn will help you see the slendour of the world.

Leave a Reply