Ray Comfort & Pat Robertson on Evolution

Put one the stupidest Christian leaders with one who claims to speak for God, and get them talking about evolution, and here’s what you get:

YouTube Preview Image

Comfort is talking about his new backwash-based book, You Can Lead An Atheist to Evidence, But You Can’t Make Him Think. (It has 2 1/2 stars on Amazon. Can’t we make that a bit smaller?)

Wait — evidence? I don’t think Ray Comfort would know what evidence was if it hit him in the face. Remember when he presented his “scientific evidence for God” on Nightline? It was a total flop — he just presented the “crockaduck” and his usual gospel message based on the 10 commandments. He’s a slimy salesman who gives Christianity a bad name.

Here’s his defintion of evolution:

[Evolution, a "fairy-tale for grownups" is] basically idolatry creating God in their own image — a god that doesn’t require moral accountability and that’s why it’s so embraced by this generation.

So why are atheists just as moral as Christians? Evolution has nothing to do with morality — evolution is a biological issue, and morality is an ethical issue.

We all agree about basic morality like killing, stealing, raping and lying. But you won’t find Comfort agreeing with that. In his mind, atheists and evolutions are evil and simply looking for an excuse to go kill and rape people. Perhaps that’s because without his deity threatening him, Ray Comfort would be killing, raping, and stealing?

And did you know that atheists lack the “sixth sense”?

God gave us six senses. The sixth sense is common sense and that’s what the atheists and evolutionists lack.

So believing an imaginary sky-god created everything out of nothing, then destroyed the earth with a global flood and fit the earth’s millions of species on a boat with enough food to last a year, is the pinnacle of common sense?

He also uses the classic designer argument for God’s existence:

You can’t have a creation without a creator. Show me a building that didn’t have a builder. Show me a painting that doesn’t have a painter.

That’s really the best argument he has. Yet he believes in a creator without a creator, so he does think it’s possible for something to exist without being created! So much for that argument.

The interview is really infuriating. I don’t understand how someone who talks about evolution so much can misunderstand it so badly. Maybe we could take a love offering and send him to a couple college biology classes?

(via)

  • http://heidishideout.blogspot.com Heidi

    Just the same arguments over and over again wherever I come across this man. *sigh* I don’t know what is worse: The banana argument or the no female argument.

    Intellectual force? MWAHAHAHA

    “Appeal to their conscience” and then he starts with the “show me the building who doesn’t have a builder – argument”?

    It is beyond infuriating

  • http://pasje.livejournal.com Pascalle

    Wow.. i managed to watch about a minute of that before i already turned it off in disgust.

    Even in that minute.. i don’t see _who_ he’s interviewing. It sure as hell isn’t a scientist.
    I see no names.. i see no function.
    I guess the girl is just a highschool student..
    Do you remember everything a teacher told you in highschool in debt?

    bleh.

  • http://pasje.livejournal.com Pascalle

    Looking at my own comment i’m amused. I use a reference to hell while i don’t believe in hell.
    It’s one of those things that just slipped into your vocabulary.. i bet a biblethumper would use it as a proof that i’m not a real atheist.

    What could i use instead of what i just posted, being a good atheist and all?

    ;)

  • http://heidishideout.blogspot.com Heidi

    How about “it sure as evolution isn’t a scientist…”. :)

  • latsot

    It’s interesting that he assumes the first dog is male.

    As Daniel says, it’s hard to believe that someone who speaks about evolution so much misunderstands it so profoundly. Actually, genuinely, unbelievable. I don’t buy it. Comfort thinks he’s fighting a war and a little lying for Jesus is just another tactic. Not even one he seems to regret using.

  • evil man (according to christians)

    Evolution bashing is an ages old thing, if there was anybody in this planet who could talk some sense to these holy rollers (watch Jesus Camp if you want to see something really disturbing) it was about time to find that someone.

    And a couple of pictures that bring an interesting point of view to christianity, if you haven’t already seen these before:

    http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r89/statuesk/Christianity.jpg
    http://www.ebaumsworld.com/pictures/view/345700/

  • dr.R.

    You Can Lead Ray Comfort to Evidence, But You Can’t Make Him Think.

    You can’t have a creation without a creator. Show me a building that didn’t have a builder. Show me a painting that doesn’t have a painter.

    Show us a god that was not made up by humans.

  • http://wmute.livejournal.com wintermute

    What could i use instead of what i just posted, being a good atheist and all?

    By Grabthar’s Hammer, she’s not a scientist.”

  • http://metroblog.blogspot.com Metro

    I refuse to watch Ray Comfort. Comfort is like a seven-storey granite wall of utter stupidity. And Robertson has long since passed the point where he was anything but a shill for his own products.

    Robertson is in fact, nothing more than a con man, and Comfort considerably less.

    @wintermute
    Geek factor 5, Lieutenant Laredo!

  • http://www.rationalitynow.com Dan Gilbert

    I agree with latsot. I don’t think that Comfort could remain so honestly ignorant about Evolution for as long as he’s been at this game. I called shenanigans on him on my blog and I think he’s an outright liar… and according to his own teachings, would be going to Hell.

    To be as involved as he has in trashing Evolution, it would take so much more energy and effort to remain willfully ignorant of Evolution than it would to see the actual facts and gain a modicum of understanding.

    Comfort is a consistent hypocrite.

  • Barry

    “So why are atheists just as moral as Christians? Evolution has nothing to do with morality — evolution is a biological issue, and morality is an ethical issue.

    We all agree about basic morality like killing, stealing, raping and lying. But you won’t find Comfort agreeing with that. In his mind, atheists and evolutions are evil and simply looking for an excuse to go kill and rape people. Perhaps that’s because without his deity threatening him, Ray Comfort would be killing, raping, and stealing?”

    I’m not a big Comfort fan, but I think C.S. Lewis and other Christians have covered this nicely. It’s not that atheists can’t be or aren’t moral, they are and can be, in fact my uncle who was an atheist had more compassion than some of the Christians in my family. The problem is that why should they be, or better who defines what’s moral. Maybe I’m slow but I still don’t think anyone has proven succesful in answering Hum’es is/ought, without appealing to some transcendent standard. Moore, Rand, and others have tried but their answers are far from motivating I think.

    Ray’ problem with atheistic morality is, it seems to me, the accepting of abortion, homosexuality, etc. In this sense he is right to say that from an atheist’s standpoint these “traditional” taboos are due to ignorance on the part of those that hold them. An atheist and a Christian won’t agree on if these are moral or not because they are holding different basic assumptions about the ground for morality.

  • http://soverysmall.wordpress.com Kitty

    Wow. That was utterly painful to watch. I love how they interview people who obviously have little to no actual knowledge of evolution and then present that as ‘proof’ that evolution is wrong. Where are the interviews with the biologists and the researchers? Of course they’re not going to include any of the facts that point towards evolution – religion relies on cherry picking the ‘sexy’ bits of science that conveniently fits their prescribed doctrines and ignoring the vast plethora of information that contradicts their narrow little world view.

    I think Dawkins makes the point in The God Delusion that science is based around theories – which are fluid and constantly changing and adapting whenever new evidence comes to light.
    Religion is based around dogma – which does the opposite by denouncing or censoring anything that contradicts their teachings and maintaining exactly the same stance regardless of the ever changing environment.

    I have to say that I’ve been faithfully (pardon the pun) reading your blog for a month or two now and I really find it comforting to know that there are reasonable people out there who recognise what a hindrance to our society religion is.

    So – thanks. You’re doing an awesome job.

    Kitty

  • http://billpost.blogspot.com/ Bill

    Comfort enjoys the role of antagonist, and as others have pointed out prides himself on remaining willfully ignorant of facts.

    I question how much impact he actually has. Even real believers have to be put off by his complete lack of logic.

  • http://www.vidlord.com vidlord.com

    the best video I’ve ever seen on this topic:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MXTBGcyNuc

  • http://endemoniada.org/ Martin

    I hate YouTube sometimes… I hate having to sit here and watch his mouth move in sync with the bullshit it’s spewing, without having a chance to go up and send my fist up his evolutionarily evolved cranium! Holy Darwin, he makes me so mad!

    *heavy breathing*

    Ok, I’ll calm down…

    GRRRAAAAGGHHHH!! *starts pounding at the monitor*

    Ok! Ok! I’m fine, I’m good…

    *breathing slowing down*

    How can a grown man, an adult human being, sit there and look so serious while sounding so inhumanly moronic? I know he’s one of those “Jesus saved you from hell” kind of christians, but even so, how can he talk about atheists lacking morals when he’s using the most immoral kind of arguments in existence? You think a universe without a maker is a tough sell? Try selling the paradoxical, impossible parodies of what he calls ‘thought’ that seemingly float around in that giant mustache of his!

    He utterly embodies one of the worst things I know of in this world: conscious malice, spite and evil. Do NOT forgive this man, because he absolutely knows what he’s talking about and what he’s doing. He just doesn’t care. Why? Probably because Jesus already died for his sins, of which the logical outcome is that as long as you believe in Jesus, you’re excused for being an asshole.

    Us atheists, we don’t get these excuses…

  • LRA

    Vidlord, YAY!!! Comfort, boo…

    What really infuriates me is that the discovery institute and other quacks send speakers around to churches to give “scientific” presentations that are really anti-evolution rhetoric. I attended one of these a few years back and was flabbergasted at the incredible amount of misinformation spewing from the presenter’s mouth. He kept talking about irreducible complexity of proteins and “what are the odds” kind of statistics, and never ONCE mentioned genetics, comparative embryology, or transitional fossils. The people there were lay people and ate it up with a spoon! They were amen-ing all over the place.

  • latsot

    Does anyone else think that the kids look totally creeped out by Ray in those clips? Especially the one he seems to have trapped uncomfortably closely in a plane?

    Ray: “Do you believe we could have evolved from horses?”
    Kid: “……..sure…..whatever will get me out of here….”

    Pascalle’s point about Ray not interviewing scientists is well made, but I’d go further. Ray interviewed ignorant kids and then heavily edited the responses. If the problems with evolution are as obvious as he says and based on common sense, then why doesn’t he film himself trouncing biologists with his devastating logic?

    Isn’t this the very definition of intellectual dishonesty?

  • http://endemoniada.org/ Martin

    latsot:
    I especially like the last comment from one of the two girls. “My teacher explained this in much greater detail, I just don’t remember all of it” which Ray, undoubtedly took as “I don’t know a thing, and am talking out of my ass”. Wow, that guy creeps my out!

  • reckoner71

    When you’re selling certainty (or buying it, for that matter), you are compelled to believe just about anything, regardless of how absurd it is.

    But the millennia-old problem for religious leaders is that certainty leaves zero room for error, and it only takes a 19th-century scientist with a fossil or a microscope to find one. And now modern science is exposing what religion has feared for centuries – knowledge. We now know the magician doesn’t actually saw the lady in half.

    Ray Comfort isn’t an idiot; he is blindly and wilfully ignorant. And since our beliefs inform our actions, it makes the latter exponentially worse.

  • latsot

    Martin: agreed. Also by suddenly mentioning the teacher, Ray tries to equate the girl’s obvious ignorance with the teacher’s. We don’t know what the teacher taught but Ray asks us to infer that from one student, asked incongruous questions in an unclear context. And from there, he expects us to take the leap that everyone who accepts evolution is an idiot.

    Again: hiding behind children, Ray? tut.

  • latsot

    reckoner71:
    “Ray Comfort isn’t an idiot; he is blindly and wilfully ignorant. And since our beliefs inform our actions, it makes the latter exponentially worse.”

    I’m not sure that you can be both blindly and wilfully igorant. I’d say that Ray is wilfully ignorant because he chooses to blind himself.

    I tend to agree that wilfull ignorance is worse in various respects than vanilla ignorance, but I’m not sure I’m willing to go all the way with you on ‘our beliefs inform our actions’.

  • Question-I-thority

    Barry:

    “I’m not a big Comfort fan, but I think C.S. Lewis and other Christians have covered this nicely. It’s not that atheists can’t be or aren’t moral, they are and can be, in fact my uncle who was an atheist had more compassion than some of the Christians in my family. The problem is that why should they be, or better who defines what’s moral. Maybe I’m slow but I still don’t think anyone has proven succesful in answering Hum’es is/ought, without appealing to some transcendent standard. Moore, Rand, and others have tried but their answers are far from motivating I think.”

    Emergent morality and ToE go hand in hand, no?

  • Jimminy Christmas

    @Barry:

    There’s a very simple reason why people are generally moral, and it has nothing to do with atheism or religion.

    The reason is that immorality has, and always has had, immediate practical consequences here on Earth.

    If you decide to begin robbing, raping and killing people, one or more of the following is extremely likely to happen to you at some point, depending on where you are:

    A) You will be imprisoned for a very long time.
    B) You will be tortured.
    C) You will be executed.
    D) Some combination of A, B, or C

    This is not only the case now, but has been the case throughout all of human history.

    This is not to say that some people don’t get away with doing bad things. They often do. However, most people who do bad things will eventually have to answer TO OTHER HUMANS for the bad things they have done. The potential consequences of sociopathic behavior generally prevents the vast majority of normal people from behaving in a sociopathic manner.

    It is evolutionarily beneficial for groups to reward positive behavior (sharing, nurturing, compassion) and to punish negative behavior (robbing, raping, killing) within the group. Groups that tolerate extremely negative behavior go extinct. No God or magical objective morality is required for this come about or to work.

    This is why I laugh when Christians say “Oh well, if there was no God then I’d immediately start robbing, raping, and killing people.”

    Perhaps you would. But then I would immediately call the police and/or shoot you (if you were threatening my life or the lives of others), as would most other normal people. Either way, your religion-induced psychotic break would not last very long, and the evolutionary fitness of the group would improve.

  • Elemenope

    @ Jimminy

    That’s a great descriptive account of why moral behavior tends to occur. What it doesn’t provide is a normative account of why a person *should* behave morally. Crucially, it depends on a consequentialist ethos. If we make the assumption that people are moral only because of the consequences (to themselves, and possibly others they care about) of not behaving morally, what happens when people routinely gain the capacity to avoid those consequences?

    The history of technology in the modern world has been an inexorable and accelerating trend towards the decentralization of power; technology advancement allows individuals to become more powerful relative to any given group they may belong to. As that trend continues, the ability of the community to practically sanction an individual will diminish. What then will be our *reason* to be moral?

  • cello

    If we make the assumption that people are moral only because of the consequences (to themselves, and possibly others they care about) of not behaving morally, what happens when people routinely gain the capacity to avoid those consequences?

    I think this only applies if you think consequences are only a result of a legal system (jail, etc). But I think we can recognize their are natural consequences. If you want nice things in life (relationships and things), spending all day drunk and watching porn aren’t going to get you there. Or IOW, the consequences of being a lazy drunk is homeless and alone.

    “Good” behaviour tends to produce good things. Even atheists can recognize that.

  • Jimminy Christmas

    @Elemenope

    Yes, we can wax philosophical all day about why or why not people *should* be moral (although this is answered through evolution as well), but my point was to illustrate why most of us *are* moral most of the time.

    There are real, practical consequences to every action taken by every person on Earth. The jail/execution punishment analogy was just one of many examples. What cello said is another.

    My point was all actions (good or bad) have real consequences (good or bad), and these consequences are what drive our behavior and our morality.

  • Question-I-thority

    The fact that human social interaction is bell curved rather that objectively identified in practice is pretty strong evidence against any ideal catagories for morality. The far outlier is, I guess, incest but that is not even an absolute in human behavior/ethics.

    The way in which moral choices emerge is probably very complex. Our brain circuitry and patterns evolved in complex ways over a very long period. Today we can’t even agree on the nature or existence of free will.

    If you haven’t heard of the trolly car experiment you may want to google it. When performed with MRI’s one discovery was that we humans use different parts of our brain to contemplate different kinds of killing. Thinking about killing another human up close and personal excites emotional centers almost exclusively while doing so at a distance calls up reasoning centers. Another example of the complexity is primatologists finding multiple examples of chimps committing acts indistinguishable from premeditated murder.

  • Elemenope

    @ cello

    This bothers me in a different direction. Call it the “holodeck” problem. That is, once we invent holodecks, we will likely never do anything else.

    Humans are wired to seek pleasure; evolutionarily we are probably wired that way because pleasure was coupled with eating food, having sex, and other activities that need to be incentivized to perpetuate the species.

    Problem is, just as we are getting better and better through technology at distributing power to individuals, we have also learned how the underlying mechanisms of pleasure work and have made it possible to shortcut right to the reward.

    Our notion that good things come from behaving in a good way is strongly tied up with the more fundamental notion that doing good things makes us *feel* good. What if we were to develop a consistent way to feel better than the feeling we get from doing good?

    @Jimminy

    This all leads back to the original problem. Pretty much everyone gets why we tend to be moral now. The important question is, given the likelihood that the conditions which incentivize good behavior are not stable, and are likely to change in the future (given current trends), how do we maintain a moral outlook?

    My point was all actions (good or bad) have real consequences (good or bad), and these consequences are what drive our behavior and our morality.

    That is true for some but not others. Some follow rules even if following them in a particular case is likely to produce sub-optimal results, because they wish to maintain the integrity of those rules generally. Consequentialism is a piece of the puzzle, certainly, but there is plenty of evidence that it does not inform our moral decisions in a controlling way. And not for nothing, but even if it did, humans are poor enough at envisioning probable consequences (especially relative to the amount of power they exert) that if it were true it still would be fairly unhelpful in maintaining a stable moral outlook.

  • Barry

    @cello, Jimminy

    You both make excellent points on why people act they do in general, but you still haven’t accounted for the ought of morality.

    I disagree that history has shown that immoral actions are dealt with effectively through punishment or consequence as jimminy claimed. A quick perusal of your history book will show that rulers of all types of governments have and continue to commit atrocities. Some of them reaped what they sowed but many didn’t, so morality has to be more than what a certain group of people says it is or more than what i can do without getting punished or losing my job.

    Simply describing what we deem is moral still doesn’t solve the ought, because many people do the behaviour and don’t reap the consequences. Those that are responsible for the atrocities in Darfur may or may not be punished for what they have done. But even if they are I can all most guarantee you that it will happen again somewhere and the punishment meted out has done very little to establish the morality in the sense of societal good. The simple fact is that some people don’t care about the good of society and are willing to risk personal harm to try to grab power or wealth are often very successful in their ventures.

  • Question-I-thority

    Elemenope:

    This bothers me in a different direction. Call it the “holodeck” problem. That is, once we invent holodecks, we will likely never do anything else.

    Or is it just as likely that some will do nothing else and others will think differently? We are all acting our right now on these types of issues. Has anyone else had the experience of disappearing into a computer game for weeks?

  • Jimminy Christmas

    @Elemenope

    I’m talking about “consequentialism” in a very broad, general sense. You seem to be trying to focus on specifics (although I’m not entirely clear on which specifics because you haven’t given any examples).

    Of course some people will be able to get away with doing bad things (I mentioned this in my first post). A very few people might even be able to get away with doing unimaginably horrible things for a very long time.

    However, in general, and in the vast majority of cases, this does not happen. In general, things which are evolutionarily disadvantageous for the group are punished, and things which are evolutionarily advantageous for the group are rewarded.

    Now, if you want to discuss the possibility of some futuristic nightmare Orwellian totalitarian situation developing because of technology, we can do that, but that’s not what I’m referring to. ;)

  • Elemenope

    Or is it just as likely that some will do nothing else and others will think differently? We are all acting our right now on these types of issues. Has anyone else had the experience of disappearing into a computer game for weeks?

    Games (and drugs, fast food, candy, masturbation, etc.) are all ways in which humans re-purpose the pleasure response for some behavior it was probably not evolutionarily intended to incentivize. Thankfully most of these things are poor enough substitutes for reality (at their current level of development) that people get bored with them relatively quickly and try other things. My thing is simply that it isn’t always necessarily going to be so that the game seems less real than reality. That will be the day the problem really starts.

    It wouldn’t need to be everyone in order for it to be a problem. If even 10% of humanity checked out of life in favor of a holodeck all of a sudden, it would destroy most social structures relatively quickly. Imagine instead that a drug was developed and released (and it turns out to be fairly easy to synthesize) that keeps a person high for twenty-four hours with one dose. You are probably right that not everyone would eventually become addicted to it, many would choose never to use it. But it would not take everyone or even most people using it for it to cause devastating systemic damage to the society, for most incentive structures to stop functioning properly, for many people to re-prioritize securing this drug over productive activities or become involved in the economics of its distribution (easy money!).

  • Jimminy Christmas

    @Barry

    Just because one person or a group of people goes unpunished in one particular instance does not mean the argument breaks down. The vast majority of people IN GENERAL who do bad things experience negative consequences at some point and in one way or another. Even though some people did horrible things in the past (and continue to do so today), those that DON’T do horrible things vastly outnumber those that do.

    It’s not perfect, but nothing is perfect., and it doesn’t have to be perfect. It only has to work well enough to ensure that the next generation will be born and survive to sexual maturity.

    The answer to why people “ought” to do good things and “ought not” do bad things is because it is evolutionarily beneficial for a given group to behave in a generally positive way towards each other (again, in a broad GENERAL sense between billions of individuals over hundreds of thousands of years). If we didn’t, or more specifically if our ancestors didn’t, then we wouldn’t be here. In this sense, “ought” and “is/are” mean exactly the same thing.

  • cello

    @ Question

    The fact that human social interaction is bell curved rather that objectively identified in practice is pretty strong evidence against any ideal categories for morality. The far outlier is, I guess, incest but that is not even an absolute in human behavior/ethics.

    Not too long ago, this concept would have put me into convulsions. I have used up thousands of words arguing against moral relativism with “hug the bunny” lefties. Good grief…..now I’m becoming one of them….. and to be honest…..it sucks. It is so much easier to say that we can know with absolute certainty that this thing is wrong, end of story. But that’s not how I see the world working. Not if I actually attempt to love the world and it’s inhabitants. I have to allow for variation.

    @ elemenope

    Did you see Wall-ee? We all became fat, lazy bastards because of a matrix like existence where we only experienced pleasure through technology. I suppose there is nothing to stop us from doing that but as was the point of that movie, even advanced technical pleasure is limited. And at some point, I think being completely absorbed in any sensual pleasure would stop our collective and individual growth so we would not choose to follow that path indefinitely.
    WRT your drug example, this happened in China (widespread opium addiction circa 18th? Century) and yes it did absolutely stunt their society. But with time and effort, they overcame it.

    @ Barry,

    I agree with you partially on one point and fully on another.

    I think atheism can have an “ought” based on desired outcomes. I realize that is not going to satisfy you, however, because your theism desires a sturdier ought of an eternal law.

    Where I do fully agree with you is on outlook, a point you made in your first post. While we can all recognize the concept of good outcomes and bad outcomes – how we define a good outcome is not always going to be the same. And that difference will partly be based on our varying belief systems. This isn’t just a split between believer and nonbeliever. A conservative Christian’s definition of a good outcome may be different than a liberal Christian’s. Same thing between a Muslim and a Christian. Even as a Christian, I would not have wanted to experience the outcome of living under a fundy Muslim’s version of “objective” morality – but a fundy Muslim would think the benefits of living under Sharia were wonderful.

  • Elemenope

    Now, if you want to discuss the possibility of some futuristic nightmare Orwellian totalitarian situation developing because of technology, we can do that, but that’s not what I’m referring to. ;)

    Not totalitarianism, but it’s polar opposite, which seems to be the teleology of our present technological course. Let me use an example which fits in well with your evolutionary hypothesis.

    Seven hundred years ago in Europe, the social rules and structures were very different than they are today. Certainly religion had a bit to do wit hit but the major differences have to do with technology. The moral standing and expectations of serfs and lords were different from any modern morality. Lords, because they possessed perhaps the only rideable horse (or subsidized the only men around that had one) were the only ones that were mobile; most people were not particularly so. Lords owned forts with high walls, and there was a moral expectation that they allow serfs to hide behind those walls if aggressors were to arrive (since they lacked the mobility to simply leave). Serfs, in turn, because they lacked the capacity for mobility or defense, had an expectation laid upon them to be subservient to the manorial lord. The lord had power of life and death over the serfs; there was precious little notion of justice in their moral system. The raubritters were just one example of the general point that he who makes the rules defines the crimes.

    Fast-forward seven hundred years. Today, serfdom seems absurd, and the moral codes associated with it seem anachronistic, because the conditions that necessitate those arrangements are gone. The advent of cars, bicycles, mass transit, infrastructure developments, made the notion of an immobile population in need of defense from marauders unnecessary. Part of the shift was literally necessary; in a world of guns and dynamite, high walls are no impediment to marauders, anyway.

    There are moral questions today that would have been literally absurd then. Terrorism is a group of tactics that requires the ability of one or a small group of people to cause widespread devastation; that requires technologies that can cause devastation (like, say, a jet plane, or dynamite, or an understanding of radioactive materials and the ability to secure them). Rules of war had to be written up to prevent acts like genocide, a word that had to be *invented* in the twentieth century because the very notion of wiping out an entire people would have struck many before that as absurd. Evolving capacities introduce new choices.

    Fast forward from here twenty years. DIY genetic engineering is already becoming a reality (last year I read an article about a biologist who developed cheap gene sequencing equipment that was a hop-skip-jump away from what a guy could do in his basement). The practical reach of one person with viruses as their vector of change is an order of magnitude larger than even nuclear weapons. A guy in his basement could literally change the world…on a whim.

    ———–

    The point is not just that the questions of morality change as these developments happen (and they certainly seem to), but also as the scope of practical effects and the relative ease of bringing them about changes so does the pressing practical problem of figuring out exactly what does ground our notion of what is right and what is wrong.

    Are there technological routes we simply shouldn’t pursue? That’s a question with as much ethical weight as epistemological weight. That is a question we won’t be able to answer without nailing down exactly what morality is, beyond its historical functionality. That question would need to be answered in the present, while it is possible to affect the course of technological development, not the future where it has already occurred (and so is by definition too late).

  • Jimminy Christmas

    @Elemenope

    It wouldn’t need to be everyone in order for it to be a problem. If even 10% of humanity checked out of life in favor of a holodeck all of a sudden, it would destroy most social structures relatively quickly.

    You’re assuming that most or all of those who would use the Holodeck would become hopelessly addicted to it and never do anything else as if it is some sort of mind-erasing uber-drug. What if you can use the Holodeck and not become hopelessly addicted? Or what if the Holodeck is a place where you can interact with other real people, conduct practical transactions, form relationships, and otherwise be productive like you can in the real world? Sort of like the Internet, except 100% realistic (I guess The Matrix would be a good example of this).

    As for your drug scenario, why does the drug have to be damaging and/or make people useless? What if the drug stimulated the pleasure center of your brain 24/7, but otherwise had no effect on your physiology or mental faculties? In other words, you could walk around feeling great all the time and still be a fully functioning member of society.

    Just because a negative outcome is possible doesn’t mean it is the only possible outcome ;)

  • Elemenope

    @Jimminy

    Because from what little we do know about the neurochemistry of the pleasure response, it down-regulates in response to stimulation. That is, you need a certain quantity of something to feel a certain level of pleasure; over time, the quantity required to feel the same quantity of pleasure increases. This is the thing that under normal circumstances drives people to stop doing a pleasurable activity. It is *also* the mechanism that paradoxically drives the drive to addiction.

    It’s a classic case of a system optimized for seeking equilibrium creating a (very, very nasty) positive feedback loop due to a pathological input.

    Just because a negative outcome is possible doesn’t mean it is the only possible outcome ;)

    I definitely agree with you here. :) I don’t think these are insurmountable problems (I am no luddite!). But I don’t think they are in any sense abstract. Our experiences with addiction now are, I think, a small taste of the potential destabilizing effect of the human hard-wiring for pleasure, and the practical problems will be figuring out how to manage human behavior when it becomes arbitrarily easy to short-circuit our inborn reward system.

  • http://www.stephadamo.com Steph

    Your last paragraph says it best. It’s indeed infuriating when people try to refute the theory of evolution without understanding it at all. Idiots.

  • Jonathon

    I can’t watch it. The stupid is just too much for me.

    But I would like to point out how this codswollop works:

    1. For people who have an inferiority complex regarding their own intellect and intelligence it is comforting and rewarding to hear that all they need is “common sense” to understand the world. Rather than living in the real world, with all of its shades of gray, they want to live in their Own Private Idaho where everything is black and white – no gray, no complexity, no nuance – just plain and simple right and wrong.

    2. Science is frustratingly fluid for literalists. They can’t handle the changes in beliefs about the universe when new information is found. So, to them, the world may as well be flat, and the earth may as well be the center of the universe. Having to change a belief is just plain HARD for them to do. They need and crave certainty, but refuse to accept that they live in an uncertain world.

    3. True believers always have a hard time understanding why others don’t believe the same way as they do. Science and scientists are troublesome because they are always asking “why” instead of just accepting a belief without question. Non-literalists rely on rationality and reason to navigate through life. Literalists simply cannot and will not think for themselves or allow any new facts to change their beliefs because doing so calls everything else they believe into question – and that just overwhelms them. Doubt is simply not tolerated nor accepted.

    So when the viewers of the “700 Club” or any other Christianist propaganda outlet are told that it is just “common sense” that there was a creator and that all of those scientists out there really know the truth and just can’t stand to admit that God did it all, they comfort themselves by believing that science is just making it all up anyway and that everyone really knows that what they (the Christianists) believe is the truth.

    Bottom line: Creationism is a crutch. They cling to it in defiance of any and everything that argues against a literal creation as laid down in Genesis. If that part of the Bible isn’t literally true, it opens up the rest of the Bible for evaluation and interpretation. And that, my friends, they simply CAN NOT tolerate. If literal interpretations are invalid, then they’d just as soon not believe at all.

  • http://www.vidlord.com vidlord

    “Imagine instead that a drug was developed and released (and it turns out to be fairly easy to synthesize) that keeps a person high for twenty-four hours with one dose.”

    That was a star trek episode. One of the best ever. An alien race introduced a drug to a new planet and everyone became horribly addicted. The aliens then used them as slaves lol. Speaking of star trek if we had a holodeck that too would eventually get boring. Everything becomes boring with enough use. Now what would be cool is if you combine the two – a drug that makes you think you’re in the holodeck experiencing a predefined experience. You pop a pill to experience what it’s like to rob a bank or pilot the space shuttle. Call it the holopill -they could make it depending on what you wanted to do. And of course if they asked me what type of girl I wanted to be in the story I would choose demure lol

  • Ty

    Ray Comfort preaches some weapons grade stupid.

  • Elemenope

    @vidlord

    Is this the episode you’re referring to?

  • Max Leitch

    @ Barry,

    I think your arguments suggest that there is no absolute moral standard, rather one dictated by the supernatural. Where is the physical evidence to suggest the supernatural origin of morality? From what I can tell there isn’t any. There is, however, plenty of evidence to show morality as being a constantly changing social construct that exists with varying degrees across the entire animal kingdoms.

    The ought question is very simple. We ought because it works. In an episode of “The Lens” on the CBC entitled “Without God”, Dr. Robert Buckman suggests that morality is a bit like traffic lights, though more complex. Traffic lights work, keeping everybody safe, because we all agree on the rules. The moment a significant portion of the driving population decides not to follow the rules of traffic lights, the survivability of drivers, will decrease dramatically.

    The basics of morality are really that simple. The moment a large portion of our population decides not to follow the understanding that murder is not a good thing, our society would break down fairly quickly. As we can see by taking a look into some of the atrocities you have mentioned.

    The same is true within much of the animal kingdom and I’m sure we would agree that there is no supernatural consequence for their actions. The social structure of pack or other social animals is much the same as our own, only to a lesser degree of complexity.

    The progress and evolution of morality can move along even faster when logic and reason are introduced. I know I’d like to survive and prosper as long as possible and I can reasonably apply these feelings to other people. With this, and the ability to take what we know from the past and project future outcomes makes it easier to modify our moral codes to better suit the survivability of everyone in our society.

    The core of this social contract is most likely a selfish one (personal survivability), but thats not necessarily a bad thing because everyone benefits. I know that the fewer people I make angry, the less likely I’ll have an mob of people break down my door and hang me up by my toes. As Jimminy said, the consequences of breaking social and moral rule might not ever be realized, but the risk of negative consequences stemming from these action increases dramatically.

    I know the social contract is complex, with lots of elements when don’t yet understand, but are the basics of morality really much more than this?

  • Question-I-thority

    Cello:

    “Not too long ago, this concept would have put me into convulsions. I have used up thousands of words arguing against moral relativism with “hug the bunny” lefties. Good grief…..now I’m becoming one of them….. and to be honest…..it sucks. It is so much easier to say that we can know with absolute certainty that this thing is wrong, end of story.”

    Easier but not better because….

    “…that’s not how…the world work(s)….”

  • http://www.vidlord.com vidlord

    Elemenope

    yeah that’s it! check it out if you haven’t seen it :)

    “Picard suspects the refinement process has only made the drug more potent so they could tighten their grip on the Ornarans even further.”

  • faithnomore

    What a croc of poo poo. Sorry, after watching that I think my IQ score went down 10 points and now I can’t think of any intelligent response.

    People are actually watching this, and agreeing with it?! Good gracious.

  • Arlo

    I’m not a very violent or angry person, but this video makes me want to cause bodily harm to another human being.

  • http://meatofthematter.wordpress.com/ Jim

    “Love offering.” That made me laugh and gave me the chills at the same time. (I hadn’t heard that in awhile.)

    Anyway, I see a LOT of very negative reviews on Amazon. I assume this blog has helped. I added one of my own. It’s fun to poke at Comfort. :)

  • bubbaj30

    All that from a guy who used an empty coke can and a banana as arguments for god! Why anyone looks in his direction when he speaks is beyond me!!!

  • Justin Roberts

    Athiests: “The bible says they are fools…”

    What an idiot!

  • http://www.ieatgravel.com/ ieatgravel

    Ford trucks were made by man.

    (Just like god)

  • John C

    I would believe ya man…except for the fact that you eat gravel…that part makes me a little suspicious.

  • http://voicefromthewilderness.wordpress.com Voice from the Wilderness

    I must agree with you that there are many strange and bizzare arguements made in the name of Christianity to provide a reason for the existence of God. I have heard things like; “Christianity must be true…just look at all the Christians in the world.” Such statements give you lots of fodder and strawmen to deal with.

    But I want to ask a question and I do not mean this in any facetious manner. There have been many statements on this site concerning the non-existence of God, the lack of evidence for His existence and therefore the denial of His existence.

    Mr. Florien said to John C. “We need evidence for the existence of God…”

    Well, let me ask you to give me evidence for Gods non-existence. Prove to me that He doesn’t exist. And please; no statments like, “I don’t see Him, therefore He must not exist. You are all much more intelligent than that.

    Thanks for your time
    Mike

  • http://voicefromthewilderness.wordpress.com Voice from the Wilderness

    Dan;

    I appreciate your honesty and your response. You have been far more gracious than I and for that I thank you. Please indulge me as I question you a little further .

    You are an atheist and an atheist by definition as I understand it is someone who doesn’t believe in God…”A” no, “theist” God. I believe you even stated this in one of your comments to another responder to your blog.

    Now since you don’t believe in God and you have no evidence to support your non-belief…is not your non-belief somewhat irrational? Your non-belief must be based on something!

    I know that you could quite easily turn this question around toward me as well and if you wish we can do that but right now I am really trying to see things from your point of view.

  • http://wmute.livejournal.com wintermute

    Now since you don’t believe in God and you have no evidence to support your non-belief…is not your non-belief somewhat irrational? Your non-belief must be based on something!

    The evidence that no gods exist is that no-one has ever been able to present evidence that gods do exist.

    I’m also an a-unicornist. I do not believe that unicorns exist. Should I be required to explain exactly what evidence leads me to that conclusion, or should I just point out that there is no evidence in favour of the existence of unicorns?

  • http://voicefromthewilderness.wordpress.com Voice from the Wilderness

    Thats too simplistic of an answer wintermute. I have been frequenting this blogsite for a while now and in reading your comments in the past it is clear to me that you are very deep thinkers. Lets see some of this in action!

    I believe that God exists and that there is evidence to prove that He exists but I would not be so foolish as to say; “I believe in God because there are so many other people who believe in God.”

    If you wish others to adopt your point of view (the non-existence of God) surely you can articulate a point of view that goes further than “Should I be required to explain exactly what evidence leads me to that conclusion, or should I just point out that there is no evidence…”

    Show me why you don’t believe in God. There must be something you can point to back up your non-belief.

    Mike

    ps. You refer to gods, I refer to GOD!

  • http://voicefromthewilderness.wordpress.com Voice from the Wilderness

    Wintermute;

    I did not mean to insinuate that you ever said anything accusitory. I was actually stating the position some Christians take when trying to justify their belief in God. I meant it to demonstrate the ignorance of Christians who cannot articulate their position with facts, evidence. I’m sure you have encountered Christians who make such nonsensical statements.

    As for my challenge, I think its fair that we give evidence for why we believe what we believe. And turnabouts fair play as well. I will be posting an article on my site under the “Topical” section. The title will be “A Christian Understanding of the Origin of Life.” There I will be stating my position concerning why I believe in Jehovah God rather than Thor or any of the mythological gods that inundate history.

    God bless you.
    Mike

  • Ty

    “The title will be “A Christian Understanding of the Origin of Life.” There I will be stating my position concerning why I believe in Jehovah God rather than Thor or any of the mythological gods that inundate history.”

    Short version:

    I believe in the biblical god because the bible says he’s god, and god wrote the bible, therefore it’s true.

    And off to the circular reasoning racetrack we go.

  • http://voicefromthewilderness.wordpress.com Voice from the Wilderness

    Ty:

    Your statement is too simplistic. You presume to know what I’m going to say before I say it. I have no intention of just throwing out mindless gibberish or pious platitudes. I suppose I could go and say all of the things you listed above but as I have stated, I intend to make an indepth, scientific presentation just as Elliot has and as wintermute has done and as Mr. Florien has laid out. I ask you to give me the benefit of the doubt and read what I have to say before waving your hand and saying, “Here we go again.”

    It will be posted by the end of the week.

    Thanks
    Mike vftw

  • Ty

    Will you not be using the bible as an authoritative source, then?

  • http://voicefromthewilderness.wordpress.com Voice from the Wilderness

    I will be using scientific evidence. Mr. Florien has, I believe in a response to J.C., stated that he does not believe that the Bible is the word of God and this stands to reason; if you don’t believe in God, how can you believe that He wrote a book? Therefore would it not be an absurdity to try to argue from the Bible since it is already rejected. I do not say this as a slam against you but merely as a statement of fact as I understand from what I have read on this site. I would merely be wasting my breath.

    And I realize, at least from what I have read from some of the comments posted here that there are quite a few scientists present on this site. Therefore I will do my best to present my case in the same manner that, say, Elliot has done. He has really impressed me with his intellect and I doubt that there are any intellectual slouches represented here. I will not waste your time with nonsense and I really do look forward to your comments.

    Mike vftw

  • Ty

    Ok, but if you try any of the usual tacts, such as irreducable complexity, then I fear you are in for a thorough trouncing as the standard arguments for design have all been entirely debunked.

    If you have something radically new, it will be at least entertaining.

  • http://voicefromthewilderness.wordpress.com Voice from the Wilderness

    Thank you for the benefit of the doubt. I promise not to use coke cans or banana peels or any nonsense. I know I am dealing with an incredibly intelligent crowd so there is no place for foolishness.

    Thanks again
    Mike vftw

  • latsot

    @Jimminy: “In general, things which are evolutionarily disadvantageous for the group are punished, and things which are evolutionarily advantageous for the group are rewarded.”

    You have to be careful though: morality didn’t evolve for the good of the group. It’s more correct to think of it evolving because it was good for individuals who have to live alongside other individuals but even more correct that it’s a good way for certain genes to increase in frequency within a gene pool.

    Aside from that, I agree with you, including what you say on the is/ought problem. The illusion of ‘ought’ comes from our evolved senses of fairness, right and wrong etc. which came about – as you say – because of the advantages of limited cooperation with close competitors.

    A lot of people seem to have difficulty with the idea that the way we think, our moral outlook and so on are at least partly due to our genes and is not distinct from our behaviour. I guess this is related to our instinctive dualism (which is presumably also evolved).

  • latsot

    @voice: “You presume to know what I’m going to say before I say it.”

    Ty is acting rationally (if perhaps a little unfairly). He/she has seen it all before. We all have. I myself have read hundreds of claims of evidence of the existence of some god or other and yet none has *ever* turned up.

    Almost always, the person claiming to have evidence eventually and quietly disappears after making all kinds of wild claims in public.

    On the rare occasion that any of this much-vaunted ‘evidence’ is presented, it turns out to not be evidence at all. It’s something like “I believe because I have faith” or “I have a personal relationship with ” or “I just *know* he exists”. Occasionally there’s some ham-fisted rehashing of the ontological argument or another linguistic trick.

    But never, *ever* any proper evidence.

    Ty is therefore skeptical that you’ll succeed where huge armies of others have failed, in the same way that many of us are skeptical about the existence of god. Just as we don’t need evidence for the non-existence of god to conclude that he probably doesn’t exist, we don’t need to see your claimed evidence to conclude that – in all probability – it will not turn out to be a devastating attack on our disbelief. Particularly since you don’t seem to have the first idea about standards of evidence, based on your posts on this thread.

    Hopefully, you’ll pleasantly surprise all of us. If you do manage to present proper, scientific evidence, we will certainly consider it. If it’s strong enough, we’ll change our minds about the existence of god.

    But don’t be surprised that we are skeptical. We should probably be more polite, but I’m sure you understand that claims like yours have many of us rolling our eyes, just because we’ve seen this kind of thing so many times before. We’re sick of bending over backwards to accomodate people who appear to think their claims deserve special rules of evidence and we suspect you might turn out to be one of these.

    Good luck with presenting your evidence, I look forward to reading it.

  • noveldame

    This video clip really got under my skin for ONE simple quote, near the end. “… you bring [atheists] the knowledge of sin with the ten commandments. Show them they need a savior. so that’s the key… the way to do that is with the gospel of salvation.”

    Truth be told, I don’t want to be saved from anything their God deems “bad”.

    and, after reading the Amazon.com reviews, I appreciated this one the most:

    Same Old Tired & Weak Arguments, February 19, 2009
    By Johnny London – See all my reviews
    (REAL NAME)

    The next time you have 4,000+ Atheists convicted of child rape while their organizational hierarchy protects them, get back with me on how atheists are morally inferior to Christians.

  • latsot

    Stupidly, I have bothered to plough through voice’s drivel and write some stuff about it on his blog. I don’t particularly suggest that anyone read it, however: rebuttals of these tired old arguments are nearly as dull as the claims themselves.

  • Flea

    Ray Cumfart is the best proof available showing evolution is not a fact. How the hell evolution could have made such stupid genes survive?

  • Pingback: Mom, where do morals come from? « Hello Universe, This Is Nessie

  • Bob Todd

    Eternal hell does not exist because no one can defend that
    position from the Autographs.

    • Fred

      Not because the bible is just a collection of myths and legends from an earlier time?
      Weird.

    • Nox

      Assuming you intend “autographs” to mean the original copies of biblical texts, no one can defend anything from them since no one has access to these lost documents.

  • John C

    Yea, its a good thing “religion” has nothing to do with Jesus…religion sucks. Dogma is dead. Hmm…makes me wonder, what exactly is the true message & offer that Christ made???

    Anybody care to take a guess??

  • spence-bob

    It is evolutionarily beneficial for groups to reward positive behavior (sharing, nurturing, compassion) and to punish negative behavior (robbing, raping, killing) within the group. Groups that tolerate extremely negative behavior go extinct. No God or magical objective morality is required for this come about or to work.

    I always like to recommend The Evolution of Cooperation by Robert Axelrod to people like Barry. He basically takes that paragraph and then proves why it’s true. Added benefit – it’s a pretty short book.

  • spence-bob

    But does religion provide any reason why people *should* behave morally other than “if you don’t, the god who loves you so much will see to it that you suffer for the rest of eternity?” Because if it does, I haven’t heard it yet.

  • http://metroblog.blogspot.com Metro

    @ John C
    And in context with the comment above your comment means what, exactly?

    Is this meant to contribute to the discussion somehow?

    @Kitty
    I feel that most religions adapt, have adapted, and probably will continue to adapt. Indeed, religion may be said to evolve.

    Consider the changes from early Catholicism, then all the little adjustments that have taken place since.

    However, each advance in communications and recording makes it harder to say “Oh, we never said that,” or “That wasn’t what we meant,” and eventually I feel most religions will crack under the strain of trying to validate their worldview, and square past pronouncements with expanding knowledge.

  • http://metroblog.blogspot.com Metro

    I’ve always liked the contention that pro-survival behaviour is inherently moral. However, the term “survival” refers to the species rather than the individual.

    Hence the reason we venerate people who die saving others’ lives.

    It also explains why the societies with “universal” medical and welfare systems score so well in terms of livability, population health, and happiness.

  • Max

    I’m not sure I was implying that individual survivability is inherently moral, or even that group survivability is inherently moral. Especially because I think the societal rules or policies progress first. After which, we revamp or concept of morality around them. I apologize if I didn’t explain myself clearly enough.

    I’m simply saying that much of the time individual or group survival in large populations depends on some sort of cooperative agreement, with or without coercion.

    As you stated with “universal” medical and welfare systems, although I haven’t seen the scores to which you are referring, ease of survival has increased as trade or other forms economic and social stability has been allowed to proliferate.

    I guess the difference is that the religious generally feel morality is an absolute thing, while more secular people see it changing. I know I’d like to survive for a while. I know I’d like my wife and children to survive and be happy. It’s reasonable to assume that most people feel the same way. Sorry for the cliche but we’re stronger united than we are divided. At it’s core, I think this is the basis of morality, regardless of some of the other nonsensical things that have been built on top of it.

  • http://unreasonablefaith.com Daniel Florien

    Mike,

    It’s impossible to prove the non-existence of anything. For instance, can you prove to me that Baal doesn’t exist? Unicorns? Leprechauns? Ghosts? It’s impossible.

    None of us claim to prove the non-existence of God, for that’s impossible. We simply do not know of any evidence for his existence, thus we do not believe. If evidence were to turn up, we would believe.

  • http://wmute.livejournal.com wintermute

    I believe that God exists and that there is evidence to prove that He exists but I would not be so foolish as to say; “I believe in God because there are so many other people who believe in God.”

    Yes, an appeal to popularity would be foolish. Did I do that? Did I claim that I was an atheist because other people are atheists?

    Or did I say that I don’t believe in any god, because no evidence has been presented in favour of their existence.

    If you wish others to adopt your point of view

    What if I have no desire to see people change their beliefs? What if I think that people should be free to believe what they want, so long as they don’t try and force it on others, for example, by teaching a literal interpretation of Genesis in science classes.

    ps. You refer to gods, I refer to GOD!

    Why? Why don’t you believe in Thor, or Mithras, or Anansi. or any of the thousands of other gods humans have worshipped? What is your evidence for believing they don’t exist?

    To make it more general, the question is one of burden of proof. I know you understand this; it’s been explained to you many times. When someone makes a positive claim (X exists), it is their responsibility to demonstrate that claim. The null hypothesis (that is, the hypothesis that should be believed in the absence of evidence either way) is that the entity doesn’t exist. The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence presented has to be for it to be accepted.

    If I claim that there is an invisible, intangible dragon in my garage, would you believe me or not? What evidence would you cite for your belief or lack thereof?

    If someone told you that he had a magic potion that would make you live forever, and he’ll sell it to you in exchange for everything you own, would you believe him if he couldn’t present any evidence?

    The number of things you don’t believe in simply because there’s no reason to believe in them is staggering. Why should the specific god in which you believe get to play be different rules?

  • http://unreasonablefaith.com Daniel Florien

    Now since you don’t believe in God and you have no evidence to support your non-belief…is not your non-belief somewhat irrational? Your non-belief must be based on something!

    That’s a good question and something that is easy to misunderstand. If I asked you if you have evidence for your non-belief in fairies, I think you would be at a loss. You probably don’t believe in them because you’ve never seen one and nobody has ever provided evidence for them.

    But because you have no evidence to support the non-existence of fairies, does that make it irrational? Of course not, because the REASON you don’t believe in them is because there is no evidence.

    However, I also think there is significant evidence against God’s existence. To you the world is evidence — to me, it’s evidence against. Evolution is a cruel mistress, and I can’t imagine a God who would invent such a system. The death and destruction that goes on shows to me no kind deity exists — at least that’s active in our world. That there are no documented miracles shows to me that there is no deity involved in our lives. That there are so many religions, none with any evidence for their supernatural claims, shows to me that god is man-made concept to deal with our fear of death and our lack of understanding the world around us (which is why belief in god goes down as scientific understanding goes up). I could go on.

    However, I try not to be dogmatic about it. I’m open to evidence, and if something new turns up, I’m happy to consider it and change my mind.

  • http://voicefromthewilderness.wordpress.com Voice from the Wilderness

    I understand completely. As I said, you all have been subject to so much nonsense from the Christian side of things that it is no wonder you are skeptical. I hear Christians offer such innane arguments that I just have to scratch my head.

    I read in the Bible that I must be ready to give a reason for the hope that is within me and to me that means I must be able to articulate my reasons for belief in God and for the Biblical side of Creation.

    I truly thank you for the benefit of the doubt and will give this my best effort. You all have presented your point of view very articulately and such information is very much needed to give us a clear picture of what we are talking about, at least as clear as the evidence can give.

    As for being polite, I deserve nothing of the sort. I have been very pugnatious and really I deserve your scorn rather than your time. But I thank you for your patience.

    I stated in another section of this site that due to an increased workload from the office I won’t be posting my article till next week. I have no intention of posting a hurried article before you all…you are worth much more than that.

    Thanks
    Mike vftw

  • latsot

    > I won’t be posting my article till next week. I have no
    > intention of posting a hurried article before you
    > all…you are worth much more than that.

    Are you in a position yet to at least whet our appetites?

    When will the article appear?

  • http://voicefromthewilderness.wordpress.com Voice from the Wilderness

    Yes. My article will appear this Friday, March 6th in the “Topical” section. Again I apologize for the delay but as I said I will not post drivel before such an intellectual crowd.

    Mike VFTW

  • latsot

    I can’t wait. Especially now that I’ve looked at your site and re-read your posts here in an accordingly sarcastic tone.

    Will comments on your article (assuming it ever appears) be ‘moderated’?

  • http://voicefromthewilderness.wordpress.com Voice from the Wilderness

    To all;

    I am a day early in my post of a Christian Perspective on the Origin of Life. The first installment of this series has been posted under this title in my “Topical” section. I will be interested in your comments/corrections.

  • latsot

    As everyone expected, you – voice from the wilderness – had nothing to say. There was not the slightest speck of scientific evidence in your idiotic tirade, despite your repeated prior claims that you had proper scientific evidence for the existence of god.

    You wasted the benefit of the doubt, well done.

    You presented absolutely no evidence for the existence of god, well done.

  • Jabster

    Well all I can say is it’s a major FAIL. Absolutely zero evidence despite that which you implied. As lastot has already stated the benefit of the doubt was wasted on you — oh and can I expect that you’re actually going to post some real evidence next time or are you just going to ignore the whole situation?

    p.s. “I will not post drivel” — do you like lying?

  • LRA

    And the truth has fallen from thy lips just as political cartoons drip with satire…

    May you always be saucy and be touched by the noodly appendage of our lord, the flying spaghetti monster. rAmen.

  • latsot

    @ voice from the wilderness
    “I will be using scientific evidence”

    You didn’t use any evidence at all, scientific or otherwise, then you vanished as predicted.

    Explain.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X