scratch-mark

Sunday Rock: “God Shuffled His Feet”

…And it’s really more Sunday Ballad than rock, but since almost all rock bands do ballads, we’ll give it a pass. This was inspired by a Twitter follower with whom I just had an exchange, @DailySuicide.

For about 20 years or so I have liked entertaining the concept: “Outcompeting God.” The idea is, when 1st Century primitives were penning the Bible for the eventual powerful use of the state in helping to make everyone feel domesticated, tamed, captive, subject, they really had no conception of what modes humans have available as a matter of quotidian routine.

Sure, he’s omnipotent and omniscient, but how come he never showed anyone the equivalent of a car, airplane, rocket ship, skyscraper or a bridge? Hell, how about modern shoes? They all wore sandals and that’s why even God needed his feet washed from time to me while on a mission to get his ass killed — not by a bullet to the head but through primitive torture.

No mention of heart transplants? How about hip & knee replacements? Huh? Outcompeting God.

Well, this video reminded me of that whole disconnect; Crash Test Dummies:

On the same theme, if there is a God, I’m sure he or she is around here somewhere; Joan Osborne:

Another thing I’ve said for about the last 20 years: “You are God.” All of you. You simply need to start acting like it. Haven’t you Paleos been feeling like it?

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More

73 Comments

  1. Darrin on November 20, 2011 at 19:46

    Definitely.

    I think the concept of God (or gods) across all cultures is/are based off the part of the human psyche (unique to our species) that is able to transcend all the physical and emotional pre-programming and create all the amazing things we have.

  2. noa on November 21, 2011 at 02:58

    A lash out against organised religion and its lies. Fitting for the thread.

    Aeon-Forever Nailed

    The Abscence-The Murder

    Enjoy

  3. Daniel Kirsner on November 20, 2011 at 17:49

    Given the current state of the world, how about
    http://youtu.be/raI25N-OoMQ

  4. Henry on November 20, 2011 at 18:14

    Having recently read “Stranger in a Strange Land”, the whole “You are god” idea really resonates with me these days.
    I think it’s dangerous to think of ourselves as “gods” per se (we don’t have THAT much power), but fact is we created “god” in our image, not the other way around.

  5. Jscott on November 20, 2011 at 18:53

    Then there was the Tower of Babble. ..

    When I write I use a Jump start. A quote, a person, a made up event. Sometimes, when my life is not boring I can use a real story. It is rare. Yes, I cheat. However, Seques matter.

    No book has ever used story (segue) as well as the cup coaster with ‘B.I.B.L.E. ‘ stamped in gold (and conspicuously unconsumed). The big big story is the one not told as often and that is the one of God the Less.

    The story of what happened when demon possession became a DSM IVr diagnosis of Schizophrenia. Or when sin did not cause illness lack of sanitation did. God’s territory was being divided and conquered.

    I wonder if some of those writers of those stories were actually young Tom Robbins types. If maybe in their unheaven they watch over the passing of their stories and think, “Fuck, I KNEW I should have inserted the /coolstorybro tag about the whole Burning Bush thing.”

    The moral of this story is that when one shuffles their feet they loose ground and die. Humans face the same fate. Only, we do not have a single book volume to sell the next species.

    (Thanks for the mention oh Captain my Captain.)

  6. Alex Good on November 20, 2011 at 19:32

    I’m with your whole say what you think routine but you sound somewhat bitter.
    Oh an walking on water, changing the chemical compostion of a liquid with nothing but your mind and the creating a feast fit for 100 people from a single fish is still kind of beyond us.
    If you want to compare the achievements of the human race to what the bible says god did you’re just asking to be made fun of.

    • Jscott on November 20, 2011 at 19:45

      Dearest Alex,

      If you want to compare the achievements of what the bible says god did to the human race you’re just asking to be made fun of.

      Signed,
      Efin Fisxed

    • Richard Nikoley on November 21, 2011 at 09:11

      “but you sound somewhat bitter”

      It’s of never ending amusement to me when people see it that way.

      I’m a blogger, a writer. Do the math. Over the last 8 years I’ve put up 3,000 posts. That’s an average of a post per day, 7 days per week, over 3,000 consecutive days.

      I’m pretty sure that with that much material, anyone can make a case for how I “seem” in any respect they care to look into.

      I’m having fun. If it were not so, I wouldn’t be doing it.

  7. Jorge on November 20, 2011 at 19:39

    You all should come up on the 29th for the Joan Osborne show here in sac town:-)

  8. Josh on November 20, 2011 at 21:25

    “And ‘ye’, God said, ‘the weak shall inherit nothing'”

  9. Koanic on November 20, 2011 at 21:54

    Right, because Man has made such great strides in extending life expectancy beyond that which simply eating the originally intended diet delivers.

    God is omnipotent and omniscient? Not in my Bible. Clearly you know far less about Christianity than you would like to believe.

    As for submission, what part of “prince of this world” do you not understand?

    • Richard Nikoley on November 21, 2011 at 09:04

      “Right, because Man has made such great strides in extending life expectancy beyond that which simply eating the originally intended diet delivers.”

      Let’s take a simple case, amputees. Now while many claim divine intervention in the curing of various diseases and maladies, cancer, for instance — though one must be left to wonder why so many children suffer and die, presuming their inherent innocence — I’ve yet to hear of any claim for such intervention in the growing back of a limb.

      So, if you’re unfortunate enough to lose one, you’re simply going to have to turn to those who’ve created prosthetics because you’re SOL as far as God is concerned.

      “God is omnipotent and omniscient? Not in my Bible. Clearly you know far less about Christianity than you would like to believe.”

      There’s no question that many sects of Christianity hold God as omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, etc. While I understand the inherent logical fallacy (“can God create an object so heavy he can’t lift it?), doesn’t mean that others willing to live in cognitive dissonance do.

      “As for submission, what part of “prince of this world” do you not understand?”

      I don’t know what you’re talking about. I’m not interested in princes, priests, kings, queens, presidents, congressmen, parliamentarians or any such other rot, terrestrial or celestial. Middle finger, baby.

      • Koanic on November 21, 2011 at 10:00

        Firstly, it would not bother me in the slightest to learn that God lacks or chooses not to exercise the power to regenerate amputated limbs. Just as it does not bother me that the US military lacks or chooses not to exercise the power to execute Japanese rapists.

        Secondly, how in the world is what God does or does not heal relevant?

        Here’s what you said:

        “No mention of heart transplants? How about hip & knee replacements? Huh? Outcompeting God.”

        Anyone with any familiarity with the paleo movement knows that the reason we NEED heart transplants and hip and knee replacements is because we are not eating the diet we were originally intended to eat.

        So if man creates 1,000 problems through civilization and then “solves” 5% of them, he’s somehow doing better than God? The argument fails on its own logic.

        There’s no logical fallacy inherent in omnipotence or omniscience. The logic given in your parenthetical phrase is broken. The reason the God of the Bible isn’t omnipotent or omniscient is because he doesn’t act that way, and it doesn’t say he is. It says he knows certain sets of things and can do certain sets of things.

        It’s like if someone says “If you have money you can do whatever you want” and you reply, “Can I shoot lasers out of my eyes? No? WHY ARE YOU LYING??”

        “I don’t know what you’re talking about. ”

        The phrase “prince of this world”, when Googled, returns 10 results for Satan.

        The fact that you don’t recognize common Biblical phrases like this indicates that you don’t even know the book you are criticizing. Which is precisely my point.

        The ironic thing is that since Satan is the authority on Earth, any attempt to use Earthly problems as a reason to reject God is the opposite of a middle finger.



      • Richard Nikoley on November 21, 2011 at 10:21

        “Secondly, how in the world is what God does or does not heal relevant?”

        You don’t seem to get it.

        There is no God, and no reason for one. It’s a a fantasy built around ancient fairy tales that millions of people believe literally.

        I simply poke at it, for fun, just as I do with the cholesterol hypothesis, diet heart hypothesis and other silly things people believe it.

        I no more have to concern myself with all of the assertions and “arguments” for God, or maintaining any sort of consistency in the various ways I ridicule them than I would have need of in countering assertions for unicorns.

        And it is every bit that ridiculous.

        “Anyone with any familiarity with the paleo movement knows that the reason we NEED heart transplants and hip and knee replacements is because we are not eating the diet we were originally intended to eat.”

        That’s simply false. Beyond congenital defect, infection or any other number of non-dietary causes, there’s trauma from accidents or predation.

        …None of which is there any “God” to be found. He was out-competed decades ago.



      • Koanic on November 21, 2011 at 10:36

        It’s fine with me if you want to remain mired in intellectual shallowness. I’ll continue to take potshots at your illogic because I enjoy it. And any time you feel like challenging one of my points in a focused manner, I’ll be happy to oblige. Clearly you’re not currently interested in defending your position, which you’ve admitted is inconsistent. But I point out that I would have no trouble maintaining logical consistency should I choose to mock unicorns.

        “That’s simply false.”

        Oh of course it’s not 100% true, but it’s substantially true, as you know. And congenital defects are not unrelated to diet.

        The other ironic thing is that atheism will decline as economic hard times brings its inevitable surge in religious conservatism. Furthermore, the higher birthrates of the religious mean that it is atheism that is the evolutionarily outcompeted dead-end.

        I mean, agnosticism I can understand. That’s a failure to do the research. But atheism? That’s just a sign of underdeveloped logic.



      • Richard Nikoley on November 21, 2011 at 11:39

        Carl Sagan: The Dragon in my Garage:

        One of my favorites from “The Demon Haunted World.”



      • Richard Nikoley on November 21, 2011 at 11:08

        “Clearly you’re not currently interested in defending your position”

        I have no position to defend. You do, and all those who assert the literal existence of some big man in the sky. You are stating a position and the onus is upon you.

        All the and waving in the world won’t change that.

        Agnosticism is simply an evasion. Agnosticism in the face of the question of supernatural skygods is no more rational than is being agnostic about the existence and the Easter Bunny.



      • Koanic on November 21, 2011 at 11:12

        “I have no position to defend. ”

        Ridiculous. You’ve made multiple positive assertions. Those are positions. Atheism itself is a position – that no god exists.

        Just more evidence of your logical ineptitude.



      • Richard Nikoley on November 21, 2011 at 11:28

        “You’ve made multiple positive assertions. Those are positions. Atheism itself is a position – that no god exists.”

        Let me make another one or two: There’s no Santa Claus and there’s no Easter Bunny. Now, that’s not technically the correct way to address such a question, but it sounds pretty silly to state it in a way that leaves open the possibility.

        So to put it another way, a better way: it’s not even _wrong_ (in reference to your arbitrary assertions).

        Here’s what I mean by that, from a quick Google search about the need to disprove the arbitrary.

        http://www.atlassociety.org/atheism-agnosticism-and-arbitrary

        “People can come up with an infinite number of claims. Some claims have conclusive supporting evidence: evidence that is ultimately reducible to perceptual concretes (examples of well-supported claims include “the world is round” and “water is made of hydrogen and oxygen”). Other claims may have inconclusive supporting evidence (examples include: “Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F. Kennedy” and “an asteroid crash caused the extinction of the dinosaurs”). Still other claims have no supporting evidence whatsoever (e.g., “gremlins are green” and “souls are immortal”). In those cases in which the evidence is truly inconclusive, one may legitimately say with regard to a claim, “I don’t know whether it’s true.” But claims that have no supporting evidence at all should be rejected as arbitrary rather than being evaluated or even entertained as hypotheses. This is basic scientific procedure: every claim must have some evidence in its favor before a scientist considers the possibility of testing it. And it applies to non-scientific inquiries as well. A claim that has no evidence whatsoever in its favor should not be rejected as false—rather, the very question of whether the claim is true or false should be rejected outright, for the claim itself is arbitrary.

        “Agnosticism—as a general approach to knowledge—refuses to reject arbitrary propositions. This is the general position behind the agnostic approach to the question of God’s existence. Agnosticism holds that claims should be evaluated on the basis of evidence, and that claims should not be rejected unless there is sufficient evidence against them (in other words, a claim should not be rejected outright even if no evidence exists either to support or refute it).

        “The primary problem for the agnostic is that he allows arbitrary claims to enter his cognitive context. The fully rational man, on the other hand, does not seek evidence to prove or disprove arbitrary claims, for he has no reason to believe that such claims are true in the first place.”

        There’s more there.

        In the end, I’m doing nothing more than poking fun at silly beliefs. You can believe all the silly stuff you were conditioned to believe in as a child you want, but just because you, others, or millions of others fervently hold such beliefs in no way obligates me to take them seriously as propositions based on anything but heresay, or to do anything but reject them out-of-hand as wholly arbitrary.



      • Koanic on November 21, 2011 at 11:48

        So, you are saying that claims for the existence of God are arbitrary claims, an arbitrary claim being one that “has no evidence whatsoever in its favor”.

        That is hysterically inept.

        You see, there’s this book. It’s called “Evidence that demands a verdict.” It’s full of evidence for the existence of a specific God, who performed specific actions in the temporal, physical world.

        Hence, claims for the existence of this specific God are not arbitrary claims. And they do not belong to the category “gremlins are green.”

        Boy was that easy.

        I could do so much more to dismantle your argument. Such as point out that atheism is categorically different than disbelief in Santa Claus, because “gods” is a far wider category into which almost any sufficiently advanced entity could fit. Plus, the quote you provided is a logical trainwreck. But there’s no need to go further, since your argument depends on the blatant error of claiming there’s “no evidence.”

        According to your logic, an Aztec should believe that the concept of technologically advanced or “godlike” white men is “not even wrong” right up to the moment they landed. And he should actively mock those who remain agnostic about the possibility.

        Not a particularly advanced worldview you’ve got there.



      • Richard Nikoley on November 21, 2011 at 11:57

        “Evidence that demands a verdict”

        Oh please. I really thought you might come up with something a bit less laughable.

        Well, here, if you must.

        http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/

        Probably lots of other stuff where folks have decided to waste their time.



      • Richard Nikoley on November 21, 2011 at 12:02

        “According to your logic, an Aztec should believe that the concept of technologically advanced or “godlike” white men is “not even wrong” right up to the moment they landed. And he should actively mock those who remain agnostic about the possibility.”

        The critical difference is that superiorly advanced Euro civilization did exist and there’s plenty of evidence they had contact with one another. That they may have presumed them to be Gods is understandable but hardly relevant to the notion of the supernatural Gods imagined today.

        If you want to make a case for space aliens previously visiting planet Earth, then go ahead, but you should refer to them as highly advanced space aliens in order to save time.

        You know very well that the vast majority of people think of God as a supernatural being.



      • Koanic on November 21, 2011 at 12:04

        It’s evidence. Look up the word in the dictionary.

        You may disagree about whether it’s conclusive. That’s fine.

        Your argument about “arbitrary claims” still loses.



      • Richard Nikoley on November 21, 2011 at 12:22

        Evidence of _what_?



      • Koanic on November 21, 2011 at 12:27

        There is no way for a human observer to distinguish between a sufficiently advanced alien and a supernatural being, either scientifically or otherwise. Nor is there any reason to believe bronze age documents would even attempt to make such a distinction. Therefore the concept of aliens is entirely relevant to this discussion.

        You’re asserting that the Aztecs had plenty of evidence of prior contact with advanced European civilizations before the Spanish landing? What, are you talking about a couple of vague legends? Your definition of evidence seems to be shifting.

        I am not making any case for specific gods at this point. I am dismantling your case for atheism by pointing out its obvious illogic. I would never attempt to convert someone so logically inept as to believe in atheism, because it would be a complete waste of time.

        I DO NOT CARE what the vast majority of people think, because they are IDIOTS. AKA, the logical fallacy argumentum ad populum.



      • Koanic on November 21, 2011 at 12:29

        “Evidence of _what_?”

        The existence of a god, obviously.



      • Richard Nikoley on November 21, 2011 at 12:33

        Nonsense. Objective evidence would be pretty tough to hide. None has ever come forth. What you have there is evidence for lots of various things, but nothing justifying a leap to any sort of supernatural god.

        Any I doubt any evidence for actual space aliens would ever hold up to real scrutiny.



      • Richard Nikoley on November 21, 2011 at 12:36

        “There is no way for a human observer to distinguish between a sufficiently advanced alien and a supernatural being”

        Question begging. You need to establish the existence of supernatural beings (and aliens, for that matter) before you get to assume them in an argument.

        “You’re asserting that the Aztecs had plenty of evidence of prior contact with advanced European civilizations before the Spanish landing?”

        No, I’m saying plenty of evidence exists for what actually happened, no supernaturalism or aliens required.

        “I am dismantling your case for atheism by pointing out its obvious illogic.”

        That’s the problem in arguing with theists. They have very active imaginations.



      • Koanic on November 21, 2011 at 13:00

        “Question begging. You need to establish the existence of supernatural beings (and aliens, for that matter) before you get to assume them in an argument.”

        That’s just retarded. This is getting boring.

        I’ll leave you with the definition of evidence, since you obviously haven’t looked it up:

        1
        a : an outward sign : indication
        b : something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
        2
        : one who bears witness; especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices

        I’ll leave you to argue with Merriam Webster, if you like.



      • Richard Nikoley on November 21, 2011 at 13:08

        You’re silly, and ignorant.

        Heresay is _evidence_, moron.

        It doesn’t mean it’s _good_ evidence, doesn’t mean it establishes anything, but it is EVIDENCE.

        Jesus, already.

        Alright, go the fuck away now. You’re too stupid to spend any more time on.



      • Koanic on November 21, 2011 at 13:24

        You’re the one who decided to stake your case on the “no evidence” claim.

        If you wanted to argue “no good evidence,” you should’ve said so.

        Don’t get mad at me. I take ’em where I find ’em.



      • Richard Nikoley on November 21, 2011 at 13:28

        Clearly, your chief interest is word games.

        Now go away.



      • rob on November 21, 2011 at 13:38

        Re higher birthrate of the religious …

        When I was a youngster EVERYONE believed in god, I still remember the first time I heard someone propose that god does not exist … 5th grade, a kid named Gary who was being raised by his hippie dad … the rest of us put some space between us and Gary so that we would not be harmed by the ensuing lightning bolt.

        If EVERYONE was religious back then, why isn’t everyone religious now?

        So you cannot assume that the children of religious people will be religious. The world is becoming more secular and that trend will continue



      • Koanic on November 21, 2011 at 13:50

        Rob – because economic prosperity breeds irreligiousity.

        Rich – not at all. If you had argued “no good evidence,” I would’ve asked you to give objective metrics for “good”, since that is a subjective term, and we would’ve proceeded from there.

        “No evidence” is a common atheist meme, despite being patently stupid. There are many who actually do not know what evidence is. For instance, they think the standards of scientific evidence, which assumes replicability, has any bearing on historical questions.



      • Richard Nikoley on November 21, 2011 at 14:10

        The only “historical questions” are that we have generally reliable evidence that people throughout the ages believed all sorts of things, claimed visions, etc, etc.

        It’s all heresay, and given that we observe the same behaviors in humans today, it serves only as evidence that people love to fool themselves.

        It’s not evidence for a supernatural being.



      • Koanic on November 21, 2011 at 14:25

        Believe whatever you want. I’m not going to go deep with you again, because I don’t have the patience.

        I might snipe from time to time, just for fun.



      • rob on November 21, 2011 at 14:46

        Rob – because economic prosperity breeds irreligiousity.

        ==

        The converse is that hard times breed religion and I cannot disagree with that at all, which is why I think it is stupid to make children pray … unless they have been neglected or abused children have never known hard times.

        Among grownups … yeah when the shit hits the fan you are much more likely to pray and go to church … I’ve been there … but it begs the question “Why does the shit have to hit the fan?”

        To me it tends to authenticate Buddhism more than it authenticates Christianity.



      • Koanic on November 21, 2011 at 14:59

        “it begs the question “Why does the shit have to hit the fan?””

        Human nature, my friend. Always has, always will.



      • John on November 21, 2011 at 17:47

        I’m not sure of anything Koanic said, except I’m pretty sure he said my dad can’t be Santa(?)



      • Richard Nikoley on November 21, 2011 at 17:53

        “You’re the one who decided to stake your case on the “no evidence” claim.”

        I quote myself, from above in the thread.

        “Objective evidence would be pretty tough to hide. None has ever come forth. What you have there is evidence for lots of various things, but nothing justifying a leap to any sort of supernatural god.”



      • Koanic on November 21, 2011 at 19:11

        Yes, that was after you noticed the problem and started moving goalposts. I let it slide.



      • Richard Nikoley on November 21, 2011 at 19:36

        You’re lying, now.

        I read the thread. That quote was before the dispute over semantics. But that’s not even the point, you knew very well what I meant.

        You’re dishonest, but hey, I’m used to it. You have fantasies to uphold,, I don’t.



      • Koanic on November 21, 2011 at 23:24

        No, dude, I’m not lying. You made your “arbitrary claims” and “no evidence” argument at 11:28. You switched to “objective evidence” at 12:33.



      • Richard Nikoley on November 21, 2011 at 23:50

        Still word games. Dishonesty. You wish only to argue parlance. Because that’s all you have. No real evidence.



      • Koanic on November 22, 2011 at 00:13

        Yes, the reason I’m declining to discuss the nature of historical evidence and its availability re God with you is because I’m terrified of the overwhelming atheist logical prowess you’ve demonstrated thus far. It’s all I can manage to gather the shattered remnants of my mind and slink back to Bible camp to sing “Jesus loves me” inbetween composing incoherent denouncements of contraception, evolution and short skirts.



      • Richard Nikoley on November 22, 2011 at 01:34

        That a boy.



      • Koanic on November 22, 2011 at 02:06

        On the contrary, you are the one to be congratulated.

        Atheists take note, this is how to defeat a theist:

        Theist: “There is no way for a human observer to distinguish between a sufficiently advanced alien and a supernatural being, either scientifically or otherwise. Nor is there any reason to believe bronze age documents would even attempt to make such a distinction. Therefore the concept of aliens is entirely relevant to this discussion.”

        Atheist: “Question begging. You need to establish the existence of supernatural beings (and aliens, for that matter) before you get to assume them in an argument.”

        Theist: “I give up.”

        Atheist: “I win!”



      • Joseph on November 24, 2011 at 05:28

        Koanic, if you expect others to believe actively in aliens with explicit attributes, then you need to have some kind of experience with these aliens. More importantly, your audience needs to have some reason to trust you. I haven’t seen your aliens. I have experienced nothing I would regard as useful evidence that they exist. This doesn’t mean that they definitively don’t exist, for me. I believe in them the way I believe in the pink unicorn that lives on the dark side of the moon. (They could be out there. I myself could be nothing more than one of their dreams. So what?)

        Do these aliens hate it when people don’t believe in them? Do they get a kick out of making themselves invisible to the world at large and then using chosen agents to razz unbelievers who openly make fun of them? However one answers these kind of questions (or doesn’t), it seems to me that the aliens cannot be a matter for profitable discourse. Until more people know more about them that other people can know, there is really nothing to talk about. Nobody is going to win an argument whose subject is inscrutable.



      • Koanic on November 24, 2011 at 05:34

        “I have experienced nothing I would regard as useful evidence that they exist”

        That’s entirely your fault. The evidence for supernatural/alien beings is readily available in the books I cited.

        This being so, the rest of your statements are irrelevant.



    • Jasen on November 22, 2011 at 07:53

      Seeing how Richard attended divinity school I would wager that he knows far more about Christianity than you think he does.

      • Richard Nikoley on November 22, 2011 at 07:55

        I know a lot about Fundamental Baptists and how they interpret various doctrines. I left prior to getting far into all the various factions which, in itself is cause enough for alarm because generally, everyone things their little faction is 100% right and everyone else wrong.

        It’s a mess. I recommend just staying away from all of it.



      • Koanic on November 22, 2011 at 07:59

        Considering that the majority of ministers know nothing about Christianity, no I’m not impressed by credentials. Although dropping out does show good sense.



      • Noah on November 26, 2011 at 10:39

        Koanic,
        Can you concisely summarize your position on the existence of “the God of the Bible” ? I can’t discern it from the blah, blah,blah you’ve written so far.



      • Koanic on November 26, 2011 at 10:41

        As you have so keenly observed, I have not bothered to take a position on that subject here.



      • noah on November 27, 2011 at 06:22

        Is this close? Humans have had contact with advanced beings, technologically or otherwise, throughout history and have ascribed the title of gods or God to them.



      • Koanic on November 27, 2011 at 07:03

        That is a statement I would agree with, yes.



      • Richard Nikoley on November 28, 2011 at 13:37

        “Humans have had contact with advanced beings, technologically or otherwise, throughout history and have ascribed the title of gods or God to them.”

        “That is a statement I would agree with, yes.”

        Without characterizing it, that’s makes you dismissible, easily.

        Let’s put it this way. There is archeological evidence on the moon right now that we have been there, and it’s right out in the open.

        So put up, or go back to your fantasies.

        And in your delusion, you might take a moment to stop and ask yourself _why_ advanced beings — who could travel over light years — would have had the urge to walk in the jungle and try to strike up a conversation with the monkeys; and why don’t you now?

        Surely, we had not a thing to offer them, so why would they have gone to the time, expense, effort?



      • Koanic on November 28, 2011 at 19:02

        “you might take a moment to stop and ask yourself _why_ advanced beings who could travel over light years would have had the urge to walk in the jungle and try to relatively strike up a conversation with the monkeys, and why don’t you?”

        You do realize that Jane Goodall has done exactly that, right?



      • Richard Nikoley on November 28, 2011 at 20:20

        She travelled light years?



      • Koanic on November 28, 2011 at 20:44

        Exactly… you win again.



  10. rob on November 21, 2011 at 04:28

    Here’s another one, “Dear God” by XTC

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk41Gbjljfo

  11. Ashley North on November 21, 2011 at 04:38

    God was sitting in heaven one day when a scientist said to Him,

    “God, we don’t need you anymore. Science has finally figured out a way to create life out of nothing – in other words, we can now do what you did in the beginning.”

    “Oh, is that so? Tell Me…” replies God.

    “Well,” says the scientist, “we can take dirt and form it into the likeness of you and breathe life into it, thus creating man.”

    “Well, that’s very interesting…show Me.”

    So the scientist bends down to the earth and starts to mold the soil into the shape of a man.

    “No, no, no…” interrupts God, “Get your own dirt.”

  12. Joseph on November 21, 2011 at 08:40

    Your last comment (“you are God”) is one of the reasons I still think of myself as a Mormon: that is one of the “old” doctrines we like to dissemble when making nice with Jesus freaks, who are not entirely wacky for accusing us of atheism (any more than the Catholics were wrong to call Protestants atheists: each new movement abjures the God of its predecessors, in some sense).

    I enjoyed the post.

    • Richard Nikoley on November 21, 2011 at 08:47

      “As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.”

      That about right, Joseph? I recall that phrase from the fundie days as a way to make people horrified.

      • Joseph on November 21, 2011 at 11:20

        Yep. That’s how Lorenzo Snow put it back in 1840.



  13. Richard Jones on November 21, 2011 at 09:56

    The beauty of your own blog is you can post whatever the hell you want and whatever draws your amusement. I personally love that, but… this subject (regardless of where its brought up) always ends up being a Troll post. Flame on!

  14. Steve on November 21, 2011 at 17:28

    The best evidence against religion is the Bible. Just read it. It so obviously is the work of ancient peoples who had not yet amassed any meaningful knowledge. They weren’t less intelligent than us, just less knowledgeable. The laws were primitive. The ethics were primitive. The religion (gods, etc.) mirrored all religions of the region, and changes dramatically during the several centuries that are related in the Bible. Followers explain the absurdities of their beliefs as “mysteries,” but their religion makes a lot of sense and is no mystery at all when you put it into historical context and with an understanding of human cognition. I think it was Dawkins who said we are all atheists in that we don’t believe in other peoples’ gods, and believers will understand why we don’t believe in their god when they understand why they don’t believe in other peoples’ gods.

    • Richard Nikoley on November 21, 2011 at 17:33

      Steve:

      Yep, we’re all atheists when it comes to Zeus & Poseidon. Guys like us simply go one God further (as Dawkins says).

      One of my cantankerous pastimes over the years on my Facebook page (my personal one is friends & family, exclusively) is that when someone quotes some inspirational Bible verse, so do I.

      But I click over to evilbible.com to get a quote. For example.

      • Steve on November 22, 2011 at 04:54

        I’ve been known to rant occasionally to my Facebook friends. I’m surprised they don’t unfriend me.

        Thanks for the link. Here is another good one: http://wiki.ironchariots.org. I was skeptical as a child, raised Catholic (not molested), an atheist in college, tried to be religious in my 30’s and early 40’s (lost a child so really wanted to believe), and finally embraced my atheism within the past year or so. I’m so much happier now. But internet resources and podcasts, together with recent books from Dawkins, Harris, et al., allow us to finally access the alternative arguments. I think the internet will vastly increase the number of atheists within a few years.



  15. johnmc on November 24, 2011 at 14:36

    Let me add one more to the pile, if only for the following line:

    It’s you, it’s you, it’s always been you and it’s always been in you
    – “Come Find Yourself” by The Fun Lovin’ Criminals.

  16. Contemplationist on November 25, 2011 at 10:20

    Richard

    I know you’re done with those days. If you care though I would love to hear your thoughts on this book

    I respect the author as a blogger.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

YouTube1k
YouTube
Pinterest118k
Pinterest
fb-share-icon
40
45
Follow by Email8k
RSS780