Sketches on Atheism

I Am “God”

Posted on by 239 Comments

tumblr_n15x0r9q3S1ruwv4vo1_1280I am “God.”

I choose to be invisible and inaudible. I give off no odour and have no perceptible taste. I generate no heat signature, produce no electromagnetic field and provoke no resonance at any frequency. I cannot be detected with any instrument, and no measurement of any natural phenomena has ever indicated my presence. My influence cannot be inferred from any secondary observation, no earthly geological record speaks of my intervention, and no examination of any biological or astronomical system has ever alluded to my agency. I am massless. I displace neither liquids, solids, gas nor plasma. I have no perceptible gravitational effect on anything, and no disturbance in the fabric of spacetime suggests I’d once moved through any region of the cosmos. I’m omnipotent, but I take enormous care not to exercise my supernatural powers while anyone is watching. I take even more care to erase all traces of my work. I’m also omniscient, so I know if anyone is watching, and know precisely how they’ll look for signs of my work in the future.

You can’t prove this wrong.

You can choose to believe me, or you can choose to reject my claim.

Believing me makes it possible to explain ANYTHING. No more mysteries. “I did it. I did it all, even that great parking spot in the pouring rain last Tuesday.”

To make it interesting, if you believe me, I’ll give you twice your annual salary every month, for the rest of your life, starting a year from now. On top of this I’ll deliver an equal amount to be donated to your favourite charity. If you don’t believe me, in one year I’ll inflict a torture of my choosing on you: you’ll be crippled and lose all chance of employment, or one of your children will get sick and suffer terribly before dying.

Do you believe me?

Probably not. The incentives (both positive and negative) aren’t a good reason to believe anything. The explanatory powers of my claim also aren’t a good reason to believe me. The fact that you don’t have any reason to not believe me isn’t a good reason to believe me, either. You should only believe me if there is evidence for my claim.

You shouldn’t believe me.

Some people will, however, believe. They’ll believe because they want it to be true. They want the explanatory power of it. They want the promise of reward to be true. They want to be taken care of, loved, parented, and told that the entire universe was created just so they could be here, reading this, right now.

 

*adapted from Existential Atheism

 

239 thoughts on “I Am “God””

  1. God, if I believe in you, can I kill people who don’t? Also, if I promise to believe in you, can you make the babes in the internet porn movies I watch come to my house and do those things to me? Please, God! Please!

    Like

    Reply

  5. Obviously you never saw Charlie Heston in “The Ten Commandments”.
    A documentary, you were there in a fiery bush and a column of fire.
    As for artefacts, other than this entire universe you made those stone slabs that Charlie chucked at the idol-worshippers in a fit of pique (you must’ve forgotten that one?). But the greatest proof of all—if you needed it— the movie was in colour~!

    Like

    Reply

      • So he used his initiative and his imagination. I hope he retired on that … probably went moonlighting for L R Hubbard (who as everyone knows was a successful sci-fi
        writer before he created Scientology).

        Ya just gotta take it to the next level.

        Like

      • Exactly. That’s why my religious hero is Claude Maurice Marcel Vorilhon, the racing car enthusiast and aspiring publisher who on the 13th of December, 1973, happened upon a spaceship hidden inside the Puy de Lassolasa volcano in the French province of Auvergne, and inside discovered a 25,000 year old alien named, Yahweh; a member of the extraterrestrial species called the Elohim who, apparently, the ancients had mistaken for the Gods.

        Now THAT’S taking the ball and running with it!

        Like

      • Ooops, forgetting my manners and protocol—here’s a quick worship:

        You’re the best!
        You’re the greatest!
        You’re the most compassionate!
        Hallelujah, hallelujah, and hosannas in the highest!!!!

        Like

  6. I love it. You’ve masterfully expounded C.S. Lewis’ comments about invisible cats and put it on steroids.

    “If there were an invisible cat in that chair, the chair would look empty; but the chair does look empty; therefore there is an invisible cat in it.” C.S. Lewis “Four Loves” (1958)

    Like

    Reply

      • “Seems Lewis did have his head screwed on right before it came a tad unstuck there in the end. “

        That’s the problem with christian apologists. The more more they say the deeper they sink into fantasy

        Like

      • You might be onto something there, Larry. The Theory of Woo shouldn’t really have a second sentence, or anything at all following the hypothesis and conclusion. Everything in the middle, all the actual “stuff,” just get’s them in trouble.

        Like

      • Who? lol!
        But you must admit you fell into that one somewhat. God is a concept, or pattern of thoughts, so if you can measure that, then you can measure the concept of God at least, technically speaking. It still doesn’t presuppose the existence of God outside of that pattern of thoughts though. So, off your soapbox my lovely John, come on down you get… 😉

        Like

      • No, the view is nice up here 🙂 Plus presupposing a god, by concept, is no different than presupposing dragons and sprites. Imagining is fine, believing is another matter altogether. “Concluding” god (synthetic truth) doesn’t equal “demonstrating” god (descriptive truth).

        Like

      • Yes. I thought we had just covered that. I’m pretty sure that’s what I said, unless you are just reinforcing my point that I was using, actually, to reinforce your point?

        Like

      • Ah, that’s kind of hitting on solipsism. It would depend on whether you (anyone) can imagine something completely and utterly new, completely and utterly independent of all other things.

        Like

      • Hmm, I smell a carbonara of semantics cooking. Imagination is just the process of thinking. I find it difficult to understand how you could specifically separate the two essentially abstract concepts. Concepts that are a bunch of electro-chemical signals that elicit neurological reactions.

        Like

      • Ordinarily I don’t. The more neural connections a person has typically means the more creative/imaginative they are. More paths = more options for linking previously un-linked things, and that gives the impression of “newness.”

        Like

      • That’s why it physically hurts to learn new things, because you are constantly laying down new neural pathways in order to adapt to life. You burn a lot of calories when you are actively learning. The point is, thinking is not a static process, as you’ve just explained. And if a thought can be measured as having some kind of presence or effect outside of the head that produced it, then surely it can be said to have a presence of it’s own? Not that I’m condoning the existence of God, Dragons, tea sprites or anything, but it’s an interesting thought is it not?

        Like

      • Also the problem with solipsism is that it depends under which broad spectrum you define ‘Self’. Dealing with unknown quantities does not produce anything definitive.

        Like

      • Damme, Thir and Madame; I alwayth thought that God wath a good thort whothe goodneth knowth no boundth …

        Like

  8. The existence of the universe screams the existence of God.

    I was just watching a science show called, “How the Universe Works.”

    Physicist media maven Michio KooKoo was one of the luminary guests.

    The conclusion of the physicists was that, and I quote, “Physics teaches that everything came from nothing.”

    Yes, folks, and I quote from the show, “Everything came from nothing.”

    How stupid can you get?

    Like

    Reply

      • John,

        I just told you!

        It is totally absurd that everything came from nothing.

        Only an infinite, all powerful, all knowing Creator can create everything.

        That is the less of the Big Bang, which is not theory, but fact.

        Like

      • That can be explained in a natural way. As 1) we know particles pop in and out of reality at whim and leave positive energy residues (something from nothing, excepting, of course, the laws of QM themselves), and 2) that retrocausality has been experimentally demonstrated in the lab, then it’s perfectly valid to say the universe might have come into existence when a particle retrocausally popped into a pre-bang low entropy quantum vacuum. By the very fact that this is possible means the positive energy residue was in fact QM itself. This happens in this universe, so isn’t it more logical to suggest this, and not POFF, is the more reasonable explanation? Occam’s Razor, my peculiar friend…. Or do you just want to play God of the Gaps?

        Like

      • John,

        Where did the particles that quantum tunnel come from?

        And where did the quantum tunnel come from?

        It is absolutely absurd to think that something can come from nothing.

        Such a notion is superstition, not science.

        And that is why science finds its limit at the Big Bang.

        And that is why science leads mankind to the doorstep of God.

        Like

      • SOM, did or did not retrocausality be experimentally demonstrated last year in Geneva? The answer is, of course, yes it was.

        Now, i don’t know if this is what happened, its just a thought, but it’s demonstration value is in that it doesn’t rely on supernatural Woo (for which there is no evidence anywhere, at any time) to be a reasonable suggestion. As weird as they are, both things occur without breaking any laws. No magic required.

        Like

      • John,

        Retro causality is a thought experiment and even if it were science, it couldn’t defy common sense.

        Everything in the universe, including the universe itself, has a cause.

        That is science and that is common sense.

        Like

      • Oh SOM, here’s what an actual quantum physicist, Sean Carroll, says:

        “causes and effects aren’t really fundamental. It’s the laws of nature that are fundamental, according to the best understanding we currently have, and those laws don’t take the form of causes leading to effects; they take the form of differential equations, or more generally to patterns relating parts of the universe. So the question really is, ‘Can we imagine laws/patterns which describe a universe without God?’ And the answer is “sure,” and we get on with our lives.”

        Like

      • John,

        Sean is speaking gobble-d-gook especially tuned to the willfully ignorant and science illiterate.

        A mathematical equation is a model for cause and effect.

        Here is a simple one from Isaac Newton, Net Force = Mass x Acceleration.

        That simple equation is pregnant with cause and effect triplets.

        Like

      • “It is totally absurd that everything came from nothing. Only an infinite, all powerful, all knowing Creator can create everything.”

        And yet no one who believes this can explain how “an infinite, all powerful, all knowing Creator” came to be created. You refuse to accept creation ex nihilo but can accept that a creator somehow materialized out of nothing?

        Like

      • Violet,

        Since God created time and space, he is eternal.

        That means God is uncaused.

        He is the uncaused First Cause.

        Like

      • John and Violet,

        The video is written for children.

        Adults know that assigning finite attributes (which is what the video does) to an being who is infinite leads to absurdity.

        Like

      • Right, and positing magic instead of naturalism isn’t being absurd….

        But do tell us, SOM: What did god come from? If you are going to answer, “nothing, it is eternal,” then do please detail why you give this exemption from causality to the god, but not to the universe itself?

        Like

      • John,

        Science and common since are only magic to atheists who believe that everything happens all by itself.

        Like

      • John,

        There is no answer to absurdity.

        You know that. I know that. You know that I know, that.

        So quit wasting our time.

        Like

      • SOM, it was a terribly simple question.

        If you are willing to give an exemption from the rules of causality to your god, then please explain why you won’t also grant this exact same exemption to the universe itself. Why one, and not the other?

        Surely you’ve thought this through, so i am assuming you have a logical and reasonable, perfectly coherent answer.

        Like

      • John,

        Here is the oft repeated answer to your question:

        “God is uncaused. The universe is caused.”

        There is a segment of the population who can’t reason that out for some reason.

        Like

      • Errrum, that’s not an answer. Now come on, SOM; surely you’ve thought this through. Surely you have a coherent, reasonable and logical answer, so let’s hear it.

        If you are willing to give an exemption from the rules of causality to your god, then please explain why you won’t also grant this exact same exemption to the universe itself. Why one, and not the other?

        Like

      • John,

        It is the answer.

        You’re too busy swallowing Sean’s BS and reading your atheist talking points to reason things out for yourself.

        Like

      • Violet,

        Your video is absurd in my eyes and I explained why.

        The post is absurd in my eyes and I explained why.

        Atheists inevitably resort to verbal abuse when they are presented with irrefutable, well known and very old, arguments.

        Like

    • “God is uncaused. The universe is caused.” There is a segment of the population who can’t reason that out for some reason.”

      Oh really? And you call people stupid who think the universe came from nothing. Why is your unfathomable statement more acceptable than what Prof. Michio KooKoo said?

      Like

      Reply

      • Why is it just so bloody hard about saying, “I don’t know”? “God is uncaused. The universe is caused.” How in Anu’s name could any claim to KNOW this as fact? How ’bout this: The universe is uncaused; God is caused? Ya, that’s it! God is caused ’cause we created him. The universe is uncaused ’cause we didn’t. Damn! I feel like William Lane Craig, only backwards! That statement is as correct as the first. Both are nice pieces of unprovable horse shit that sound like something about them MUST be true cause they are dripping with the weight of importance yet are nothing but scribblings of desperate men. One being me. I’m desperate for a sandwich! Lunch time!

        Like

  11. Egads! You must be a god. This post didn’t exist before I went to bed last night, but now it does. It seems to have magically popped into existence from nothing overnight along with 50+ coments (a quarter of them belonging to SOM). Science can’t explain that, so I’m a believer.

    P.S. My favorite charity is me.

    Like

    Reply

  12. The really crappy thing about this post is I ”had” to wade through manure ( Polite metaphor for SOM ) to get to the comment block.

    I’m going for a pee….please tell god to avert his eyes for a few minutes…

    Like

    Reply

  13. I bet he displaces non-newtonian fluids. Like ketchup. We should make a massive underground ketchup-based god detector, probably at the south pole because it’s not science unless you lose two toes getting there.

    Like

    Reply

  15. Great post. BTW, your exchange with Silenceofmind is classic. In my opinion, people like that just don’t *understand* the point you made (about god getting an exemption from the rules of causality) But even *if* we grant that there is a prime mover, a first cause, that doesn’t lead to god…what properties does this prime mover have? Why couldn’t the *universe itself* be the first cause?

    Like

    Reply

      • SOM just cuts to the chase and cuts out all the middlegods.

        As I say often (and my logic is irrefutable) (certainly no-one has given me a satisfactory refute) (yet)—

        God was created from nothing, out of nothing*, indeed. Really.
        But as such is logically impossible then He was obviously created by a Godier god, and so on ad infinitem going back waaay back beyond the Big Bang or any of the later lesser godier gods.

        * By no-one nowhere (for obvious reasons)

        Like

      • I quite like my retrocausal explanation. It’s probably wrong, but if we accept the Many Worlds Theory then in at least one universe a particle moved backwards into an absolute vacuum and accidentally left all the laws of Quantum Mechanics as a residue of its momentary presence. The rest, as they say, is history.

        Like

      • I think I see … a variation on the ‘infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters eventually writing … the Bible! (or creating a god).

        Like

  16. ” Believing makes it possible to explain ANYTHING. No more mysteries.”
    “Some people will, however, believe. They’ll believe because they want it to be true. ”

    This is it ! You have got it.
    Don’t you just love it when the Christians get bothered!

    Like

    Reply

  20. This “believing” stuff seems to be a rather lazy attitude. You will get it all for free. Looks quite childish to me. I prefer to use my own head.

    Like

    Reply

  21. In 1944 John Wisdom, an aptly named British philosopher, wrote a parable about a garden. The following is an adaptation by Anthony Flew.

    Parable of the Invisible Gardener

    “Once upon a time two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. In the clearing were growing many flowers and many weeds. One explorer says, “Some gardener must tend this plot.” So they pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. “But perhaps he is an invisible gardener.” So they set up a barbed-wire fence. They electrify it. They patrol with bloodhounds. (For they remember how H. G. Wells’ The Invisible Man could be both smelt and touched though he could not be seen.) But no shrieks ever suggest that some intruder has received a shock. No movements of the wire ever betray an invisible climber. The bloodhounds never give cry. Yet still the Believer is not convinced. “But there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible to electric shocks, a gardener who has no scent and makes no sound, a gardener who comes secretly to look after the garden which he loves.” At last the Skeptic despairs, “But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?”

    It seems that no evidence could make the man who believes in a gardener concede that he was wrong. Come what may, he will hang on to his faith in a guiding hand with green fingers. Wisdom hinted that this dispute seems not to be one about what it is reasonable or correct to believe, but is instead more like a difference in attitudes towards the garden.

    The presumption of atheism is the idea that in the perceived absence of evidence for the existence of God, we should presume that God does not exist. Since atheism is the so-called default position, in this view, the theist is the one who bears the burden of proof in regards to the rationality of their belief in God’s existence. Therefore, since there is an “absence of evidence” for the Christian conception of God then it is irrational to hold such a belief.

    Some people might assume that all beliefs are required to be based on “evidence” but this is hardly the case. For instance consider, perceptual beliefs, memory beliefs, and evidence based beliefs that must be traced back to a basic belief for their foundation.

    “One basic belief held by all rational people is the belief in eternal existence. The two variations are that “some are eternal” or “all is eternal” (to claim that “none is eternal” is to make the illogical claim that existence came out of non-existence). Theists believe that a Being, usually given the label “God,” possesses eternal existence. Atheists, at least most of them in the West, consider matter (or whatever other impersonal property that constitutes the universe/multiverse) to be the only thing that exists eternally.

    Most reasonable and rational atheists would agree that matter has, in one form or another, always existed, either in this universe or in that great metaphysical speculation posing as a scientific theory, the multiverse. They have no evidence for this belief yet they would contend that they don’t need any. It is a properly basic belief. In much the same way, theists believe that an eternal Being has always existed. Neither the atheist nor the theist can be considered to be in possession of an irrational or improper belief. One or the other may be wrong, of course, but that doesn’t mean they are irrational for holding such views.”

    A parody of the gardener parable by theologian John Frame:

    “Once upon a time two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. A man was there, pulling weeds, applying fertilizer, trimming branches. The man turned to the explorers and introduced himself as the royal gardener. One explorer shook his hand and exchanged pleasantries. The other ignored the gardener and turned away: “There can be no gardener in this part of the jungle,” he said; “this must be some trick. Someone is trying to discredit our previous findings.” They pitch camp. Every day the gardener arrives, tends the plot. Soon the plot is bursting with perfectly arranged blooms. “He’s only doing it because we’re here-to fool us into thinking this is a royal garden.” The gardener takes them to a royal palace, introduces the explorers to a score of officials who verify the gardener’s status. Then the sceptic tries a last resort: “Our senses are deceiving us. There is no gardener, no blooms, no palace, no officials. It’s still a hoax!” Finally the believer despairs: “But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does this mirage, as you call it, differ from a real gardener?”

    Source Reference:

    dartmouthapologia.org/apologia/parable-of-the-invisible-gardner/

    frame-poythress.org/god-and-biblical-language-transcendence-and-immanence/

    firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2009/12/the-reformed-epistemologists-invisible-gardener/

    stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/flew_falsification.html

    Like

    Reply

    • I believe my Jhunger Wisdom trumps your John Wisdom Wisdom:

      This morning there was a knock at my door. When I answered the door I found a well groomed, nicely dressed couple. The man spoke first:
      John: “Hi! I’m John, and this is Mary.”
      Mary: “Hi! We’re here to invite you to come kiss Hank’s ass with us.”
      Me: “Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who’s Hank, and why would I want to kiss His ass?”
      John: “If you kiss Hank’s ass, He’ll give you a million dollars; and if you don’t, He’ll kick the shit out of you.”
      Me: “What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?”
      John: “Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do whatever He wants, and what He wants is to give you a million dollars, but He can’t until you kiss His ass.”
      Me: “That doesn’t make any sense. Why…”
      Mary: “Who are you to question Hank’s gift? Don’t you want a million dollars? Isn’t it worth a little kiss on the ass?”
      Me: “Well maybe, if it’s legit, but…”
      John: “Then come kiss Hank’s ass with us.”
      Me: “Do you kiss Hank’s ass often?”
      Mary: “Oh yes, all the time…”
      Me: “And has He given you a million dollars?”
      John: “Well no. You don’t actually get the money until you leave town.”
      Me: “So why don’t you just leave town now?”
      Mary: “You can’t leave until Hank tells you to, or you don’t get the money, and He kicks the shit out of you.”
      Me: “Do you know anyone who kissed Hank’s ass, left town, and got the million dollars?”
      John: “My mother kissed Hank’s ass for years. She left town last year, and I’m sure she got the money.”
      Me: “Haven’t you talked to her since then?”
      John: “Of course not, Hank doesn’t allow it.”
      Me: “So what makes you think He’ll actually give you the money if you’ve never talked to anyone who got the money?”
      Mary: “Well, He gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you’ll get a raise, maybe you’ll win a small lotto, maybe you’ll just find a twenty-dollar bill on the street.”
      Me: “What’s that got to do with Hank?”
      John: “Hank has certain ‘connections.'”
      Me: “I’m sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game.”
      John: “But it’s a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don’t kiss Hank’s ass He’ll kick the shit out of you.”
      Me: “Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to Him, get the details straight from Him…”
      Mary: “No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank.”
      Me: “Then how do you kiss His ass?”
      John: “Sometimes we just blow Him a kiss, and think of His ass. Other times we kiss Karl’s ass, and he passes it on.”
      Me: “Who’s Karl?”
      Mary: “A friend of ours. He’s the one who taught us all about kissing Hank’s ass. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times.”
      Me: “And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to kiss His ass, and that Hank would reward you?”
      John: “Oh no! Karl has a letter he got from Hank years ago explaining the whole thing. Here’s a copy; see for yourself.”
      From the Desk of Karl
      Kiss Hank’s ass and He’ll give you a million dollars when you leave town.
      Use alcohol in moderation.
      Kick the shit out of people who aren’t like you.
      Eat right.
      Hank dictated this list Himself.
      The moon is made of green cheese.
      Everything Hank says is right.
      Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.
      Don’t use alcohol.
      Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.
      Kiss Hank’s ass or He’ll kick the shit out of you.
      Me: “This appears to be written on Karl’s letterhead.”
      Mary: “Hank didn’t have any paper.”
      Me: “I have a hunch that if we checked we’d find this is Karl’s handwriting.”
      John: “Of course, Hank dictated it.”
      Me: “I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?”
      Mary: “Not now, but years ago He would talk to some people.”
      Me: “I thought you said He was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the shit out of people just because they’re different?”
      Mary: “It’s what Hank wants, and Hank’s always right.”
      Me: “How do you figure that?”
      Mary: “Item 7 says ‘Everything Hank says is right.’ That’s good enough for me!”
      Me: “Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up.”
      John: “No way! Item 5 says ‘Hank dictated this list himself.’ Besides, item 2 says ‘Use alcohol in moderation,’ Item 4 says ‘Eat right,’ and item 8 says ‘Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.’ Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too.”
      Me: “But 9 says ‘Don’t use alcohol.’ which doesn’t quite go with item 2, and 6 says ‘The moon is made of green cheese,’ which is just plain wrong.”
      John: “There’s no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you’ve never been to the moon, so you can’t say for sure.”
      Me: “Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock…”
      Mary: “But they don’t know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese.”
      Me: “I’m not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon was somehow ‘captured’ by the Earth has been discounted*. Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn’t make it cheese.”
      John: “Ha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know Hank is always right!”
      Me: “We do?”
      Mary: “Of course we do, Item 7 says so.”
      Me: “You’re saying Hank’s always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That’s circular logic, no different than saying ‘Hank’s right because He says He’s right.'”
      John: “Now you’re getting it! It’s so rewarding to see someone come around to Hank’s way of thinking.”
      Me: “But…oh, never mind. What’s the deal with wieners?”
      Mary: She blushes.
      John: “Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It’s Hank’s way. Anything else is wrong.”
      Me: “What if I don’t have a bun?”
      John: “No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong.”
      Me: “No relish? No Mustard?”
      Mary: She looks positively stricken.
      John: He’s shouting. “There’s no need for such language! Condiments of any kind are wrong!”
      Me: “So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it would be out of the question?”
      Mary: Sticks her fingers in her ears.”I am not listening to this. La la la, la la, la la la.”
      John: “That’s disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that…”
      Me: “It’s good! I eat it all the time.”
      Mary: She faints.
      John: He catches Mary. “Well, if I’d known you were one of those I wouldn’t have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the shit out of you I’ll be there, counting my money and laughing. I’ll kiss Hank’s ass for you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater.”
      With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off.

      Like

      Reply

      • That was funny and an excellent allegory. However, like Bobbie’s allegory, it is one based on a faulty premise. Bobbie’s story states there is only ONE invisible, unknowable, unsmellable, untouchable, unfathomable, all knowing in the ways of botany, Gardener magically caring for a fenced in garden that no one could get to without setting off Homeland Security alarms across the Northern hemisphere. That’s utterly ridiculous. It would take at least FOUR more invisible gardeners, all with the same qualities as the first, in order to PROPERLY tend for a garden magically. This faulty base to an otherwise evidence ridden allegory, is a sign that Bobbie has no true understanding of how REAL invisible, unprovable, magical, all powerful, and unknowable gardeners actually operate in the THIS world. This is evidence Bobbie has been exposed to corrupt, immoral, and false ancient text. Careful with kinda thing or you’ll spend eternity in Hell.
        The Hank story also misses a fundamental point: Hank never works alone. Tom is always right there behind him to fuck with what Hank really wants for us. The confusion your characters exhibit in comprehending the “word of Hank” is due to a phone call they received from Tom ten minutes before Hank’s representatives showed up. Tom twists people so they deny Hank’s message or corrupt it. So, while both of these allegories were fun to read, they fail miserably as allegories because both lack a true understanding of how magical, invisible, untouchable, all powerful, and totally silent beings truly work in this, the REAL world.

        Like

      • And Everest, as you may not know, has 8 invisible, all-powerful, completely unprovable, dudes taking care of it. You see, just because you can’t see these guys, doesn’t mean they’re not there. However, it’s very important for you to understand that the ONLY invisible guys who are there are the ones I’m telling you are there. If you say there are different ones, or none, then I’ll have to kill you as a blasphemer. See how it works? Oh, my doctor, he doesn’t require evidence, or tests of any kind before he prescribes insulin to people. I mean, SOMETHING’S making them feel bad, right? It COULD be diabetes, right? So why in fuck’s name would he need evidence to believe someone has diabetes, before giving them insulin, when clearly NO evidence is required for people to claim they know, infallibly know, which very specific gardener it is who made the universe and why he made it? Much bigger claim that is.

        Like

      • You know what’s more fun? Starting at the end, reading it, saying to yourself, “What the fucking fuck?” and then reading it through from the beginning.

        Like

      • “Me: “You’re saying Hank’s always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That’s circular logic, no different than saying ‘Hank’s right because He says He’s right.’”
        John: “Now you’re getting it! It’s so rewarding to see someone come around to Hank’s way of thinking.”

        LOL You nailed here John

        Like

      • “John: He catches Mary. “Well, if I’d known you were one of those I wouldn’t have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the shit out of you I’ll be there, counting my money and laughing. I’ll kiss Hank’s ass for you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater.””

        But how easy is it to kiss someone’s ass if your always prostrate worshiping them as do the 24 leaders in Rev. 4:10? The imagery of this happening is down right kinky. 🙂

        Like

    • @BOBBIERILEY JR, I guess I am not a “reasonable and rational” atheist, since I do not hold a “belief”, that anything has always existed. I do not hold beliefs about stuff I could possibly not know. I whithold my beliefs in such and I am perfectly content in not knowing, if there is no way for me to find out, rather than making up explanatoins and then choosing to believe in them. It is a rather reasonable guess that matter – that we can actually observe – has always existed “in one form, or a nother”, but a guess (made by very ignorant people in the past), that a complex personality has always existed is not “reasonable”, or “rational” at all. It is just superstitious.

      Where is the gardener? Is he not invisible, inaudible, without taste, or heat signature? Are we to believe there is a palace, though we do not observe any palaces? If the gardener and the palace are as observable as nature, then what is the purpose of faith? If they are unobservable, what is the purpose of faith? What is the purpose of faith?

      Like

      Reply

    • bobby I mean not to be rude, but I have observed that over 90% of your responses are quotes or articles you have copied from elsewhere. Do you have any thoughts of your own? Is it possible that you could share your own thoughts

      Like

      Reply

  22. So wait, if I believe you, I get 24 times my salary, and I don’t have any additional rules to follow, don’t have to go to church, don’t have to make donations, don’t have any restriction on food and clothing?  (there’s nothing in the post about that!) And I get to blame every bad thing that ever happens on you?  Well, count me a Zandeist, then!

    Like

    Reply

  24. Two men walked through an empty field. One saw exactly what he expected to see, nothing. He walked through grass and flowers and the Sun warmed his back all the while he thought, what a useless wasteland. The other man bounded over the grass and flowers and looked up towards the Son with overwhelming anticipation. “This is it! This is the place! This is where my dreams come true!
    :::::
    Life is like jumping out of an airplane without a parachute – only the last second is fatal, but most people are scared to death the whole way down.
    – Jonathan Lockwood Huie

    Read the quote again to understand how profound it is. Now, go and look at yourself in a mirror. Make sure the house is completely quiet. Look deep into your eyes and ask yourself why. The “why what” is different for everybody. Your “why” answer will come.
    :::::
    Dead and dying…a glimpse into the mind of the Godless cynic

    I am trying EVERY DAY… every single day… every day that goes by is a step towards… what? Here’s the question I have been trying to answer. Towards what…

    Slowly every day is one more step towards the inexorable non-existence I am desperately flailing at to make solid. I am trying to leave my mark on reality, tell It “I AM HERE! I LIVE! I EXIST! ACKNOWLEDGE ME!” and I can’t, I just can’t. I am a ghost, moving through life sideways, like a fallen autumn leaf, blow away by the wind, having served its purpose, discarded, dead and forgotten. Dead inside, trying madly to cling to the semblance of outside life…

    I stand to catch a breath and I glance around and all things are solid and real and established – all but me. A mere blur that nobody notices, a glitch that momentarily clogs the wheel, before it subdues it to start spinning again. The more I look inside to find the answers I must, the more I detach from the outside. How much longer till I become a ghoul, grey and soulless, without purpose, but one unshakeable goal… Dying outside, a howling wind on the inside…

    I always knew the path of the watcher lies in circumference to the real world. I always knew that one foot would forever be suspended in between. But reality is pushing hard now, pushing me back, aborting me like a malignant cell. I need to find an anchor, my own anchor, to keep me and sustain me. I need to find what is the link in between… to unwind the umbilical cord that I feel strangling me, and make it serve its purpose. The lock that has always been in my head still awaits its key, a key I fear I shall never find after all. To die without accomplishing your Goal, what you came here to do, is to not have lived at all… And the question still begs the answer: what have I been sent to do then? The watcher is dying… what am I left fit for… a grey, pathetic, lonely, meaningless existence, devoid of purpose, soul, passion and substance? I am being unwillingly shoved deep inside it more and more with each passing day… there must be some aid out there… there should be aid out there, but there’s none. Alone. More and more, day by day, looking at my bridges burning. Not quite dead yet, but slowly dying.

    Author Unknown

    Like

    Reply

    • “what have I been sent to do then?” Don’t know ’bout anyone else, but me, I’ve been sent here to write sophomorically trite allegories which insultingly imply anyone not sharing my belief in invisible gardeners and ghostly all-knowing watchers is suffering a “..lonely, meaningless existence, devoid of purpose, soul, passion and substance.” Wait. That was what I was to do last week. This week I was sent to tell people Elvis is still alive and will be performing in Vegas in just a few short weeks. Damn it. I hate when I get my special purposes confused. Makes me feel devoid of purpose. Ugh!

      Like

      Reply

    • @BOBBIERILEY JR, I can see, that losing your particular religion might seem like making the purpose of your previous religious life like a meaningless effort. But in reality religious people may be just as lucky and happy as us atheists in giving their own lives the many meanings by themselves.

      The idea that this life, that we are experiencing, is only a doormat to the actual eternal life, may give an illusion of this life having only the purpose of being a method of earning, or recieving the mercy of an afterlife. However, most Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus (and what have you) are indeed giving their actual experience of life the many meanigs much like us the atheists.

      If you are affraid your life would have no meaning whithout a god in it, do not worry. You could give your life a plenty of meanings just like you might do, if you have a god in your life. True meanings, like loving your dearest people and showing it to them, or like making the world a better place through politics, activism or just little personal efforts. Meanings like satisfactory work, pleasurable hobbies, creativity, learning and observing the wonders of the material universe around you.

      Do not fear. Your life has a meaning of your choise even if there is no god or afterlife. Do you see what I mean?

      Like

      Reply

      • Wait til you see the 3rd edition! Wow! There’s like 567 commandments now. Damn divine invisible guys! They gotta go and be so invisible and demanding all the time. Damn guys! Aggravates me, I tell ya!

        Like

      • I’ve been doing that with my own version of a ghost hunters group. We’re called Gods Hunters. We hunt invisible all-powerful unknowable gods. We bag ’em, tag ’em, ’em to Texas, and forget ’em.

        Like

      • No, no, no — you’re doing it all wrong. You should be hunting down the ‘visible’, all powerful ‘knowable’ gods to invent the invisible, all-powerful unknowable gods. you’ve got your work cut out for you. Oh —and stock up on extra body bags and tags.

        Like

      • Great. Caught me 6 invisible gardeners, 5 golden hens, 4 holy spirits, 3 babes named Jesus, 2 Virgin Mary’s, and an Allah in a pear tree. Not bad. Considerin’ me an’ the hamster never left the room. Oh, Ezekiel, my hamster pal, he’s mad at you. Considers “running on a wheel like a hamster” comments predjudicial and highly inflammatory. He’s never run on a wheel in his whole life, he says. But he is, he says, a very good shot. Crazy hamster. Guns are for kids.

        Like

      • You misunderstood. Ezekiel was hunting “gods”. Not their followers who’ve dubbed me a cannibal because I do believe in their specific god. No. The real folks, the ones who tell me my I’m an evil beast and consume human flesh, those people, they’re all mine, baby. I’ve become exactly what they want me to be: an evil cannibal, and I’m gonna boil every last one of ’em that said shit like that to me alive. I’m gonna slow boil ’em in oil and start eatin’ ’em while their wits are still about ’em so they can watch me do it. Yep. They want cannibals? They got one. And god damn it all to hell if writing this hasn’t made me hungry!

        Like

      • “You misunderstood. Ezekiel was hunting “gods”. Not their followers who’ve dubbed me a cannibal because I do believe in their specific god.”

        OK, well I thought the OP was making the point that WE are the gods and the followers of the gods we make up. He embedded this video that Violet posted from Arch’s website: I won’t embed. So perhaps you can understand the confusion. Tell Ezekiel that getting to the root of the problem might be more advantageous. If you’re ADD/ADHD, and can’t bear to watch all 10 minutes then fast forward to the 9 minute marker. 😀

        — http://youtu.be/ODetOE6cbbc—

        Like

      • Inspired said:

        “There’s like 567 commandments now. Damn divine invisible guys!

        There’s 613 commandments. I talked to a Jewish Rabbi when I was having doubts. I asked him about becoming Jewish. He wanted to know why any gentile in their right mind would wanna do such a thing. All the gentiles have to do is the 10 commandments. Jewish have to observe all 613. He thought that was the craziest thing ever.

        Like

      • I must say, I’m terribly fond of many Rabbi’s honesty (and maturity) in approaching these matters. If only priests and preachers had a little of this nuance.

        Like

      • Right. I’d forgotten about that. You see, I was raised Catholic. Mine was the right religion, yours was, well, completely wrong. I know this because the nuns and priests who taught us told it to me. So that makes what they said right, and what you heard from your Rabbi and parents wrong. Even now, as an a-theist, I’m well aware of the fact that there can be only one true, non-existent, all-powerful, all-hidden-away-and-shit god dude. There ain’t friggin’ room for more in magic land. So, even though Fiddler on the Roof is one of my favorite plays, I have to tell you, Judaism is not a real make believe religion. Catholicism, though I know full well isn’t real, is the only unreal religion for a-theists to not believe. God bless America! And remember, sit down while the ride is in motion or you’ll fall off.

        Like

      • Well, let me tell you Divine1, that I was raised Southern Baptist and all you crazy Catholics are going straight to h-e-double hockey sticks for worshiping Mother Mary and praying to the Saints.

        Southern Baptists are the only real make-believe religion. I know because my pastor said so. All others are going to the bad place to weep and gnash their teeth.

        Like

      • I just realized that I made a boo-boo. Wasn’t paying attention! Replace all the Jewish references with Southern Baptist ones and there ya go. Wow. Southern Baptist, eh? Sounds hard core. Catholics teach you all kinds of shit, but no one believes it really. They really are a group of gambling drinkers, all for Church, it is.

        Like

      • Meh, the good book says that non-Jews need only follow three rules:

        1. Don’t eat meat with blood in it.
        2. Don’t shed human blood.
        3. Procreate.

        All of these have I kept from my youth up. 🙂

        Like

  26. People want God to become a toy for their imagination, and keep changing His attributes like an impersonator (God forbid) so that everybody’s fancy should be satisfied.

    It is unfortunate indeed that people have not truly recognized their God. (al-Hajj 22:75)

    Do try to understand that the less subtle a thing, the easier it can be observed through physical senses, and the more subtle it is, the harder it is for the physical senses to experience it. It is for this reason that when we try to learn about subtle things we have to depend on their properties and their behavior, rather than on direct observation.
    How then is it possible for God—Who is not only Himself the most Subtle Being but is also the Creator of every subtle thing—to be seen by our physical eyes?

    The objection of the critics that they will not believe in God until they see Him with their eyes is, therefore, absurd. It would imply that the critic either believes God to be a corporeal being, or at least wants God to assume a corporeal form so that he can be absolutely sure by seeing Him with his own eyes.

    But the trouble is that there are millions of blind people in this world. Would they too not have the right to demand that God should assume some other material form so that they may taste, smell or feel Him? Does this not amount to ridiculing God? How shameful for a man who professes to have a mind and a heart!

    If someone says that he would not believe in God unless he sees Him with his own eyes, all I should say is that if God could be seen with one’s eyes, He would not be worth believing at all. This is because in such case many of His other attributes would be falsified. He is Incorporeal, for instance, but in this case He would become corporeal. He is Infinite but would become finite and so on and so forth.

    Moreover, if God were to adopt a corporeal and finite form for your sake, what is there to guarantee that you would not reject Him saying that you do not believe in a corporeal and finite God?

    O God, how very Holy, Adorable and Perfect You are! Each attribute of Yours is guarded by another of Your attributes. When anyone attacks any one of
    Your attributes, Your other attributes—like vigilant and dutiful sentries—put such a person to shame.

    We have seen how a critic tried to create doubt concerning God’s attribute of being Hidden, but His attributes of being Incorporeal and Infinite came forward at once and did away with the objection.

    The Beauty of God lies in His being Hidden from our physical eyes and yet being apparent to us; He is Subtle but remains more evident and perceptible than material things. Unfortunate indeed is he who does not comprehend this subtle truth, for he stands on the brink of disaster.

    Pages 12-14
    “Our God” by Mirza Bashir Ahmad

    Click to access OurGod.pdf

    Like

    Reply

    • Apologetic nonsense with jaundice hermeneutics thrown in as topping.

      Tell me, Paar, what are “His attributes,” and how do you know?

      NOTE: please don’t say the Qu’ran as we’ve already proven that Mo didn’t know what the hell he was talking about.

      Like

      Reply

    • “The objection of the critics that they will not believe in God until they see Him with their eyes is, therefore, absurd..” Couldn’t agree more. As a matter of fact, I think anyone who needs to see anything in order to believe it’s real is a fool. Especially if it’s something I’ve learned from my Faith. Just because you or anyone else can’t see truth in the infallibility of my Faith doesn’t make it any less true. The failure of humanity to see the reality of that which can not be seen is not a problem with my Faith’s perfection, it is a problem you have in your failure to realize that which before you unseen is real. All not believing will suffer in the fire of Hell for all eternity. Be warned: Your smug denial of my truth doe not make it less true. You will burn in pain unimaginable for your doubt. Faith has shown me this. That you fail to accept reality is a sin for which you shall never be forgiven. This truth is unchanging, as is the truth of the true Faith.

      Like

      Reply

  27. Pingback: One should give reasons; must not ridicule God | paarsurrey

  28. @JOHN ZANDE says: March 27, 2014 at 11:52 am

    Don’t be angry please.

    The original post did not offer any scientific reasoning.

    Did it ?

    The OP was also a form of hermeneutics and also apologetics of an Atheist?

    Am I wrong? Please

    Like

    Reply

      • I’m angry. Though I don’t know why. And I’m butting into a conversation which is rude. This means you’ll be angry too now, with me. Let’s see who else I can make angry. We can have a party then and everyone can yell at me for sticking my fat nose where it wasn’t invited because I’m bored. Damn me to Hades!

        Like

  29. @JOHN ZANDE says: March 27, 2014 at 11:52 am
    “hermeneutics”

    I believe in both religion as well as science both revolving in their own orbits with quite harmony like the sun and the moon.

    Religion is a bigger circle informing us when there was no life, and when there will be no life; in between is our present; it guides us in it.

    Science is a tool for our present dealing in a limited circle; does not cover the whole of our life.

    It is the wish of my atheist friends to pitch it against religion; but their combatant denies accepting this challenge. Science has specific subjects it deals in; none is allocated for search for God or His attributes. Please don’t try to put this heavy burden on this mule.
    Science had never existed if prior to it there would have not been the hermeneutics or the languages.

    If one is against the languages, poetry; some other forms related to it; only robots have been needed, not the human beings.

    I think you agree with it.

    Don’t you?

    Please have a little heart for the differing voice; it is not personal for anybody.

    Regards

    Like

    Reply

    • No. God is an invisible gardener who doesn’t set off the alarms on the zombie proof fence an allegorical dude put around his gardener to catch the invisible unknowable gardener. That’s who he is. Allegorically speaking, I mean.

      Like

      Reply

  30. “To make it interesting, if you believe me, I’ll give you twice your annual salary every month, for the rest of your life, starting a year from now.

    Can we test you on this, God? Pony up first, then we’ll talk.

    Like

    Reply

  31. @JOHN ZANDE :March 27, 2014 at 11:52 am
    “Tell me, Paar, what are “His attributes,” and how do you know?
    NOTE: please don’t say the Qu’ran ”

    I don’t know as to why one has an aversion to Quran.

    What harm did it to the Atheists/Agnostics/Skeptics/Humanists etc?
    Anyway; for the attributes of One-True-God (Allah Tao Yahweh Ahura-Mazda Parmeshawara Eshawara) one may like to read below, no compulsion:

    The way of life presented by Lao-tzu (6th century BC), a contemporary of Confucius, is known as Taoism.

    In Taoism, eternal truth is embodied in a being known as Tao whose attributes are spiritual and holy rather than material. Tao can be aptly defined as a personification of eternal virtues. They are precisely the same attributes as ascribed to God in Islam and other Divinely revealed religions. Taoism teaches man to completely submit to Truth (Tao), and to strive to modulate Tao. Tao is the model, and Taoism is the way to gain nearness to this model.

    The same is the treatment in the Holy Quran regarding the relationship between God and man:

    The hues of God! And who is more beautiful in hues than God?—and Him alone do we worship. 2:139

    In Islam God is described and introduced through His attributes and the goal set for Muslims is to emulate them to modulate their lives.

    The description of Tao, presented by Lao-tzu, is quite similar to the attributes of God mentioned in the Quran. He writes:

    ‘The great Tao is vast. He is on the left and He is on the right. All creatures depend upon Him, and the care of them tires Him not. He brings creation to completion, without seeking reward. He provides for all His creation, but requires nothing for Himself, so He may be considered small. All creatures turn to Him for their needs, yet He keeps nothing for Himself, thus He may be named ‘the Supreme’. He does not consider Himself great and because of this He is truly Great.’

    Again we have another description:

    ‘Looked for but not visible, such a Being may be colorless. Listened for but not heard, such a Being may be called Silent. Grasped for but not caught, such may be called Concealed. No one can comprehend the ultimate source of these three qualities, but they are found in one Being. Though not luminous yet below Him there is no darkness. Being infinite He cannot be described. All His shapes keep returning to nothingness, thus we can say He is Shapeless; His image is without form. He is beyond comprehension (being the rarest of things). Try to reach His beginning, no beginning can be seen. Seek His end, no end can be perceived. Therefore, follow the ancient ways and improve your present.’

    Also, in another verse the description of Tao runs as follows:

    ‘He is indivisible and His true nature cannot be grasped. All creation originates from Him. He existed before heaven and earth were created. He is One and alone without form or sound. He exists independently without any support. Nothing changes in Him. He is in constant motion, but never tires. He can be called the Begetter of the universe.’

    The description of Tao given in the above passages is also found in different verses of the Quran, which when read together, reproduce everything covered by the above quotes. The image of God thus described in the Holy Quran, is summed up by the founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, the late Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad(as) of Qadian (India), in the following words:

    ‘He is near yet far, distant yet close… He is highest of high, yet it cannot be said that there is anyone below Him farther than He. He is in heaven, but it cannot be said that He is not on Earth. He combines in Himself all the most perfect attributes and manifests the virtues which are truly worthy of praise.’

    It is pertinent to note that Chinese philosophy had its roots in religion, but with the passage of time its religious origin was obscured. Its followers adhered to the philosophy itself but thought it unnecessary to have any direct link with the source which had nourished it in the past. Consequently, the image of God was gradually impersonalised and the followers of Tao ceased to cultivate a personal relationship with Him as a Supreme Conscious Living Being.

    “Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge & Truth” Mirza Tahir Ahmad
    https://www.alislam.org/library/books/revelation/part_2_section_4.html

    Regards

    Like

    Reply

    • “‘He is near yet far, distant yet close…”

      Paarsurrey, you perfectly described a sensed presence effect. That means, that in order for one to sense god’s presence, he/she needs to experience isolation, oxygen deprivation, sleep deprivation, exhaustion, hunger, dehydration — the rational cortical control over emotions shuts down enabling inner voices and imaginary companions to arise. To further experience god, sustaining a traumatic brain injury, especially to the temporal area, is nearly a sure thing. Having temporal lobe epilepsy or other neurological disorders increases your possibilities as well. Neurological studies show that what ever the reason your brain is tricked into thinking that there is another you, it will construct a plausible explanation that this other you is actually another person nearby.

      “In the book The Third Man Factor (Penguin, 2009), John Geiger documents the effect in mountain climbers, solo sailors and ultraendurance athletes. He lists conditions associated with it: monotony, darkness, barren landscapes, isolation, cold, injury, dehydration, hunger, fatigue and fear. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-sensed-presence-effect/

      Like

      Reply

    • “‘Looked for but not visible, such a Being may be colorless. Listened for but not heard, such a Being may be called Silent. Grasped for but not caught, such may be called Concealed. No one can comprehend the ultimate source of these three qualities, but they are found in one Being:”

      @Paarsurrey, to further elaborate, one can be exposed to Infrasound (below 20 HZ – undetectable to the human ear). This can be man-made or result naturally. Examples of infrasound occurring naturally are severe weather, surf, lee waves, avalanches, earthquakes, volcanoes, bolides, waterfalls, calving of icebergs, auroras, lightening and upper-atmospheric lighting. A 19 Hz standing wave caused by an earthquake or say, for example, an extractor fan driven by a 1 kW electric motor, can also cause sensations of fear, excessive perspiration, anxiety, muscle contractions, nausea, abdominal pain, heart palpitations — symptoms that Mohammed is reported having. Examples:

      “even in the coldest day, drops of sweat would fall from his forehead”

      “at the moment of inspiration, anxiety pressed upon the Prophet, and his countenance was troubled”

      “the muscles between his neck and shoulders were trembling”

      Mohammed: “The Revelation is always brought to me by an angel — sometimes the angel appears to me in the shape of a human and speaks to me.”

      Source

      These are also symptoms of temporal lobe epilepsy which can also cause hyper-religiosity. These standing wave frequencies (infrasound) can cause the eyeball to vibrate, undetected, resulting in apparitions and hallucinations. Standing wave resonances can affect one individual but not another. But one thing is certain — Mohamed’s experiences were not unique.

      References:
      -Tempest, W. (Ed.) (1976). Infrasound and low frequency vibration. Academic press: London.
      -NASA Technical Report 19770013810
      -NASA Technical Report 19870046176
      -Everest, F.A. (1994). The Master Handbook of Acoustics, 3rd Ed. TAB Books: Blue Ridge Summit, PA.
      -Eastham, P. (1988).Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 55, 80-83.
      -Flenley, D. C. (1990). Respiratory Medicine (2nd Ed), Bailliere Tindal: London.
      -Fried, R. (1987). The Hyperventilation Syndrome, Research and Clinical Treatment. Johns Hopkins University Press: London.

      Like

      Reply

  32. Pingback: Attribute of Tao: Attributes of Allah: Divinely revealed religions | paarsurrey

  33. @JOHN ZANDE : March 27, 2014 at 11:52 am
    “We’ve already proven that Mo didn’t know … he was talking about.” Unquote

    Muhammad talked of the Message he had received from the One-True-God.

    Have you read that Message from beginning to the end yourselves? If you haven’t read it; then your information is based on hearsay.

    Am I right?

    Please do reply if you like to; no compulsion however.

    Everybody is suggested to read the Recitation from the beginning to the end; it is not a voluminous Recitation.

    Or one should select a chapter and read it at least from the beginning to the end.

    Please have a note-book ready with you while intently reading it. One should write down the valid questions arising in one’s mind very naturally; this is not prohibited.

    If the context make the questions clear or one realizes that one’s question is not valid; one could delete it and proceed further.

    This way one would be appropriately prepared for a meaningful discussion.

    This is my sincere advice.

    Regards

    Like

    Reply

    • I don’t need to read everything as i already know its nonsense. Musa (Moses) is considered a prophet and is named 136 times in the Qur’an. Abraham is named 69 times, and is even considered Yhwh’s best friend: “Who can be better in religion than one who submits his whole self to Allah, does good, and follows the way of Abraham the true in Faith? For Allah did take Abraham for a friend” (An-Nisa Verse No:125). Neither Abraham or Moses were, however, real historical people… Therefore Mo didn’t know even basic regional history. If he couldn’t distinguish fact from fiction then its safe to say he was just spinning lies… and lies don’t need to be afforded any time.

      Like

      Reply

  34. Pingback: How to study Quran for a meaningful discussion? | paarsurrey

    • That’s the absolute archaeological consensus, Paar, and the majority of Jewish Rabbis agree.

      So, tell me, how do you explain Mo not knowing Abraham and Moses were fictional characters?

      Like

      Reply

  36. @N℮ÜҐ☼N☮☂℮Ṧ : March 27, 2014 at 8:17 pm

    Quote
    “even in the coldest day, drops of sweat would fall from his forehead”
    “at the moment of inspiration, anxiety pressed upon the Prophet, and his countenance was troubled”
    “the muscles between his neck and shoulders were trembling”
    Mohammed: “The Revelation is always brought to me by an angel — sometimes the angel appears to me in the shape of a human and speaks to me.” Unquote

    Please quote from Quran where this is mentioned.

    Will you? Please

    Like

    Reply

    • @Paarsurrey — I posted the source. Considering all the environmental factors that can affect our brain, and the historical/archaeological findings about Moses and Abraham — you sure are a mighty trusting person. 10 years ago, we may have had an excuse to be duped, but today, there’s no excuse. I’m sorry to be so curt. I think you are probably a caring person — and like so many (including myself) were indoctrinated to the point that it rewired our brains for belief in these authoritarian religions.

      Like

      Reply

  37. @JOHN ZANDE : March 27, 2014 at 9:57 pm :@ N℮ÜҐ☼N☮☂℮Ṧ :March 27, 2014 at 10:19 pm

    “That’s the absolute archaeological consensus, Paar”
    “And the historical/archaeological findings about Moses and Abraham”

    One should not be in the habit of making generalization; at least before making any bold claims one should verify the specific reference one intends to make; wisdom requires it.
    This only proves the veracity and tenacity of Islam/Quran/Muhammad.

    They only checked archaeological sites mentioned in Bible; so their “consensus” is only valid for Bible, Christians, Jews; it has absolutely no bearing on Islam/Quran/Muhammad.
    Please quote an archaeological site mentioned in Quran that has proved to be wrong with “consensus”.

    http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/features/world/asia/israel/abraham-text

    Quran clearly mentions that the Jews and Christian scholars had been involved into tampering with their scriptures; now this has been proved right, even the Atheists/Agnostics/Skeptics would witness to it.

    Nothing personal, please

    Regards

    Like

    Reply

    • Just because *you* (and Islam) haven’t kept up-to-date with archaeology, Paar, doesn’t make the archaeology wrong.

      Now, just so you know: The only area where there is still a live debate (and excavation work on-going) regarding biblical archaeology is whether or not Judah had an urban society in the 9th Century BCE, which relates to concepts of the United Kingdom. That’s it. That’s all there is. The Patriarchs, Egypt, Moses, Exodus and Conquest are dead subjects in the field of serious archaeology. They were dismissed as myth well over two generations ago, and nothing has changed in that time to alter this consensus. As Israel’s oldest daily Newspaper, Hareetz, announced recently:

      “Currently there is broad agreement among archaeologists and Bible scholars that there is no historical basis for the narratives of the Patriarchs, the Exodus from Egypt, and the conquest of Canaan, NOR ANY ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE TO MAKE THEM THINK OTHERWISE.”

      Even the Encyclopaedia Judaica (which examines all scholastic and scientific work) concludes that the entire Exodus narrative was “dramatically woven out of various strands of tradition… he [Moses] wasn’t a historical character.”

      So, the question stands: How do you explain Mo not being able to distinguish between fact and fiction?

      Like

      Reply

      • @JOHN ZANDE :March 27, 2014 at 11:48 pm

        There findings are with reference to Bible; it is not with reference to Quran. Muhammad received Revelation of Quran from the One-True-God directly; its truth has shone like a daylight.

        Like

  38. Pingback: Quote archaeological site mentioned in Quran proved wrong with “consensus”: Moses and Abraham | paarsurrey

  39. I hate to pile on when you’ve already got so many comments, but in spite all those negatives you spelled out, I know God exists. A little over a week ago on my way from Nashville to Memphis, He spoke to me from a billboard. He said “All I know is…
    everything.
    God”.

    In one fell swoop, He spoke in a way that was obviously meant for me alone, and He proved beyond any doubt that He is omniscient. Omniscience may not be all it’s touted to be, however. You can’t know anything unless you know everything — as proven by Eric Hovind, and Eric is certain there is a God. This proof of Eric’s extensive knowledge is demonstrated by his profound assertion that “2 + 2 = 4”. How could he have known that? You have to see this for yourself.

    Like

    Reply

    • If I’d seen that billboard i’d be convinced, too! You’ve been blessed, my friend 🙂

      That video is a classic. The kid could have absolutely nailed Eric if he knew about the moral autonomy argument. If “God” knows EVERYTHING, and is the only being who does, and no one else can, then he’s saying we must trust the rule that “God” cannot lie, and therefore believe everything it says. Who established this rule? “God” did. How can we know its true? Simple answer: we can’t… Therefore believing “God” means sacrificing our moral autonomy, and that is immoral.

      Like

      Reply

      • The argument is actually kind of simple. It says, “Look, you would have to know everything in order to say you know one thing to be absolutely certain.~Eric Hovind

        OK, I’ll play.

        I’m absolutely certain that I don’t know everything.

        The ball is in your court, Eric.

        Like

  40. @JOHN ZANDE :March 28, 2014 at 11:36 am
    “Does the Qur’an, or does it not, talk about Abraham and Moses as if they were real people?Yes or No?” Unquote

    I mentioned that Muhammad received Revelation of Quran from the One-True-God directly ; it has got nothing to do with the OT Bible or NT Bible.

    Narratives of Bible had been proved wrong which were being searched into from the sites excavated mentioned in the Bible.

    Narratives of Quran are still intact.

    I don’t know as to why one cannot get it.

    Like

    Reply

  41. @JOHN ZANDE : March 28, 2014 at 12:03 pm
    “It was a very simple, straightforward question. Please answer:

    Does the Qur’an talk about Abraham and Moses as if they were real people?

    Yes or No?” Unquote

    Yes; but do the Atheists or Archaeologists have a list of all real person that have existed since inception to verify from it, if somebody existed or not?

    Like

    Reply

    • I’m afraid to inform you, Paar, it is both reasonable and factual. It has been known for well over two generations now that the entire Pentateuch is myth; a geopolitical work of fiction conceived of in the 7th and 6th centuries BCE, following the sacking of Mamlekhet Yisra’el (Kingdom of Israel) in 722 BCE. The Patriarchs, Egypt, Moses, Exodus, Conquest is all fiction. Abraham and Moses are fictional characters.

      As one of America’s leading archaeologists, Professor William Dever explained: “Scholars have known these things for a long time, but we’ve broken the news very gently.”

      Or as the world’s leading biblical archaeologist, Professor Ze’ev Herzog of Tel Aviv University said: “The patriarchs’ acts are legendary stories, we did not sojourn in Egypt or make an exodus, we did not conquer the land. Those who take an interest have known these facts for years.” .”

      Or as Rabbi Sherwin T. Wine said: “The Jews did not begin with Abraham. The Jews did not emerge as a nation under the leadership of Moses. They were never rescued from slavery in Egypt. They never stopped at Sinai.”

      Islam, you will agree, is intimately tied to the early history of the Jews, and if that history is re-written, then so too is Islam.

      Now, this is not new information, nor is it a secret. As Professor Magen Broshi, Chief Archaeologist at the Israel Museum explained: “Archaeologists simply do not take the trouble of bringing their discoveries to public attention.” So, don’t be angry at the facts. Both Islam and Christianity have been tremendously slow (recalcitrant is a better word) in embracing the truth. Of course, the reasons for this recalcitrance are easy to explain: The archaeological “facts” prove both Jesus and Mohammad were, at best, not inspired sages, and at worse, simple charlatans masquerading as magi.

      Now, as I stated earlier: in Islam, Musa (Moses) is considered a prophet and is mentioned 136 times in the Qur’an, and Abraham (mentioned 69 times) is even described as the Middle Eastern gods best friend: “Who can be better in religion than one who submits his whole self to Allah, does good, and follows the way of Abraham the true in Faith? For Allah did take Abraham for a friend.” For Christians Jesus is equally careless, naming Moses in Matthew, and stating eighteen times in John that Abraham existed. Now let’s be brutally honest here; such barefaced testimonies raise some enormously unpleasant credibility problems for both religions. It doesn’t, after all, speak too highly of a god-man’s authority, intelligence, competence, insight and judgment if he couldn’t distinguish the difference between fairytale and actual historical fact.

      So, as a point of fact: Mohammad clearly didn’t know what he was talking about, and the Qur’an is demonstrably a false document filled with lies.

      Like

      Reply

      • @John

        What dear Par is not telling us…because he is an disingenuous little nitwit, is the Muslims believe the Jews lost the original OT and made a substitute which was largely composed during the Babylonian captivity.
        Thus all archaeological digs will turn up zip and hence any reference to Mo and co. and the Pentateuch will reflect this.
        To avoid cognitive dissonance they, like their fundamentalist brethren on the other side of the fence ,compartmentalize ( ”mental” being the crucial aspect of this word) thus they are able to deftly turn aside every single objection.

        Like William Lane Craig on designer drugs.

        Like

      • Do they really believe the Jews lost it? Classic! How does that, though, change the attestation that Moses and Abraham were real historical characters? I’ve already gotten Paar to admit the Qur’an does indeed name them as real people… and that, as you well know, is the coup de grâce.

        Like

      • Because, according to Islam, the Jewish history is tacitly invented and does not reflect the truth, but the characters are genuine.
        Ask him for clarification, I may be wrong in my understanding,but consider their version of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden. it was not actually an earthly place.

        The revelation to Mohammed thus bypasses these problems of archaeology etc.

        Remember the song Timewarp from Rocky Horror?
        “It’s just a step to the right…”

        Very clever, actually.

        Like

  43. JOHN ZANDE : March 29, 2014 at 11:47 am

    “The archaeological “facts” prove both Jesus and Mohammad were, at best, not inspired sages.”

    Sorry; I have to repeat again. No archaeological search has been conducted on the basis of narratives of Quran; so it is irrelevant to Quran.

    If there is ; then quote the archaeological facts here, no generalization, please. Please be specific about Quran.

    Their reference point was only Bible.

    I think you are biased against Quran and Muhammad; your choice of words suggests it.

    Like

    Reply

    • Are you just trying to sound idiotic, Paar?

      We have already established the Qur’an speaks of Moses and Abraham as actual historical figures. You admitted this. Moses and Abraham are NOT, however, historical figures. They are fiction.

      The question you have to answer is this: How do you explain Mohammad not knowing Moses and Abraham weren’t historical characters?

      Like

      Reply

  44. @JOHN ZANDE : March 29, 2014 at 12:28 pm

    You did no answer the question I put to you, repeated again below:
    “Do the Atheists or Archaeologists have a list of all real person that have existed since inception to verify from it, if somebody existed or not?”

    Please

    Like

    Reply

    • I didn’t answer because it’s an idiotic question, and such mindless nonsense doesn’t deserve the respect of recognition.

      Now, I asked you a clear, and “sane,” question which you are purposefully evading. It is a question, as I have comprehensively demonstrated, based in reality. I will ask it again. Please answer it as coherently as you can:

      How do you explain Mohammad not knowing Moses and Abraham weren’t historical characters?

      Like

      Reply

  45. Where you at Zande, I watched a video of life in the Middle East, and nearly beat myself to death with a recliner. Fortunately, I was/am not strong enough to do that. Recliners are heavy.

    The one crazy religious was bombing and killing their neighbors for naught. They were/are turning nice apartments or houses into safety camps for the neighborhood.

    I know my American Military, If we find a building still standing, Fuck You locals, we will take that building down. Oh, the news said is was a peaceful organization collecting children trying to raise a nice next generation, we don’t care. We be dropping bombs on any threat to us.

    Just don’t fuck with Jersey Shore or our Super Bowl. We have the funds, and the military and we will pull the trigger. Ask anyone in America. We have our internal debates, but when it comes to foreign affairs, I know, because I have asked people, and what I get is apathy. People here want their nice job, they want their limited job security, they want to believe that life is their personal chance to win.

    Anytime I ask, “what about everyone else,” I get the same answer…People say, I didn’t take, I am not a taker. I worked hard for what I have. I mention middle Africa and say, these people work hard, what about that?

    Fuck them, I barely made it through college, My parents are still paying for my education, I am not wasting my mom and dad’s money on so African.

    The point, This is not the world I want to live in, but it is the world I do. Not my fault. I hope you understand.

    Like

    Reply

  47. I guess you don’t like Johns’ form of expression? Not like your own Atheistic expressions perhaps? I’d be curious to know what specifically is your beef. Or maybe I misunderstand you…

    Being an American you do value freedom, don’t you Steve. Would you not agree that your greatest threat it is not your fellow Americans who believe in God, but those that are slowly taking away your liberties, choices, freedom of self-expression, or spend your tax dollars on things you do not want it spent on?

    Like

    Reply

    • Not necessarily, Dr. Wordsmitter! Omnipotence (one of gods favourite hats) is logically impossible, so if god exists then it must also be logically impossible, meaning it’s perfectly reasonable for it to mount a devilishly clever argument against its own existence!

      Moral of this tale? You don’t want to sit next to god in a cafe.

      Like

      Reply

      • You’re dead on right about that. The bugger always sneaks away without pitching in to pay his part of the bill, AND, he’s always the guy who ordered the Filet Mignon/Lobster tail meal. The bugger owes me 700.00. NEVER sit next to him in a cafe unless he puts cash on the table first.

        Like

  50. Hey John! So your whole page can be summed up in literally two lines:

    I am God
    I do not exist

    Period! You wasted lots of time and space on your blog 🙂

    How is it going my Australian friend? Are those bastards still cutting the amazon forest?

    Like

    Reply

  51. Hello John…

    Your blog is truly outstanding ..
    It has been a while since I last came across such a remarkable site..

    As to your posts I found it brilliant very witty…

    I wonder if the fact of talking in first person as if you were God may be related to a sort of unceasing superiority complex, though 😉

    Best wishes to you,

    Aquileana 😀

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment