The Banana: An Atheist's Worst Nightmare

[Dudley]

But why do they stop there, surely the argument must follow that God couldn't have popped into being on it's own, it must have a creator which must've had it's own creator and so on and so forth ad infintum.

Hmm.  Refuting these chaps isn't quite as easy as all that.  God is the Prime Cause, in this theology, the one, perfect, indivisible being that exists outside the constraints of time, space and causality.  Bananas have never yet made this claim.

Ever hear the "Parallel universes" argument for the existence of God?  I like it a lot.  
1) Let us say that there are an infinite number of parallel universes.
2) In one of these universes, let us say, there is God - an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being of infinite power.
3) If God is indeed an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being of infinite power, then he must by his very nature not be confined to one universe.
4) Therefore God exists in all universes.
5) Therefore there is a God.

Funnily enough, fellow-boarder Ming and I have just co-written a paper on this intelligent design topic, from which I learnt a few things:
a) Biologists are, quite simply, cleverer than theologians.
b) Intelligent Design theorists are just evangelical, fundamentalist Christianity's last despairing throw of the dice.  There really is no more to it than that.
c) Far too many Americans are drooling morons.

But the most important thing I saw by examining, however superficially, creationism/intelligent design side-by-side with evolutionary and geological theories, is that they really aren't dealing with the same thing.  Scientists (mostly) don't claim to have solved the origins of life, only the origin of species.  Geologists can't say why these particular atoms swirled together to form the Earth, only that they did and these were the results.  Astrophysicists don't claim to know what happened before the Big Bang, or even during it, only what was happening milliseconds afterwards.  There's plenty of room for belief in a guiding intelligence there, if you so choose.

Science doesn't tend to deal with the metaphysical question of "why" things happen, and indeed it's a little weird to try to conceive of an experiment that could test such notions.  All that scientists have done is show how life on this planet has evolved over time, that there was no literal Great Flood, and a hundred thousand other things that contradict the Biblical (or other religious text of your choosing) account of history.  The challenge for religion is whether you decide to continue to believe in things which can't be true, and attack the wicked scientists for their lies.  This is stupidity, anti-humanism, and is the route of most of Islam, large sections of (particularly American) Christianity, militant Hinduism etc.  Or you can accept that historical statement being disproved doesn't contradict the core message of your faith, and concentrate on the moral and spiritual side of being in a faith.

I myself am an atheist, but not on the grounds that some old book turned out not to be right on the origins of life.  Evolution, for all Dawkins' squawkings, doesn't imply atheism.

[El Spurioso]

Bananas with ringtabs etc etc, what a load of cock.

BUT, I have to say, I have a tiny amount of sympathy for the "Intelligent Design" idea.  Not the way these two gurning morons explain it, but still.  Given how much we DON'T know it's a little arrogant to utterly dismiss the possibility that there was some guiding hand in the Way Things Were/Are/Will Be, just as it's arrogant to dismiss the idea that thanks to a bunch of natural processes Stuff Just Happened.

But what confuses me UTTERLY about all these Intelligent Design espousers, who rant and rave about big philosophical stuff with conviction and energy, is that they then arserape their own Grand Existential concepts by narrowing the context down to "so, the bible is true!" or "Jesus died for your sins!" or what the feck ever.

I'm prepared to accept that there may be a lot more about the creation of the universe than we're aware of.  I'm prepared to accept that there's the chance that some element of Intelligent Design got involved, though in what form and for what purpose is anyone's guess.  These are all perfectly fine "Possibles".  But how the fucknuckle does it "logically" relate to a bunch of dusty desert tribes, old men being seduced by their daughters, seas parting, plagues and wars, whales swallowing scared men, lions, stars in the east, and a charismatic guru being nailed to a plank?

Intelligent Design and Religion aren't mutually inclusive, as bonkers as that may sound.  

(But they should still stick to teaching evolution in the biology books.  At least the poor teachers can sound like they know what they're talking about, rather than umming and aahhhing their way through a bunch of "nobodoy knows"es.)

[IndigoPrime]

A friend at university was a devout Christian, but one who had an interesting view on things: he reckoned that God kicked the whole thing off and then didn't "interfere" that much from that point on. In his way of thinking, Darwin was right, because God merely created the building blocks?evolution took care of the rest. It's a sort of non-interventionalist God theory (and I know it's not my friend's?he's just one of the few Christians I knew who thought the idea made sense), which actually sort of sits well with everything.

[DavidXBrunt]

I have nothing to contribute except to say that one of the presenters is the spit of Babu from Seinfeld ("You are a bad man. You are a very bad man.")

[hag]

i'm an atheist and i just ate a banana...

oh nose! crisis!

[Funt Solo]

I'm with the scientists on this one.  An omnipotent being may exist.  We can't prove it doesn't.  However, there's no evidence whatsoever that such a thing does exist.

To me, the supposition that it probably doesn't but may, seems a fair one (given the evidence).

If a person who has decided they are a member of a religion (that has an omnipotent being as a core tenet of the faith) is willing to admit that they may be wrong - as I'm willing to admit that I may be - then I respect them.  Otherwise, I think they are either deluding themselves, ignorant of pertinant facts, not telling me how they really feel or suffering from some kind of mental illness.

[scutfink]

 Yeah, what you said...

  My favourite bit of the Intelligent Design/ Creation Science argument is the idea that God created the earth on Oct 23rd 4004BC.

 What had he been doing for the rest of the year?

 Is this the kind of shoddy layabout Deity we want running our universe?

[Noisybast]

"...God created the earth on Oct 23rd 4004BC"

...Which makes the Universe a Libra and almost on the cusp with Scorpio, apparently.

[Mikey]

These berks are just that-berks.They represent Christians like the 9/11 wackos represent Islam-but there's aberk in the Whitehouse who thinks these Christian fundamentalists ideas should be taught alongside 'traditional' biology,which as many people have pointed out is not the place for it.

Like a moth drawn to a flame,i had to get into a row with one of these idiots in the town centre.They had a display board that mis quoted many eminent earth scientists and biolgists.I fit somewhere between,as it happens,and the idiot nearly bust his wee onions that one of the "evil liesmiths" had the audacity to challenge him.

On the age of the Earth he asked how scientists know-radioactivity I replied,ye know,half life?

"Aha!" quoth he"How do scientisits know how long decay takes WHEN THERE WAS NO ONE THERE TO MEASURE THE ORIGINAL ELEMENT!"

So-Chernobyl doen't need contained for at least a couple of centuries?

These twats really get me goat.And the counter argument that scientists are arrogant-no,confident may be more like it.

M.

[scutfink]

Good on you for challenging the fecker!

 A couple of months back this jehova type sat next to me at the station while I was on the way to work, he proceeded to show me the 'Wonderful Vision of the Future' on the front of his leaflet, featuring a group of young ethnically diverse kids sitting round petting a fully grown male Lion.

 I'd just started in calling him a Viciously Irresponsible Deluded Maniac when my train arrived, I was fuming all day. (The look on his face when I exploded after my initial calm acceptance was priceless mind...)

[Devons Daddy]

PURE COMIC GOLD.
this is going to every one in my address book.
pure brillance.

you can just imagine this as a monty python sketch.who ever picks up on this and puts it on TV will be forever considered to have made a classic comedy moment.

[Quirkafleeg]

I ate a banana today and thought of them... bastard mind-meme.

... and I like how the way they mention Einstein believed in god and Darwin was a Christian. Like that helps their cause... actually it makes them even more stupid as it proves you can be a scientist, and have faith. Gawd I hate them.

[hag]

i'm certain that all the evidence for god can be used to prove there is no god as well.

i pride myself on being an intelligent, respectful atheist.

but right now i'm very drunk and i have trout mask replica on the stereo. so anything makes sense.

[Rosso]

Has to be said these guys seem more interested in trying to make 'athiests' look silly than in actually convincing anyone. They certainly didn't seem to be convincing the guy they were speaking to.

athiests don't claim that they know god doesn't exist. They claim that they don't believe that he exists. big difference.

[Max Kon]

i like the idea that God only started it, and planed it out, then left it, maybe he shows it to all the other Omnipotent beings as some kind of sitcom?