Brilliant! Even puts in the point that some Christians rather live in denial even if they had the proff there was no god

Classic episode (One of my favourites along with the Creationism episode.)

which episode is this?

Jesus, what the hell do you have against having faith?

If you're just gonna bitch out religion, I'm done with this site.

Jesus anony, what the hell do you have in favour of faith?

If your just going to bitch about religious persecution I'm glad your leaving.

Anony,

I wouldn't know what Jesus had against faith, though from the sound of his accomplishments, he set it in aside in lieu of getting things done by himself.

I never realized Homer had such depth. My bad!

It's the episode where Homer's intelligence is increased dramatically. I believe the joke was to "normal" or slightly above normal intelligence levels. But I haven't seen the episode in a long time -- though it is one of my favorite jokes here.

Oh, and yeah, Anon, if you have problems with what's on the site -- leave. That's the great thing with choice and free speech: you can choose to ignore what you don't like.

Yes this is the episode where Homer has the crayon removed from his brain. "HOMR" (ep BABF22).

It's a direct reference to the story "Flowers For Algernon" and the movie "CHARLY"

My favourite moment from the episode involves Dr Hibbert.

"Scientist 2: Mr. Simpson, I'm afraid you have a crayon lodged in your brain. Homer: There's a crayon in my brain? [points to his chest.
The scientist relocates Homer's hand to his head]
But I've had thousands of head X-rays. How come no one ever noticed this before? Hibbert: Oh, I can answer that. You see, whenever I picked up an X-ray, I'd always hold it like this. [picks up Homer's X-ray photo to demonstrate. His thumb falls right where the crayon would be] My thumb must've covered up the crayon every time.
[chuckles] I'll show myself out. [leaves]"

Oh and Anonymous, don't let the door hit you on the Jesus on your way out.

geez, gotta love people who come here for the videos, suck up Norm's bandwidth and then bitch about the content.

good riddance - there are plenty of other places to get your video comedy fix. Check out devilducky.com if the name isn't too offensive for you...

The episode is "HOMЯ" from Season 12.

Subjectivist Fallacies: Subjectivism

In an argument of this sort, a subjective state--the mere fact that we have a belief or desire--is used as evidence for the truth of a proposition.

We can see what's wrong with this argument by identifying the implicit premise. To make this argument stronger, one would have to accept the premise that whatever I believe or want to be true is true. That is, subjectivism implicitly assumes that we are infallible. And of course we aren't.

Subjectivism is not only a way of adopting conclusions on subjective grounds, but also--and probably more often--a way of evading conclusions by refusing to believe in them. Some people have perfected the skill of simply not seeing what they don't want to see, and most of us indulge in this habit occasionally. If the habit were put into words, it would take the form, "I don't want to accept p; therefore, p isn't true." That's subjectivism.

Jesus, what the hell do you have against having faith?

Okay, I can field this one:

Faith in the sense used by religious people is the insistence that one accept statements are true without reference to any objective support for those statements.

In the least pernicious form one accepts statements in the absence of evidence. In the worst form, one not only maintains that certain statements are true despite strong evidence to the contrary, but also harms others by attempting to force them through coercion or subterfuge to accept those same demonstrably false statements.

Accepting as true statements that do not verifiably correspond to reality inevitably leads one into bad decisions, ranging from the innocuous to the catastrophic, because reality is in no way obliged to recognize what you want or believe to be true. Reality is, by definition, entirely and only what is true. Making decisions based only on what can be reasonably concluded from a tough-minded examination of real evidence is a conservative (in the non-political sense) habit that leads to better decisions.

If you examine your experience closely you'll notice that, no doubt from your childhood onward, the people who have been the most insistent that faith is a virtue have been the people who most stood to benefit from your acceptance of that principle owing to the resources, obedience or political authority you thus grant them. They teach you not just to have faith, but to have faith in faith. The claim that faith is a virtue is, in fact, one of those demonstrably false statements without which people would be far better off.

For someone who uses the Lord's name in vain I do not think Anonymous has much credibility.

I'm an Athiest, and I am pretty annoyed by the attitude of a lot of my 'brethren' - especially with how much attention Richard Dawkins has been receiving lately.

You can catch more flies with honey than with shit.

Cowboy, I noticed that bit of name in vain heresy as well.

Like most American Xians of his ilk, he's never given it enough actual thought to figure that one out.

Anon: I'm not sure where I'd put my money between honey and shit in that respect. I believe the term you wanted was "vinegar." It's less colorful, but it makes more sense. It is interesting to note, however, that the addition of "shit" does no harm to the analogy. You can, in fact, catch nearly as many flies with shit as you can with honey.

Regardless, now I'm curious: what attitude is it you would prefer your "brethren" to assume? What sort of "honey" would you offer to a conservative evangelical American Christian?

being neither an athiest nor a "person of faith", i always get a kick out of watching the shareholders of SUREinc. kick the shit out of each other-but only when its a reasonably fair fight. watching the heavies of SUREinc.,atheist subsidiary, pile on some poor "faithful" schmuck who stuck his head in the door for a second (and was admittedly a bit rude, but only a bit) was kind of pathetic, much as i respect some of the minds involved in said pile up. question: one of the things thats been bothering me lately about all the dawkins/harris/norm/gelf/bcortens/mccay etc. stuff (great minds all) is this: in my experiences with religious people, the questions of whether there is a god and whether faith is a legitimate or valuable thing are dealt with RELATIVELY quickly (in the context of a human lifespan) and the person in question moves on to the important stuff- what does god want from me, how should i live my life. i suspect it didn't take all you brainiac atheists too long to figure out your positions on the basic questions of god and faith either. so my question is, why cant you seem to move on to what i have called here "the important stuff"- namely, in a godless universe, what is the best way for me to live? i mean, it seems that all these atheist "bibles" (you should excuse the expression) are still fighting the basic point of the validity of the atheist position. so my question is, fine, theres no god-now what? because if your treatment of poor little anon. is an example of atheist hospitality... i'm very impressed with the brain power on display here, but you can't eat it, you know? all due respect.

Atheists are not "SURE", much less "inc", they just have a broader perspective, are less MYopic. In fact atheism is a bit of a misnomer if it is interpreted as anti-god, god(s) is (are) just irrelevant. Also "agnostic" sounds too wishy-washy even as a euphemism.

Atheists simply are sane, not collectively psychotic, or pretending to be, just to get along, like a bunch of nazis marching in lock-step.

I can speak only for myself, of course, but I think perhaps the discussion context here has led you to overestimate the percentage of my time I spend thinking about atheism and trying to justify it.

It's probably normal to mentally caricature the salient differences in an unfamiliar group, much in the way those who don't know any gay people assume they're obsessed with sex, or how some Christians assume Jews are really deeply emotionally invested in Jesus not being the Messiah. Normalcy aside, these thoughts are precursors to bigotry and it's important to correct them before that potential is realized.

That an atheist dwells on the absence of God is patently false. If it seems I spend a lot of time "fighting for the basic validity of [my] position," it's because you're encountering me in an environment where the validity of that position is challenged almost constantly, often with great hostility. Although I might personally enjoy a good discussion more than most (and certainly not solely on religious matters), I have a life just like anyone else, and I'm fairly certain the absence of a divine being figures less prominently in that life than the presence of one does in the life of a believer.

I do wonder why there should be a "what now" asked of atheists different from that asked of anyone else. From my perspective, we all have to solve the same sorts of problems to get by in life. It's not even the moral decisions that are issues. Atheists don't have to think up rational reasons not to rob a bank any more than religious people stop to ask themselves whether that's what God wants them to do. Instead, say you're not happy with a new boss at work, but you think remaining in that job is a better career choice. That's the sort of everyday conundrum that confounds people, and everyone ultimately addresses it in the same way. It's just that religious people phrase their deliberations in the form of a prayer to a supreme being, and when they reach a decision they say God answered them. Life is life, and however we decorate it, we all just muddle through as best we can.

With regard to the episode at hand, I confess it was fairly clear Anon did not want an answer. Frankly, my interpretation was that it was a rhetorical device used by a member of an overwhelming religious majority to feign oppressed victimhood in an attempt to coerce others into avoiding saying things with which he disagrees. This is a common game for believers, even the most outwardly tolerant of whom tend to have a double-standard for atheists. Where graciousness is extended towards members of other sects, atheists are expected to keep their place and shut up. I am disinclined to submit to such manipulations to begin with, but ultimately what led me to respond to this Anon was the fact that he happened to ask a question, however rhetorically he intended it, with a very specific and defensible answer.

The question "what's wrong with faith" is perhaps the one question whose answer is most important for believers to grasp in order to understand what atheists are all about.

Although it seems you may disagree, I don't believe I was in any way abusive -- certainly no more so than the Anon himself. I simply directly answered the question he asked. I intended the tone to be polite but firm, and I think I achieved that but for the preconception that it is rude for an atheist to express his atheism in any form, and I have abandoned cooperating with that notion.

Finally, while the "SUREinc." reference is clever, one thing you ought to understand is that the assumption it reveals is another common misunderstanding about atheists, namely the belief that atheists are dogmatically attached to the absence of God in the same way a believer is attached to the dogma of his faith. I won't claim this isn't the case for anyone calling himself an atheist, but it's certainly not true for myself nor the many other atheists I know. If I described my position on the notion of God you'd probably try to get me to call myself an agnostic instead, but I reject that label as an artificial and apologetic hedge. I shouldn't need to be labeled an atheist for that matter because labeling people for what they aren't is dumb, but such is the world we live in.

My "certainty" there isn't a God is not the same as a believer's certainty that there is. It is instead identical to my certainty that Ford will not start selling flying cars next year and my certainty that it won't rain pineapples this afternoon. I don't know either of these things with absolute certainty in the most nit-picking technical sense, but if I said, "it probably won't rain pineapples this afternoon, but I can't know for sure" people would think me crazy. I'm quite comfortable with the "certain" claim that it won't rain pineapples, and also with the claim that there is no God. You want me to believe otherwise, show me the pineapples. That's all there is to it.

I can speak only for myself, of course, but I think perhaps the discussion context here has led you to overestimate the percentage of my time I spend thinking about atheism and trying to justify it.

It's probably normal to mentally caricature the salient differences in an unfamiliar group, much in the way those who don't know any gay people assume they're obsessed with sex, or how some Christians assume Jews are really deeply emotionally invested in Jesus not being the Messiah. Normalcy aside, these thoughts are precursors to bigotry and it's important to correct them before that potential is realized.

That an atheist dwells on the absence of God is patently false. If it seems I spend a lot of time "fighting for the basic validity of [my] position," it's because you're encountering me in an environment where the validity of that position is challenged almost constantly, often with great hostility. Although I might personally enjoy a good discussion more than most (and certainly not solely on religious matters), I have a life just like anyone else, and I'm fairly certain the absence of a divine being figures less prominently in that life than the presence of one does in the life of a believer.

I do wonder why there should be a "what now" asked of atheists different from that asked of anyone else. From my perspective, we all have to solve the same sorts of problems to get by in life. It's not even the moral decisions that are issues. Atheists don't have to think up rational reasons not to rob a bank any more than religious people stop to ask themselves whether that's what God wants them to do. Instead, say you're not happy with a new boss at work, but you think remaining in that job is a better career choice. That's the sort of everyday conundrum that confounds people, and everyone ultimately addresses it in the same way. It's just that religious people phrase their deliberations in the form of a prayer to a supreme being, and when they reach a decision they say God answered them. Life is life, and however we decorate it, we all just muddle through as best we can.

With regard to the episode at hand, I confess it was fairly clear Anon did not want an answer. Frankly, my interpretation was that it was a rhetorical device used by a member of an overwhelming religious majority to feign oppressed victimhood in an attempt to coerce others into avoiding saying things with which he disagrees. This is a common game for believers, even the most outwardly tolerant of whom tend to have a double-standard for atheists. Where graciousness is extended towards members of other sects, atheists are expected to keep their place and shut up. I am disinclined to submit to such manipulations to begin with, but ultimately what led me to respond to this Anon was the fact that he happened to ask a question, however rhetorically he intended it, with a very specific and defensible answer.

The question "what's wrong with faith" is perhaps the one question whose answer is most important for believers to grasp in order to understand what atheists are all about.

Although it seems you may disagree, I don't believe I was in any way abusive -- certainly no more so than the Anon himself. I simply directly answered the question he asked. I intended the tone to be polite but firm, and I think I achieved that but for the preconception that it is rude for an atheist to express his atheism in any form, and I have abandoned cooperating with that notion.

Finally, while the "SUREinc." reference is clever, one thing you ought to understand is that the assumption it reveals is another common misunderstanding about atheists, namely the belief that atheists are dogmatically attached to the absence of God in the same way a believer is attached to the dogma of his faith. I won't claim this isn't the case for anyone calling himself an atheist, but it's certainly not true for myself nor the many other atheists I know. If I described my position on the notion of God you'd probably try to get me to call myself an agnostic instead, but I reject that label as an artificial and apologetic hedge. I shouldn't need to be labeled an atheist for that matter because labeling people for what they aren't is dumb, but such is the world we live in.

My "certainty" there isn't a God is not the same as a believer's certainty that there is. It is instead identical to my certainty that Ford will not start selling flying cars next year and my certainty that it won't rain pineapples this afternoon. I don't know either of these things with absolute certainty in the most nit-picking technical sense, but if I said, "it probably won't rain pineapples this afternoon, but I can't know for sure" people would think me crazy. I'm quite comfortable with the "certain" claim that it won't rain pineapples, and also with the claim that there is no God. You want me to believe otherwise, show me the pineapples. That's all there is to it.

Note to Norm: Sorry for the bogus "anon" version of that post. TypeKey is rather unpredictable at times.

Jonathan said // so my question is, fine, theres no god-now what? because if your treatment of poor little anon. is an example of atheist hospitality.//

I think that your reference to "poor little anon" is more insulting that those who answered his questions forthrightly. Are you suggesting that people should not speak their minds lest they offend some "poor little anon"?

His calculation probably went something like this:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? -- (Epicurus)

gelf, i am quite dazzled by your ability to figure out what a person is really getting at and respond intelligently even when the assertion you have picked up on is hidden in a joke or part of some more showy, less subtle point. i thank you for the generosity of spirit shown in your thoughtful and lengthy response to my remarks.also for your delicacy and tact in pointing out where i may be wrong-if more people could do this the world would be a better place. i can be pretty tactless myself. i'll take your words to heart-i'm certainly not interested in dancing with any kind of false assumption-based bigotry, against atheists or anyone else. its a hard thing to avoid in this world, false assumptions, and i can use all the help i can get. regarding those assumptions you mentioned, however: i am not a young man and have not lived a cloistered life. i have a huge pile of assumptions, false and otherwise, that i'm constantly trying to either throw out, if false, or verify, if true. one of my assumptions is that i am not alone among humans in this endeavor:) anyway, i have NEVER been steered wrong by the assumption that gays are obsessed with sex. and, having what you would probably consider to be vast and unreasonable experience with jewish theology and philosophy, i can tell you that jews are, indeed, deeply invested in jesus not being the messiah. neither of these things, i think, is a result of anything inherent in gayness or jewishness. rather its a result of constant attack from the outside, by straight society on the one hand and christianity on the other. and i think its as you said, that atheists, constantly finding themselves on the defensive vis-a-vis a largely theistic society can get a little prickly or obsessed with veracity issues. my reference to atheist "bibles" was not so much to posts on this blog but to books like the recent dawkins and harris contributions, which keep hammering at what seem to me to be fairly simple points. i try to put myself in the shoes of an american atheist, trying to fend off theistic influence in the govt. and school system and i can see how necessary books like this might be. i just wonder why someone who already agrees with them would read them. your pineapple explanation was colorful and right on. i would advise you not to worry too much about people thinking you're crazy-you'll get that anyway, just for being a thoughtful person. my dad was a professor of general sciences at a small college. in the course of trying to explain to me the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning when i was very young, he told me, with only a slight difference of emphasis to your pineapples story, that we can be reasonably sure that the sun will rise tomorrow, but never 100%. i have never been ashamed to state this to anyone, as it is simply a fact-one that has served me well for a long time. thanks again. hi jo anne, nice to see you again. in answer to your question, no, of course not. it was the pile-up i was suspicious of, not the viewpoints themselves. what does a blog represent if not the freedom to express your thoughts and opinions-as long as they're ok w/norm, of course:) and i have found him to be quite reasonable in this matter. thats why i'm here.

oh,and you may have noticed,gelf, that i didn't address all of the issues you raised. my thoughts on some of these things,and probably yours too, could probably fill a small book and i don't want to abuse norms hospitality here, or try (too much) the patience of the other guests. i had this problem on another recent post regarding your comments on the two versions of the ten commandments and the differences between them. norm has my permission to give you my email address if you want to ask him for it.

Thanks for you response Jonathan. How refreshing to have a reasonable discussion and actually reach some understanding. I like the way that the Internet and blogs allows people from around the globe the opportunity to communicate with and understand one another.