Atheist Stephen Fry reply when asked what what he would say if he met God..

Stephen Fry stuns Gay Byrne in an Epic reply when asked what what he would say if he met God on RTE’s ‘The Meaning Of Life’…




The Hippogriff among us… You can’t prove a negative? Yes I bloody well can!


I am truly sick of the theists trumpeting this logical fallacy as some immunising tactic of the idea of their imaginary friend.. The whole idea is folk-logic to begin with.. Lets not forget the statement ‘you can’t prove a negative’ is indeed a negative proof in and of itself…

What are they actually claiming? If it is that I can’t prove a negative beyond ‘all’ doubt, well nobody can prove anything let alone a positive beyond ‘all’ doubt can they.. Add to that one can always introduce a ‘maybe’ baby, perhaps Aliens constructed the Pyramids for example…

As an example lets trumpet the cogito, Descartes said in a nutshell ‘I think therefore I am’, so I can therefore prove ‘that I don’t not exist’…

If perhaps they expect that we fill-in the blanks in the claim they are making with the claim we know they are trying to make but are alas ill-equipped to render, that one can’t prove something does not exist, as opposed to that ‘I do’ – exist…

Supposing that is indeed what they mean, that I can’t prove non-existence, I would argue that I can take a pretty good stab at it.. Lets take the example of the Hippogriff from Harry Potter, as shown up top.. Now obviously I can’t prove beyond ‘all’ doubt that such a creature never existed, but beyond all ‘reasonable’ doubt yes I damn well can.. If they really want to claim it has to be about ‘all’ doubt then I’d refer you to my earlier comment that nothing can be proven beyond ‘all’ doubt…

Anyway, back to the Hippogriff example.. There is some pretty sensational evidence that Buck-Wheat is empirically falsifiable and that such a creature never existed, one might say never will, I could rattle off Biological and Physical reasons but I have too high an opinion of my readers.. These types of example are brilliant as they require access to tracts of reality in time and space which are not accessible to humans, much the same as belief in God does 😉

One could argue they are inaccessible as they themselves do not exist, lets not go there however…


The Labelling of Children as XYZ Religion, abuse?

Why is it acceptable to label a child with its parents religion?

Jews, muslims, catholics, protestants etc..  Can you for one second imagine the idea of labeling a small child a marxist, leninist, labor, liberal, democratic, republican?  I should hope NOT!

For this purpose I shall loosely define a child as being less than voting age in whatever country they in, I do this because if we are not yet going to think that they have the mental capacity and decision making processes in place to be able to make what we call responsible political decisions then why on earth should we be under the misapprehension that they have they capacity to make religious, cosmological and moral choices!

It seems to me that if we had leninist or marxist schools opening around the place we would hit the roof, so why then do we permit these sectarian schools to operate when so far as I can see all the accomplish is to highlight and magnify the differences between us all and historically we know where this ends – bitter and bloody wars!



Atheists have higher IQs and self esteem than religious people…

a recent study shows… Atheists tend to have a higher IQ and fewer self esteem issues..

Psychologists from the University of Rochester define intelligence as ‘ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn from experience’. They go on to define religion as some sort of involvement in part or all of the aspects of a belief process.

A meta-analysis of 63 studies showed a significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity. The association was stronger for college students and the general population than for participants younger than college age; it was also stronger for religious beliefs than religious behavior. 53 from the 63 studies displayed a ‘reliable negative relation between intelligence and religiosity’, in 10 of the 63 studies that relationship positive.

Three possible interpretations were discussed.

First, intelligent people are less likely to conform and, thus, are more likely to resist religious dogma.

Second, intelligent people tend to adopt an analytic (as opposed to intuitive) thinking style, which has been shown to undermine religious beliefs.

Third, several functions of religiosity, including compensatory control, self-regulation, self-enhancement, and secure attachment, are also conferred by intelligence.

Intelligent people may therefore have less need for religious beliefs and practices.

In their conclusions, they said: ‘Most extant explanations (of a negative relation) share one central theme – the premise that religious beliefs are irrational, not anchored in science, not testable and, therefore, unappealing to intelligent people who ‘know better’. ‘Intelligent people typically spend more time in school – a form of self-regulation that may yield long-term benefits. ‘More intelligent people getting higher level jobs and better employment and higher salary may lead to higher self-esteem, and encourage personal control beliefs.’

Who knew…



The Evil God Hypothesis?

Imagine the universe and all within it was created, by a creator. Pretend he/she is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient…

Let us consider for one moment the idea that ‘your’ God is not Good, but is instead Evil…

His cruelty is without limit, his depravity is without bounds, he is simply a supremely wicked being..

Let us call this the evil-god hypothesis…

How reasonable is the evil-god hypothesis?

Clearly it is not at all reasonable, there is far too much good in the universe. If a being such as described were to exist he would have created us just to play with us in his evil little game, to torture us, there would be no love nor laughter etc…

Far too much good exists for all this to plausibly be the creation of such a limitlessly powerful and malignant being.

Let us call this the evidential problem of good…

You will note that the “evil-God hypothesis” and the “evidential problem of good” can easily be flipped into the “God hypothesis” and the “evidential problem of evil”.

The vast majority of arguments raised in support of the existence of God fail to provide any real clue as to this supposed creators moral compass, I would then argue that any of the arguments put forward such that they support a ‘good-God hypothesis’ can be reversed in support of an Evil God.

If you want to posit the existence of an all-good creator you must first explain all the Evil in this universe…

NB: use of the words Evil and Good is unfortunate but in keeping with definitions readily grasped.

I first heard this type of argument from Stephen Law @ Heythrop College University of London.