³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Which is the greater distortion perpetuated by his rhetoric: the image he constructs of gay people or the image he constructs of God?

How can you distort the image of an illusion...or a delusion, since it exists only in the imagination? And is what he says about anyone, Gays, Irish, Catholics any worse than what some Moslem imams say about Jews or what some Christian priests, ministers, and theologians have said about Jews in the past? I don't think so. The only difference is that very few people take Phelps seriously. The whole idea of religion is to seperate the "us" from the "them." What more effective way than to perpetually teach your followers to hate the "them" whoever they are?

There are two ways to react to the Phelps clan: one is to react with offence, outrage and condemnation. The other is to understand that he condemns himself perfectly adequately and that, since nobody worth considering actually agrees with him, to react with mockery, parody, and ridicule.

I think Fred Phelps is hysterical. I love his insane rhetoric. I've often played clips of his sermons on my radio show for the sake of sheer amusement (much in the way we do celebrity scandals, political controversy and offbeat news items). One of the only genuinely funny things Michael Moore has ever done is to have followed Fred Phelps around in a pink bus filled with gay people (a bus he called the Sodomobile). The look on Phelps' face was priceless.

There are good reasons to believe that old Fred is clinically ill. Some have suggested that his hatred is a manifestation of a chemical disorder, an idea that makes a lot of sense given the irrational way he constructs the world in his sermons. In any case, he isn't representing any significant demographic, and the appropriate response is mirth instead of outrage.

I agree with John. This man is deranged in every respect. His idea of God is monstrous. What he says here about the catholic faith makes me glad to be catholic with someone of Phelps' calibre attacking us. The UCD society seems like they were having fun at old Fred's expense, and who can blame them; he's a walking freak show. Still ... I'd pay a lot of money to see a debate between David Norris and Fred Phelps. That would be priceless!

It's easy for traditional Christians to reject Fred Phelps as an extremist. In fact, he is just a more honest version of those traditional christians who call gay people "unnatural" or "an abomination".

The churches in Northern Ireland refused to support civil rights for gay people.

Churches wish to be able to discriminate in employment against gays.

The churches opposed decrimination of homosexuality 25 years ago.

Church people picket gay pride parades with offensive posters.

Church people think gays should keep their love lives private while supporting the right of heterosexuals to hold hands and kiss in the streets.

Church leaders make no public statements when gay people are victims of hate crimes.

Church people hold forth from a book, the Bible, which calls for gay people to be executed.

Church people exclude gay people from full membership, labelling them sinners and reprobates.

So why do Church people get upset with Fred Phelps? He's on their team. His language is no more outrageous than Martin Luther's famously filthy language in the 16th century.
Many good law abiding NI protestant christians would probably agree with Fred on the Catholic church.

Fred is living in a country with a First Amendment protection for free speech. He can say what he pleases without fear of hate crime legislation.

He's just a more honest, open and consistent version of those "traditional believers" who reject gay people in our society, but who do so more politely.

"GOD HATES FAGS" sounds very like "LOVE THE SINNER, HATE THE SIN" ... because a gay person's sexuality is bound up with who they are, so you can't hate their sexuality without hating them, any more than you can hate a black person's ethnicity without hating that person as well.

Perhaps the outpourings of Fred Phelps will lead many in NI churches to think again about their own attitudes and whether their behaviour, language and beliefs are much different from Pastor Phelps.

Very much agree Darwinius
'liberal' believers are just as guilty as the fundies as they give credibility to those who take their beliefs to their logical conclusion.

That's quite a litany of accusation there Darwinius. You're not wrong though.

My son is gay and I find this so called pastor a disgrace. I've looked at his website and he actually built a monument in the home town of a young man, Matthew Shepherd, who was murdered in a homophobic attack there. The monument "celebrates" the day Matthew "entered Hell" and quotes the book of leviticus. Phelps bought land in a town square and contructed this hate-filled monument. Matthew Shepherds family and friends have to drive past it on their way to visiting their son's grave. This man is not a Christian. The Bible says "you shall know them (true believers) by their fruit". How could anyone see this man as anything other than anti-Christian? I am glad we are talking about this subject; I am full of anger when I think of poor Matthew Shepard's mother and father.

Isn't it possible to maintain a traditional view of sexuality without being compared to Fred Phelps? That's like saying that all law abiding atheists are no better a mass murderer who happens to be an atheist. There is no logic to that. Freethinker and others, you are a bit too free with your thinking.

David Devlin ... I agree with you. Phelps is a caricature of himself. I am a born again believer and I have nothing in common with Phelps at all. I am also Gay. I believe in the Bible, but it needs to be read in context and not out of context. I believe it is possible to be a christian and to be saved in God's grace, while also living a faithful life as a gay man. I have a partner and we live together as a couple in every sense. He is not a believer, though I hope he will receive Christ one day. So please everyone, do not put all Christians in the same category as this man Phelps. I pray that God will help Mr Phelps with whatever mental illness he is dealing with.

DD said
Isn't it possible to maintain a traditional view of sexuality without being compared to Fred Phelps?
no! David
The trad ( religious) view of sexulality is exactly as propounded by Phelps!

Valery Muise- You ask "How could anyone see this man as anything other than anti-Christian?"

Nobody really does see him as Christian. Please don't get upset by Phelps. He's a loon. If you are offended by him, you are choosing to be offended. Instead, shrug in the bliss of knowing that moronic opinions don't deserve your serious consideration. Turn that frown upside down! The guy's a crackpot!

But John he is just saying what the majority of Christians think about gays. He is just a bit more of a crackpot than them.

Freethinker - right on the money...

I'd like to hear from PB or christian hippy (for example) where they feel they differ from Phelps in the substance of their positions.

Fred P's thinking is this:

God hates sin ... homosexuality is a sin ... therefore god hates homosexuality

He says the fags word is biblical, to do with burning, a form of execution of sinners.

Impeccable logic there, eh? Give that man an honorary doctorate from Bob Jones University.

Oops. Silly me. He already HAS a degree from Big Ian's alma mater. Small world.

Freethinker- I disagree with your comparison of Phelps to a "majority of Christians". There are huge differences in my mind between Phelps and other Christians who believe homosexuality is wrong, and moreover those differences are not just in style but in substance (ie. not just different in tone but in content also). Phelps says "God hates fags." The majority of Christians disagree on two counts: (1) they believe that God loves everybody regardless of their sins, and (2) they believe that "fag" is a slur, and those who use it to offend worthy of contempt. Phelps attributes the evils of the world to homosexuality. The majority of Christians on the other hand believe that homosexuality is merely one of many sins, many much worse, and most also add that the homosexual orientation itself is not wrong but the acting upon its impulses.

(For the record, I'm one of a minority of Christians who don't believe homosexuality is a sin at all, let alone an evil to eradicate. I believe gay people should do as they please and that both government and religion should leave them to it.)

The Bible clearly teaches that God hates all sin, but also that He loves every variety of sinner. The death of Christ on the Cross was not the action of a God Who 'hates gays'.
(Romans 5:8)

Of course, finding an extremist to criticise is a convenient way of avoiding this truth - and the fact that all of us are sinners who each need to turn from our sin and trust in Christ. (Acts 3:19)

#15 to Philip Campbell ... I agree with your comment that the death of Christ is not a sign of divine hatred (of anyone for that matter). Can you deal with Fred Phelps more in detail? What do you find "extremist" about his approach? How would you, as a biblical Christian, try to persuade him to adopt a different approach? What about those local NI Christians who like to call gay people "Sodomites", are they also "extremist"? I think it would be helpful if we could think through some rules for Christians to follow in debates that are sensitive and deeply personal. Perhaps others can also suggest "rules of exchange"or "rules of engagement" that will allow each person to maintain their own position with integrity while avoiding a situation where we engage in name-calling and abusive language.

#15 Philip
"God hates all sin but loves every variety of sinner. The fact that all of us are sinners who each need to turn from our sin and trust in Christ"
Well said Philip I agree with your post.
As for Fred Phelps it just makes me sad that someone who talks like that can get so much publicity he does so much harm to the Christian faith. All I can say as a Christian is we all do not believe act or speak like him and although I am far from perfect as a Christian the God I know is a loving and caring God a God who says iloveireland.com a God who sent his Son to die for Ireland and the Whole World.

I think John Wright has well represented mainstream Christian thought on his unbracketed commented in 14.

Anyone remember the recent entry here where the Presbyterian church was widely condemned for attempting to create safe space for gay people and tackling homophobia while maintaining that the act itself is sinful (just like all hetersexual sin BTW)?

Also ...what about the huge who-ha over the "Jesus is a fag" banner in the Belfast Pride Parade???

Without question many people who wish to cannot leave the gay lifestyle of their own volition and it is wrong to simply condemn such people and leave it at that, IMO. Even professionals in the field seem to agree there is much still to be learnt in this area.

But I think one of the biggest issues in this debate is the fact that most people are under the illusion that homosexuality is fixed for all people at all time;-

This is open to question and I think it is a disservice to those with a genuine interest not to allow them to be fully informed on the matter, especially those making life changing decisions on limited information;-

/dna/h2g2/A595505

PB

PB says- "...most people are under the illusion that homosexuality is fixed for all people at all time..."

I would be interested to hear, if this is the case, whether you would be open to the possibility that you may become homosexual in the future (or may be able to be counseled into it)?

Once you buy into the notion of religion, that someone has the true word of god as they preach it, as they interpret it from a book you have bought the whole kit and caboodle that goes with it. They sell it to you by drumming it into your head from your earliest childhood so that you won't even question it by the time you are capable of thinking for yourself and challenging other people. Is there such a thing as a religion with a fixed dogma or do they all constantly change from priest to priest, minister to minister, rabbi to rabbi, imam to imam, day to day? If you are Catholic, today it's OK to eat meat on Friday, fifty years ago it wasn't. Which one are you going to believe since they don't agree with each other even in the same sect of one religion? If you choose to beleive some of what they say and not all of it as though they were offering you a menu, you have in effect created your own religion and to the extent you disagree with them, you have opened yourself up to being labeled a heretic who is a sinning outsider destined to spend all eternity in hell, someone to be pitied, shunned, ostracized, condemned. Not only are you a follower of the devil, you are a threat to the true word of god doing the devil's work. This is how they control people, steal their money, send them off to fight their wars. Even if I were a believer in god, how could I ever be suckered into listening to any of them. Seeing how much pain this can cause so many, it makes me more aware and grateful each time just how wonderful it is to be free.

Once again, baby and bathwater are both done away with in your irrational rant. Take me, for example. Why should it worry me that I'm a Christian who disagrees with most Christians? I (and you) disagree with most of the people living on the earth, so it's not bad company. Who cares? I'm not being manipulated by anybody, I'm not falling for anybody's tactics, I'm not being led by any group or anyone else's theology. What's your objection?

John Wright #22
I do not know if there is even one person who is a believer in any religion who thinks they have been manipulted. That's the beauty of it. That's one reason why it is so effective. When you're conditioned from birth to be a believer by nature and not question the most basic premise of something you've been told all of your life, you accept it as axiomatic. I on the other hand question EVERYTHING. During the 30% or so of my life I'm asleep, you'd have a hard time convincing me that the real world even exists and that the whole universe doesn't only exist in my mind. That's what I understand existentialism to be about. To call disagreement with you a rant because you can't refute it proves you have no case. So when the minister of your religion tells you to genuflect, you'd better start kneeling or you may be called a heretic. How touchy people are about anything which attacks their religious beliefs and the closer the attack gets to the core of it, the more irate they usually become, sometimes to the point of violence. What if I said to you there is no god, there is no morality, these are just words. You're born, you live, you die just like every other animal, and one day when the earth comes to an end and there are no more human beings, everything that ever happened in human history will be erased like hole left by a drop of water removed from the ocean. Homosexuality, murder, extramarital sex, premarital sex, war, pedophilia, listen to the chants by the man in the dress with the funny hat, say the magic words, put your money in the plate, and pray that you don't go to hell when you die. How nice to be virtually certain due to lack of even one shred of evidence to the contrary that when you're dead it's "lights out" forever. Eternal peace, what more could one ask for. As for what consenting adults do to each other in the privacy of their own homes, why on earth should anyone care except to use them as one more convenient object of hate? If there were such a thing as a deadly sins, Christianity would be at the top of the list having caused more misery and death throughout history than any other credo or practice I can think of. By that standard, homosexuality, even Islam so far pales by comparison.

Mark- I think your problem is that you're subjecting all theists to the criticism that's due to only a certain portion of theists. You've packaged us all into the same box and leveled your criticism on that basis, but the content of your criticism is largely irrelevant to me. Example:

"...you accept it as axiomatic. I on the other hand question EVERYTHING."

My belief that there is a God resulted from exactly the same process: the questioning of everything. I reconstructed everything I believe from scratch and thus arrived at a belief that there is a God. You atheists don't have a monopoly on skeptical, critical, rational thought.

"So when the minister of your religion tells you to genuflect..."

I don't have a minister, and I've never listened to one whom I would allow to "tell" me to do anything.

"What if I said to you there is no god, there is no morality, these are just words..."

I'm entirely open to that possibility. I don't believe there is conclusive evidence either way. So both of our competing statements, mine that God exists, and yours that God does not exist, are arguments from silence essentially, since there is no way to falsify the existence of God (by definition if God exists then he is outside of our ability to prove or disprove his existence).

Anyway, your brush is too broad, Mark. You go on to talk about homosexuality and other such things: again, whatever your point was, it doesn't apply to my religious belief.

John Wright #24
"My belief there is a god resulted from exactly the same process: the questioning of everything."

"I don't believe there is conclusive evidence either way."

"...if god exists then he is outside of our ability to prove or disprove his existance."

Don't you see the obvious contradiction in the logic between your first statement and your second and third? If his existance cannot be proved because there isn't (and can't be) conclusive evidence either way, then why do you believe in him? Your conclusion is therefore based on emotion, not rational deduction. Go back and question again and hopefully next time you won't sell yourself a pig in a poke Perhaps you will become an agnostic. Half way to the truth is better than none at all :-)

"Mark- I think your problem is that you're subjecting all theists to the criticism that's due to only a certain portion of theists. You've packaged us all into the same box and leveled your criticism on that basis..."

Why have I tarred all theists with the same brush? Because the one thing they have in common is that they've made the same illogical blunder. They draw their conclusions not from rational thought but from emotion. They believe in god because they want to believe in god, not because there is any rational reason to. But it gets much worse. Most of them will do their best to convince anyone and everyone of their beliefs, in some cases even if that means killing them. They have to have company in their delusions to assuage their neurosis, their perpetual angst that life is really meaningless and finite, that after inevitable death there is nothing. Christians, Jews, Hindus, and others pride themselves on the fact that their use of coercion is not physically brutal the way much of Islam is, it is merely psychologically brutal. They think that makes them superior forgetting that it took over a thousand years to force them to stop doing exactly what "Islamists" still do today. If parents and "the community" were truely interested in allowing their children to decide for themselves, they wouldn't even mention their religion until their offspring were old enough and well educated enough to think critically for themselves but then they'd run the likelihood of losing converts from the next generation. People just can't seem to be satisfied to keep their religion to themselves, they always seem to need converts.

When I see movies of Christian missionaries trying to prosteletize primitive natives, I always root for the cannibals to eat them. I think finally some missionaries have served a useful purpose at least once in their lives. Naturally, I am hardly sympathetic to the Korean missionaries being held by the Taleban right now. They knew or should have known what kind of religious war they were getting themselves into. Perhaps their experience will serve as a warning to others. But if they are true believers, they will rationalize their plight as god's will.

Mark- You've studiously avoided the rest of my response to you, but even in the reply you gave again you underestimated how much I've thought about these matters in your assessment of my belief system! You must think that everybody thinks about things as little as you do.

You suggest that I become agnostic. Actually I describe myself as an "agnostic Christian." Agnostic theism means that, without the benefit of evidence either way, I choose to believe in God. There is no contradiction between any of my statements regarding a lack of evidence for (or against!) God. What that means is simply that I am choosing to believe in God on the basis of something other than evidence. For more on agnostic theism see the Wikipedia entry on the subject .

If evidence is silent, Mark, then it makes the existence of God just as likely as God's nonexistence. The default position on a matter wherein the evidence cannot exist either way is not disbelief!

You take issue with this in the second part of what you say, telling me that my "conclusion is therefore based on emotion, not rational deduction."

Let me understand you correctly. Are you claiming that the only two ways of holding belief is on the basis of evidence or on the basis of emotion?

***For the benefit of other readers, this is a prime example of someone going into an argument half-cocked.***

Hello John,

Hope you won't mind if I get into your discussion with Mark? You wrote

"If evidence is silent, Mark, then it makes the existence of God just as likely as God's nonexistence. The default position on a matter wherein the evidence cannot exist either way is not disbelief!"

Can you disprove the Flying Spaghetti monster 100%? I can't, I assume you won't claim to be able to do so either. Yet I don't believe in the FSM. Or the Egyptian gods. Do you believe in the latter? In the case of all other gods than the one you believe in, are you not taking disbelief as default every bit as much as I (and presumably Mark) do with the christian god?

Imo it's very erroneous reasoning on your part that if something can't be proven or disproven that it being true is as likely as it being false.

greets,
Peter

John Wright #27
I don't care what someone put in Wikipedia, there is no such thing as an agnostic believer in god. It's an oxymoron, either you believe or you don't. If you say you don't know then you can't believe at least not on any rational basis.

"If evidence is silent Mark, then it makes the existance of God just as likely as God's nonexistance."

This isn't worthy of you John. There is no evidence for the Easter bunny but that doesn't make it as likely that he exists as not. Besides, you already know my position on probabilities, there is no such thing, that is a purely abstract mathematical concept, not a tangeable explanation of the physical world. Even every atom, every subatomic particle has an individual identity and a unique history which goes back to its moment of creation. Either god exists or it doesn't, there's no playing the odds. If there is no evidence for something, then it is not rational to believe it exists anyway. I think deep down you have an emotional need to believe in god, that is why you will work around any argument which denies its existance no matter what. That's OK with me, you can fool yourself but I won't buy it.

Peter-

Of course you can join! Good to see you online.

Let me pursue this line of thought. If a supreme being (God) existed, what evidence could there be for his existence? If he's an interventionist god, there'd be plenty of evidence of his interventions. There isn't. So either there is no god or there is a non-interventionist god. Since a non-interventionist God (in which I have chosen to believe) cannot - by definition - be proved or disproved, the evidence is silent and other philosophical factors must be considered.

If 'knowledge' means things we justifiably believe are true, then it is inherently reasonable to assert that I believe something is true without asserting that I 'know' it. In short, I believe in God despite the fact that I do not know for certain of God's existence.

You mention the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a classic Dawkinsism. It's a good point, of course, an example of something we all disbelieve but can't disprove. I'm very open to that comparison. Wouldn't you say, though, that my belief in a supreme being (without describing that being more intricately than that) seems more tenable than a belief in a contrived creature involving the combination of two or three intricate human-perspective concepts (flight, pasta, beast)? I know you will reply that God is exactly that: a concept of human perspective. Certainly the intricate descriptions of God found in the major religions are just that; we've discussed Genesis with PB and discovered the human perspective in the acts of creation attributed to God, for example. But as a general idea (of a supreme being outside of our universe) we find a very universal concept (alluded in Descartes' ontological argument).

I'm also conscious that, in the attempt to utilise the concept of God to explain things we don't understand, it is tempting to fall into what we could call the 'God of the gaps' fallacy whereby any gaps in our knowledge are instantaneously explained by the concept of an all-powerful God. Yet there are things science is not close to explaining (such as the small matter of where the universe came from!), and given the hypothesis that God exists, by definition if science were capable of dealing with such concepts it would be mandatory for it to consider the possibility that God at some point in the past was an interventionist being. Because science is not capable of dealing with such concepts only philosophical considerations remain. It may be therefore reasonable to say that I am a scientific atheist and a philosophical theist, or, shorthand, I'm an agnostic theist. :-)

It's not perfect, but it is tentative, and I believe it's about the best answer any theist has got.

Hello John,

Thanks for answering. But I'm afraid I'm going to disagree with what you said.

"If 'knowledge' means things we justifiably believe are true, then it is inherently reasonable to assert that I believe something is true without asserting that I 'know' it."

Well, the words 'justifiably believe' are key here. What exactly is the justification for belief in god?

"Wouldn't you say, though, that my belief in a supreme being (without describing that being more intricately than that) seems more tenable than a belief in a contrived creature involving the combination of two or three intricate human-perspective concepts (flight, pasta, beast)?"

No. I see as much reason to assume either one, i. e. zero. Anything attributed to a god that contradicts what we observe is out of course. But any level of detail attributed to any god(s), as long as it doesn't clash with with our observation (so for instance: god has a taste for wearing a yellow hat on Wednesday mornings) seems as probable as his existance, i.e. zero reason to assume it.

"But as a general idea (of a supreme being outside of our universe) we find a very universal concept (alluded in Descartes' ontological argument)."

And because it is a universal concept it is right? Why would that be? Belief in a flat, fixed earth probably was a universally accepted concept at some stage.

"Yet there are things science is not close to explaining (such as the small matter of where the universe came from!), and given the hypothesis that God exists, by definition if science were capable of dealing with such concepts it would be mandatory for it to consider the possibility that God at some point in the past was an interventionist being."

Now you seem to fall into your own god of the gaps trap. At some point we had no more explanation for lightning than for the origin of the universe. Present lack of an explanation is not any good reason to believe in any god(s).

And the second part of that quote has again no more validity to me than any other scenario that has as its only merit that it can not be disproven. So why should science waste its time on it? Why would the existance of god be more valid a subject of consideration than whether god likes wearing a yellow hat on wednesday mornings?

As an aside, I would like to point out that the idea of 'Take it on faith' is more destructive to science and the further development of our knowledge of the world around us than anything I can think of except a meteor strike that would wipe us all out. But I realise that's a different discussion.

"It's not perfect, but it is tentative, and I believe it's about the best answer any theist has got."

It may indeed be the best for theism. Hence I stick to atheism.

Peter-

Thanks, I knew you'd disagree, of course!

"Well, the words 'justifiably believe' are key here. What exactly is the justification for belief in god"

Well, exactly. There isn't any justification in evidence, which means that, from the evidence, we don't know that God exists. (We can't know from religious experience, for example, because experiences are subjective and impossible to verify or falsify, and since when were our senses capable of accuracy in any case?) It is a step further to say that knowledge is impossible (and somewhat fideist I suppose). My contention is that we do not know whether or not God exists, so we are left with two options: to believe that he exists in spite of not having knowledge of his existence, or to disbelieve on the basis of that lack of knowledge. I assert that both are rational positions to take.

"I see as much reason to assume either one, i. e. zero...."

Well I presume that none of the many arguments for the existence of God convince you of even my 'agnostic theist' position (eg. teleological, cosmological, ontological, anthropic, transcendental, inductive), and it's worthwhile pointing out that these things tend to be easier for philosophers than for scientists, since they regard the wider spectrum of truth claims than those only dealt with empirically in the sciences. I would most likely refer you to the work of philosophers like Richard Swinburne and Alvin Plantinga though, again, these arguments may not convince you. All I can say is that I find some arguments for the existence of God meritorious - not enough to say that I know for sure that God exists, but enough to say I believe he exists in spite of not knowing for certain.

"It may indeed be the best for theism. Hence I stick to atheism."

I respect that choice very much.

What this man did to tarnish Matthew Shepherd's funeral was unforgivable and goes against EVERYTHING a church is supposed to represent. He, along with each and every brainwashed zombie who follows him, should have been thrown in jail for that insult. As of today, from what I've read, Phelps has pledged to begin picketing funerals for victims of the Interstate 35-West bridge that collapsed in Minneapolis last week.

Shirley Phelps-Roper, Fred's daughter and "church" attorney, has been quoted as claiming that "God has turned his back on America and Minneapolis for its tolerance of gay people." This, according to the official online news release I read yesterday.

Ask anybody I know regarding this sad excuse for a human being, Fred Phelps, and they like many here will unanimously voice the same opinion I'm about to share. This man is unbalanced, he needs professional help, and he sure most certainly does NOT represent God. The proper authorities clearly need to step forward and show a little more muscle in regard to what this guy, who is shamefully using and abusing the Lord's name, is getting away with. He's putting himself and each and every member of his family at great risk by carrying out this detestable practice. I can say that because, one of these days, he'll do this to the wrong person and land himself or somebody he cares about into a hospital bed on life-support. Times have changed. We are no longer living in the misinformed dark ages and the greater majority of people, plain and simply, no longer find this glorified bigotry acceptable.

What I find ironically funny about this whole hideous ordeal is the totally outrageous fact that Mr. Phelps actually believes he is going to heaven! He, like any hate-mongering common thug, sincerely feels that God is smiling down on his cruel and immoral crimes. And yet, in his mind, it's gay folks like myself who are truly destined to burn. That, thankfully, is his gross misconception that God will one day ultimately confront him on.

Hi John,

I think we almost agree.

"so we are left with two options: to believe that he exists in spite of not having knowledge of his existence, or to disbelieve on the basis of that lack of knowledge. I assert that both are rational positions to take."

As long as you don't equate my disbelief with saying 'I know 100% sure god doesn't exist' then I take option two.

Leaves me with one unanswered question: how is the general idea of gods existance any different from a specific detail like he wears a yellow hat on wednesday mornings? I see zero reason for both and would judge them equally likely. I.e. unlikely to the extreme. You accept the first, reject the second. What's the difference?

Well of course we don't know that God doesn't like to wear yellow hats on Wednesdays. But, yet again, it's another example of an extrapolation of human perception onto God: it assumes too much. (eg. that God has a head, that God is a physical being operating in three dimensions, that the spectrum of colours is the same for God as it is for us and that 'yellow' would therefore make sense inside whichever reality God exists, that time is the same and that God could do anything on a 'regular' basis at all for that reason rather than being in an eternal state of some kind, etc.)

And it isn't only this example. I think we find that, no matter which details we happen to ascribe to this supreme being other than their existence, we run into often fatal issues (and, hell, existence is problematic enough!). For example, we run into famous philosophical problems when we assume omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence. Or if we assume 'he', rather than 'she' or 'it'. Does God have genitalia? (I have little problem calling God 'he' for expediency, though people should understand I'm not ascribing gender.)

The writers of Hebrew myths and stories, early Christian documents and books ascribed many details to God and painted a picture of life where God lives: including angels (a melding of the features of birds and human beings), streets of gold (a crude human understanding of what ultimate wealth and ultimate perfection may look like), thrones (from the human history of monarchy), etc. - these are among our most pervasive imaginings, means of attempting to explore the concept of God, but no more than that. They certainly leave sensible people with the conclusion that we know even less than we originally thought!

Anyway that's basically how I would intend to separate the concept of a supreme being from any other 'disbelieve but can't disprove' comparisons. (That coupled with the arguments I alluded to earlier.)

John Wright;
For a rational person to believe that something is true based on less than absolute proof if such a thing even exists at all is the result of finding the most plausible explanation consistant with the facts at hand. In science, that explanation is ALWAYS subject to refutation when new facts come to light which are inconsistant and cannot be explaned by it even if another more plausible explanation is not immediately available. Faith, religion, superstition rejects this notion by adhering to an explanation no matter what the facts are. That is why it is called faith, it is entirely irrational by its very nature and when facts come to light which make it seem implausible or even impossible, it is open to ridicule which makes its adherents very angry. You can believe in your conception of god or whatever else you like John but let's call it for what it is, superstition and nothing more.

The notion that the existance of the universe is the result of the creation of a conscious intelligence is absurd on the face of it because there is not and never has been even one scintilla of observed facts to suggest it let alone lead to it as a logical deduction. Most of the avid theists I've heard including one who was a nun but never took her vows and explained the Church's teachings as she understood them boil down to "having a feeling" or a spiritual feeling. Another is that since the believer has no other explanation (usually in their pathetically uneducated minds) they conclude that creation by god wins by default, there being no other explanation (which they can understand.)

When you go back in history to those who wrote the bible, the Qoran or other books religions are based on and ask what real knowledge did they have the answer is absolutely none at all, they did not know one thing about the physical universe including those facts even the smallest children know today such as the earth being round and the earth going around the sun. It is small wonder then that we who have some knowledge see how obviously and laughably wrong they were including those most precious of philosophers like Aristotle when he theorized about the physical world. It serves as an object lesson in the kind of minds that hold most strongly to religions and their theologies that among them are many murderers, sex perverts, and criminals of all types. They would bomb anyone and everyone who disagrees with them. It took a thousand years to repress the Christians from doing it, we haven't even begun on the Moslems yet and we see the results of it in the news every single day.

Hello John,

"And it isn't only this example. I think we find that, no matter which details we happen to ascribe to this supreme being other than their existence, we run into often fatal issues (and, hell, existence is problematic enough!)."

Let me see if I understand why the existance of some supreme being would be any different from ascribing certain characteristics to him/her/it in your view. Is the only difference between them in your view that existence has the philosophical arguments going for it that you alluded to and any human-like specifics don't? That would at least make clear to me why you see them as different (not saying I would go along with the philosophical arguments btw).

Peter- There are, to my mind, philosophical considerations of belief in a supreme being that do not apply easily to other abstract concepts like the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Yellow Hats on Wednesdays. Remember that I'm not postulating any attributes of God; only his existence, in whatever form that might be. thinks there's a good chance that God is a computer programmer and this universe is his computer simulation (possibly because this computer programmer lives in a posthuman society in which computing power is being used to simulate their ancestral evolution, which would include human beings): in that case God is as 'normal' in his world as we are in this one. But, again, it's a philosophical consideration rather than a scientific one, and while these things are possible (Bostrom says 20 percent probable) I'm not saying what I believe about God, just that - even without any evidence, because none may be possible - I believe in his existence. (Incidentally, an atheist friend of Bostrom is now an agnostic after reading his argument!)

I swear I know that face. Didn't Phelps appear as the scary preacher in Poltergeist II?

I'm not sure about Poltergeist II, but that cowboy hat and spiffy jacket look very Village People. Can you see where I'm going with this one..... ?

Seriously, this man is insane, and his family must be the first family ever to demonstrate congenital Tourettes Syndrome in all 30+ members; but they are far from harmless or amusing. The emotional pain they inflict on others is scandalous, not to mention the money being spent by the US to introduce legislation to inhibit the self-serving sociopathic antics of Phelps and his whelps.

Here's hoping that the recent legal action against this family actually sticks - and that they are not bailed out by some even more deranged moron with more money than god. I'm not optimistic....