Well, the latest entry to the ThisHasToBeSatire department is a blog post on a charmingly named website called “Liberals Must Die.” While I found this site by chance on Technorati (good old tags, oddly this was the result of an Intelligent Design tag search)

The post in question (Global Warming Proven False) has a picture of a snow storm and the following text:

I think this about sums it up.

The hearing on ‘WARMING OF THE PLANET’ had to be cancelled because of an ice storm.

And yet these Global Warming idiots don’t get it!

Global warming is just a lie!

I must admit that (possibly as a result of too long spent reading the blogs of the truly insane) it took some time for me to decide this site was satirical. The main clues I (eventually) picked up on were the link to the Drudge report (above) and some of the other posts. After reading the ones which at least looked overtly legitimate, I found more (eg. the Muslim Terrerists (sic) category) which I think are solid evidence the site is purely humour. Some examples:

Some say Obama is not a terrorist, and yet he has still not denied it!!Do you know he was raised in Hawaii??? That is practically a foreign country; half way to China, the original Pearl Harbor bombers! (read original)

and

This is so kick ass. When all is said and done, GWB could go down in history has being the President who waged the most wars of all time!! I say this… ran wants nukes, well lets give them an up close demonstration.How about a 50 Mega Ton Bomb right in the capital!! As the great Jerry Falwell said “Blow them away in the name of GOD!” (read original)

I had originally thought this was some ultra-right wing madman but on second reading, and assuming the humourous intent, it actually becomes funny. The real killer is the “Top Ten Lessons from 24” – it is hilarious.

It looks like common sense has returned. Looking at the Register today:

The battle for the hearts and minds of American school children took another turn this week. The infamous Kansas school board that voted to banish Darwin from the science curriculum has welcomed him back with open arms, spurning instead the language of intelligent design.

The school board has voted, 6-4, to remove the language of intelligent design from the curriculum: science teachers will no longer have to say that the central ideas of evolution are controversial in scientific circles.

The explanation of the “nature of science” has also been reworded. It is now described as the pursuit of rational explanations for things that happen in the Universe. . . . (read full article)

About time really.

Tags: Creationism, Evolution, ID, Intelligent Design, Kansas, Education, Science, Philosophy, religion, darwin

I am far from an expert on these subjects, but it covers something which has been intriguing me over the last few days. The Einstein@HOME program is described as follows:

Einstein@Home is a program that uses your computer’s idle time to search for spinning neutron stars (also called pulsars) using data from the LIGO and GEO gravitational wave detectors. Einstein@Home is a World Year of Physics 2005 project supported by the American Physical Society (APS)and by a number of international organizations.

(A bit like Seti@Home but that seems to have lost some popularity of late)

Now this is a nice bit of software which runs from something called the BOINC manager, where you can get to view your current work unit, see stats, visit the forums etc.

The question I have, is about the “user statistics” it shows. As you can see in the screen shots, there is choice of “user total” or “user average” and to me, the two don’t seem to match up. I am led to believe the average is “recent average” rather than a simple (total / days) type. But even so, it seems odd – especially as I have had the software running almost constantly for little or no return in the way of work units.

Any feedback or commentary welcome. Given the steady climb shown by the total figures, the mountain-like averages seem somewhat… odd.

Obviously not. (Surely by definition alone).

Anyway, I was rooting around Technorati Tags for Christianity, and I came across a blog post titled “The Sovereignty of God and Prayer” and obviously took to it like a bull to a red rag. It is short and pretty much what you would expect from a blog taglined “Christian Resources for Young Women” (makes you want to vomit already, doesn’t it). Why do the more devout of the religious fools believers have to be so sexist?

The best bit is the first sentence: (emphasis mine)

So we believe God is sovereign and he predestines and elects those whom He will save.

Kind of makes everything else pointless. At the end there is a link to a post which “answers this” from the Ministry of John Piper (cant let the young Christian Ladies try to work things out themselves now, can we?). Sadly, this post is a complete, unadulterated non-answer.

It is long and rambling. It is full of references to irrelevant sections of the bible and it has the stormy writing style so loved by theists.

This is how it is summarised:

In other words, just as God will see to it that His Word is proclaimed as a means to saving the elect, so He will see to it that all those prayers are prayed which He has promised to respond to. I think Paul’s words in Romans 15:18 would apply equally well to his preaching and his praying ministry: “I will not presume to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me, resulting in the obedience of the Gentiles.” Even our prayers are a gift from the one who “works in us that which is pleasing in his sight” (Hebrews 13:21). Oh, how grateful we should be that He has chosen us to be employed in this high service! How eager we should be to spend much time in prayer!

Says it all really.

It isn’t just Islam which has “believers” so morally bankrupt they are willing to perform all manner of heinous crimes as long as their particular imaginary friend tells them to. Thanks to excellent Blog Of The Gods, I came across a wonderful little snippet of crazy Christianity.

In response to this question:

If your god revealed to you in a set of flawless communications you could not dispute that you should kill every child you see under the age of 2, would you?

VoxDay (who calls himself “the Christian Libertarian commentator from WorldNetDaily”) responds: (original)

…The answer is yes, and how would you possibly take issue with that position regardless of whether you believe in my god or don’t believe in any god?

Wow. What a nice guy. Part of me thinks he is just saying things like this (I am cynical today) to create a “hardman” impression, as he is safe in the knowledge he will never, ever, be tested on this. Unless he does actually have some kind of psychological episode it is guaranteed he will never get this commandment (that said, the episode may not be far off).

It is no stretch of the imagination to work out that “VoxDay” is far from a deep thinker, but he continues his line of “reasoning” as follows:

And as we are informed in Revelation, He will wipe out many peoples through the acts of (presumably) His angels. Jefferson [person who posed the question] can complain that this makes God unworthy of worship all he likes, but that’s as irrelevant as complaining that Stalin wasn’t properly elected according to the Soviet Constitution. Although in this case it isn’t might makes right, it is a much simpler case of might = right. Obey or perish.

Blimey. My God is bigger than your God so do as I say. (I think this is an argument Atheists could win though, we can test who is harder me or God. I punch you then God punches you. Which hurt the most?)

You do not need a degree in Theology to work out that this is nonsense. Even as an Atheist I am aware that this is not the doctrine of Jesus and is even a bad interpretation of the Old Testament.

Showing the depth of his intellectual fortitude, VoxDay continues:

Now, I admit that if I was wrong and my god did not exist but another one did, one of his worshippers could likely provide a rational reason for why I it would be immoral to embark upon a toddler-slaying rampage. Of course, that would depend on the moral code of that other deity. And then, a Christian could certainly call into question the legitimacy of my divine orders; I’m quite sure that every Christian of my acquaintance would, in fact, do so.

Nevertheless, this is remarkably dangerous ground, not for Christians, but rather for anyone who is pro-science. If you are going to debate the legitimacy of a belief system based on the potential danger it presents, secular scientists are vastly more vulnerable than Christians.

It is almost funny. If this was intended as humour, good work VoxDay. If he is serious…. well….

As an aside, this has also been picked up by Pharyngula (who wisely comments they call Atheists Amoral) and in the comments floating around there have been some excellent ones:

I would turn it around and ask them, “if believing in God meant an eternity in hell, would you still believe?” (original)

There is also this one, which seems interesting in light of a previous debate about Children being born sinful or innocent:

You don’t have to believe you have been commanded from God to justify killing the young and unborn. Most born-again Christians believe that babies, unborn children, and the very young go to heaven if they die. (A few argue that you cannot know, but when pressed most Christians would have to say they can’t imagine any other fate for children too young to make moral choices). (original)

It seems the Doctrine of Original Sin (and being born sinful) is something still unresolved in Christianity. Oh well, they have only had the inviolate word of God for 2000 years to sort something out… 🙂

From the wonders of Pharyngula I came across this video clip, which is apparently a guy (P Funk) walking downtown being accosted by a couple of fundamentalist Christians. The guy makes some reasonable arguments, and lots of websites have him as “winning the fight” as it were – but you could argue either way.

The Fundies come up with the normal (stupid) arguments and the guy rebutts them pretty well. One which he fumbles (in my opinion of course) is in the last minute or so. The nutter says that once science claimed there were 9 planets in the Universe and look how many there are now. I think the guy lets the nut off pretty lightly but no one is perfect. 🙂

The main thing I find odd about this, is who took the footage? The camera work seems to be from one of the fundies – and if so, why? And why post it to YouTube? If the camera work was done by a friend of “P Funk,” why didn’t he help out and why isn’t there more footage of the nutters?

Anyway, take a look and you decide if it is real.

Philosophy, Christian, Nutcase, Religion, Fundamentalist, Atheist, Atheism, YouTube, Video, DV

A strangely quiet day on the blog front today – despite the constant level of theist, quack, nutcase posts floating around the blog sphere, I have been too busy (work and distance learning) to dedicate the required amount of time to it.

As always, a nice list of links is a good way to keep the posts going 🙂 so here are some more:

• Good old Dawkins remains popular as ever – as this Blog Post shows (Richard Dawkins, CNN Tonight 8PM EST)
• You can see the new Compuskills page in development.
• The “protopage” has been revamped a bit.
• There is a Free Stock Photography Magazine but I am not sure how legit it is.

Hopefully, more interesting posts will follow soon.

Tags: WhyDontYou, Links, Raves, Blogroll, Links

Fortunately I am not a daily mail reader so I was spared the latest fallacy riddled diatribe by Alistair McGrath (who has been mentioned here in the past). Even more fortunately the excellent Nullifidian Blog did endure the nonsense and wrote about it highlighting the (numerous) logical fallacies McGrath is employing.

Dawkins, McGrath and the Daily Mail

I would never go as far as suggesting reading the Daily Mail, but it may well be worth getting in touch (via email or whatever) to let them know what you think of the article.

Extra ironic comedy points are awarded to some of the comments currently on the newspaper’s site. The bog-standard appeals to false authority are very prevalent:

Dawkins’ view of the universe is very 3 dimentional. Surely a great mind rules nothing in and nothing out without proof. Einstein was fully aware of that argument. – Martin Hazelgrove, Bristol, UK

Yeah, and what exactly did Uncle Albert know about evolutionary biology or theology? Just because he was a fantastically gifted physicist doesn’t mean he has any greater authority on this topic than the next person. Might as well have said “My granny was fully aware of that argument” for all the value it provides.

The Cornish Catholic Church is on hand to present a variation on the appeal to fear, appeal to ridicule and the appeal from personal incredulity:

I’m all for removing our delusions and the ‘agnostics’ and ‘atheists’ have plenty. The big question is ultimate, adequate explanation of what we see around us. That has to be. Then to relate our lives to this explanation of explanations. Without this relationship we remain unfulilled and live with more and more delusions.– Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel Catholic Church, Cornwall

If you haven’t already done so – buy the book (The God Delusion…).

After scouring several blogs, both theist and atheist, I have come to the conclusion that there is a simple method of telling if your own ideas and beliefs are rational and sane, or off the wall and hatstand. It really is simple.

When you are thinking something, and we will use a theist belief for the example, try replacing words and see if make sense. For example:

God is omnipotent and guides me in all my actions

changes to

C3PO is omnipotent and guides me in all my actions.

If you think the sentence still makes sense, the idea may well be rational. If the changed word would invoke ridicule, then you may want to rethink a little.

Sending a response to one of the blog posts here by the contact form is not the easiest way to go about things, as it makes any ensuing debate a bit harder. That said, it is reasonable and we will try to respond as much as possible.Following a post made here (about why Christians don’t Get It), we had a response sent in over the contact form. Below the fold is the message in full with my return comments. The main reason I want to address these points is that there is the inference I have committed many logical fallacies, so I take it fairly seriously 🙂

Continue reading →

It looks like the post on “Misunderstanding Atheism” has made it to Digg.com. Thanks to whoever spotted it and dugg it. Please, feel free to add to the digs! 🙂

read more | digg story

It seems that people who are guided by their belief in an imaginary being often get confused over what Atheism means. Atheism is not not “just another form of belief” and it is not a religion. Remember, Dawkins, Harris, Myers (et al) are not the Prophets of Atheism. They are not Ministers of Atheism.

People who follow a religion, and let it guide their lives sometimes have difficulty coming to terms with the concept, but part of being an Atheist is making up your own mind. There is no doctrinal book which says what all Atheists must believe, or how they should behave. Atheism allows the human to make their own choices. While this should be common sense, it seems some people really can not grasp it (for example Debbie Schlussel is convinced all Atheists are Muslims or brainwashed).

It is not just the offensive and idiotic theists who make these mistakes as well. Otherwise normal, decent followers of various religions can, sometimes, get confused over the matter. Take this example:

At the end of the day, we all have faith in something. Even an atheist has a kind of faith; faith in the absence of any god. (The Sleepless Nights Reading File)

Now, sorry to say, but no. Not all Atheists have faith in the absence of any God (see above for why I do not speak for any Atheists other than myself though). My understanding of the word “faith” is it means a belief in something without any evidence. A quick visit to Google and I can’t find any better definition.

Given this, I feel fully confident when I say I do not have faith in the absence of any god.

I have mentioned in the past the problem of debating matters of faith with theists, and this is a good example. I can think of nothing that I “believe” which can not be falsified. Every concept and I idea I hold, I can think of a way in which it could be proven wrong and I would (reluctantly maybe) have to rethink. I suspect the majority of theists are similar to Andrew Sullivan, in that when it comes to their religious faith, not only will they hold it without any supporting evidence, they will hold it in the face of contradictory evidence.

Maybe this is why some people think of religion as a mental illness. If I went about my daily business, believing (for example) that Cars could talk to you and gave you guidance as to how to live your life, I wouldn’t spend long before I started sleeping in a padded cell. Is it a double standard that we allow people to make the same apparently insane commentary simply because they can claim their “religion” has lasted for a few centuries?

Well, we always seem to run out of blogging steam towards the end of the week, with a big push on Saturdays! If you were Debbie Schlussel you would probably jump to the conclusion this was because all Atheists had to attend Friday prayers at the local mosque. This so obviously is not the case.Anyway, this is a short and fast blog to let everyone know about a new addition to the links list here.

I was fortunate enough to come across a fantasic site:

Fundies say the darndest things!

And you really have to visit it to see what I mean. The best bit is the top 100 quotes, some are breathtakingly stupid and I don’t want to spoil your fun but here are some examples:

“No, everyone is born Christian. Only later in life do people choose to stray from Jesus and worship satan instead. Atheists have the greatest “cover” of all, they insist they believe in no god yet most polls done and the latest research indicates that they are actually a different sect of Muslims.”

“There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don’t know that much about it does not bother me in the least.”

“I often debate with evolutionists because I believe that they are narrow mindedly and dogmatically accepting evolution without questioning it. I don’t really care how God did what He did. I know He did it.”

Brilliant. It really is brilliant. To make things better, the quotes are linked to where they appeared. I am sure you can guess how many “MySpace” sites there are on the FSTDT site…. Typical really.

This really is a site worth visiting.

Wow. It is not often I stumble across a website of the truly insane. It is even less often that the insane person is a “media personality” who gets invited onto CNN and the like. (Well maybe it is often and I haven’t noticed… Do Americans like seeing the mentally impaired making fools of themselves on TV?) In this, I am not talking about the comedy nutters who make everyone laugh. This is someone who seems to me to be actually mad. I may be wrong – read on and decide for yourself

I mentioned the CNN programme a few days ago (Insanely Devout) in which a panel of idiots were asked about Atheism in the US. During the programme each of the panellists embarrassed themselves showing not only a lack of intelligence but a total lack of understanding about what atheism actually is. It seems that at least one of them felt that she hadn’t done enough to prove her mental state and needed to continue to blog about it.

Following a post on Pharyngula about Debbie Schlussel, and a following Digg picking up on the story, it appears Debbie Schlussel was subjected to a quantity of email from Atheists. I don’t know what these emails said, but Ms Schlussel claims it was offensive hate mail, so we will take her on face value. She did say things like:

I think that the real discrimination is atheists against Americans who are religious. Listen, we are a Christian nation. I’m not a Christian. I’m Jewish, but I recognize we’re a Christian country and freedom of religion doesn’t mean freedom from religion. And the problem is that, you have these atheists selectively I believe attacking Christianity. …I really believe that they are the ones who are the intolerant ones against Christians.

and

Look where there are more atheists and where they’ve lost God, where the church is not that strong. Europe is becoming Islamist. It’s fast falling and intolerance is increasing. That’s the one reason our country has not become like Europe because we have strong Christians and because atheists are not strong. And I think that’s a good thing.

Now we are not condoning hate mail at all, but this gives an idea where she is coming from.

Anyway, following the deluge of email, she felt the need to make a blog titled: “When Atheists a/k/a Future Muslims Attack.” Seriously. She appears to honestly think that all Atheists are going to convert to Islam. What planet is she on? part of me actually thinks she is just doing this for the attention and notoriety she will get from such madness (which is why I have avoided her name in the title and put “nofollow” on the link).

This blog post has some amazing lines of nonsense, so much so I am convinced she is either insane or making all this up. Some examples: (emphasis mine)

But it is entertaining and amusing. It’s hard to believe their letters because they were all attacking me for my appearance on CNN’s “Paula Zahn Now,” a week ago, but coincidentally each letter claims the sender just watched me on CNN. First of all, the video of that segment appears nowhere on the net. Believe me, if it did, I’d link to it. Secondly, since I appeared on the show a week ago, that all these “seminar” e-mailers are now all e-mailing me the same basic hate message, populated with a diversity of obscene insults, it’s easier to believe that they were easily brainwashed into sending me the missives as a result of an atheist blog that just put up an attack on me, yesterday.

This is about the Pharyngula blog post. She is obviously incapable of using the internet as a quick Google search finds it on YouTube. So, taking her at her word we should no longer believe her. Seems reasonable enough to me, as the rest of her post is just as much gibberish.

The second sentence she uses highlights how she is actually incapable of stringing a real sentence together. So many words, so little sense, you almost feel sorry for her. If she honestly believes Atheists are all easily brainwashed into believing anything, why aren’t they Christians? Is this more of her projectionism showing through? Was she easily brainwashed into believing the Christian doctrine, so she thinks everyone else is equally incapable of rational thought? Probably.

I don’t mind receiving the atheist hate mail, since I know that in a few years, many of these same people will either be Muslim extremists (redundant) or helping the country fall further in its fight against the creep of Islamic imposition on America . . . or both.

I really have no idea where she gets this from. First off, she obviously thinks all Muslims are extremists (projecting again?). I would love to know why she thinks (is think the right word?) all Atheists are going to become Muslims, but this next bit might give an insight:

Look at famous atheists and what happened to them. Adam Gadahn a/k/a Azzam Al-Amriki –now a top Al-Qaeda video “personality”–was raised by his hippie Jewish father and equally bizarre gentile mother as an atheist. And look how he turned out. Ditto for hippie-spawn John Walker Lindh.

See, it is easy if you have a different definition of the word “famous” than sane people, and more importantly you have a very different understanding of the word “atheist” than every one else. From this point, she turns her post into a rant against Islam (with a bit of Atheism thrown in):

Those two people are enemies of America, and many of those who think like them are of equally weak mind. If you don’t believe in anything, you’ll easily fall for virtual nothings. That’s why Europe is so quickly turning Islamist–because atheism dominates and Christianity is rapidly dying there. Over there, the number one cause for which atheists are suddenly finding “god” is Islam.

Over here, as I pointed out on CNN, atheists are on the attack against religion and G-d only when Christians and Jews are involved, not when Muslims and Islam are. A Christian prayer at a public school graduation or football game? Send in the ACLU lawyers. A Muslim prayer at a high school football game in Dearbornistan? Suddenly, when the “Religion of Peace” is involved, atheists boast extreme tolerance and display ultimate deference. No lawsuits. Ever. And the Muslim prayers continue.

So to you hate-filled atheists a/k/a future Muslim extremists (redundant), your e-mails have no effect on me. Ditto for your creative obscenities which don’t impress upon me the civility of the atheo-fascisti set.

Personally this is enough evidence she is insane. You may think differently. If there is any lingering doubt, how about this from another one of her posts:

[about arming pilots]Well, now the U.S. is asking foreign countries to allow pilots to carry guns in the cockpit when they fly overseas. Now, we’re makin’ progress.

Unfortunately, the wimpish, effeminate, and quickly-becoming-Islamic Sweden is resisting. Figures. Screw ’em.

One of the commenters, disagrees with her and writes:

The government wants our pilots to carry guns into EVERY country, not just countries that hate us. This is for good reason, because countries like Sweden do not have the precautions against terrorist like we do.

See, we will not let them carry guns on in-country flights because we are secure in our security precautions (and the fact that we have air marshals on most of our in-country flights but not on our international flights).

Now, I am not going to go into how “wrong” this person is (with the implication that the US is more secure in its airport controls than other countries), because there is a funnier side to this sub thread. This comment poster takes task with Debbie “Insane” Schussel accusing Sweden of becoming Islamic (as less than 0.5% of the population are Muslims) and this is the response:

ISLAM IS THE FASTEST GROWING RELIGION THERE AND THE NAME MOHAMMED IS THE MOST POPULAR BOY’S NAME IN SEVERAL BIG CITIES THERE. BUT I’M SURE ISLAM IS NOT GROWING QUICKLY THERE–IT’S ALL JUST MY IMAGINATION. DEBBIE SCHLUSSEL

Am I alone in thinking she is mad?

Often, there are calls for debate and discussion regarding belief and the concepts which underpin it. Mostly (online anyway) these seem to come from those who already hold to a belief and want to debate with those poor heathens who do not agree.

Now I think it is more than possible that some of the people making these calls are doing so for honest reasons, and actually want to have a debate. Sadly, I also think that most do not actually want a debate but, instead, seek to convert others. Shame on them.

In this, I am not talking about the fallacy of scientific debate, I mean things like the “blogwar” between Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan (which was mentioned yesterday). This happens on television and radio as well (especially on Radio 2 in the UK, during the lunchtime phone in show). It creates the impression in the observer that both parties are open to new ideas and are open minded enough that they are willing to listen to others and possibly become swayed by a new point of view.

In science, and in rational people, this is common. For a long period of time Newtonian gravity was believed to be the best model, but then along comes general relativity. For a long period of time people believed the Earth was the centre of the solar system (and indeed, the stars were part of “our” solar system) but then along came telescopes, mathematics, Copernicus, Tycho Brahe et al. Rational people accepted the new information and changed their world out look as a result of it.

There are always nutcases who ignore the new evidence and, normally, they are marginalised and laughed at. Flat Earthers, people who think the moon landing was a hoax etc., are not even given the respect of normal kooks (alternative medicine practitioners for example).

Oddly, this doesn’t happen if the irrationality is based on a Religious Belief. The assumption that a “religious belief” is due more respect than any other belief weighs hard with people and I think this alone will ensure any debate is meaningless. As soon as any points are made, the defence “it is my belief” becomes unsurmountable – even if the religious belief is based on as much evidence as Flat Earthers have (i.e. none). Even religious moderates, and people who profess to have minimal religious belief argue from a position on unshakeable conviction. Take this excerpt from Andrew Sullivan, where he is replying to a question in which Sam Harris asks what evidence it would take to make him give up his beliefs: (emphasis mine)

I have never doubted the existence of God. Never. My acceptance of God’s existence – of a force beyond everything and the source of everything – goes so far back in my consciousness and memory that I can neither recall “finding” this faith nor being taught it. So when I am asked to justify this belief, as you reasonably do, I am at a loss. At this layer of faith, the first critical layer, the layer that includes all religious people and many who call themselves spiritual rather than religious, I can offer no justification as such. I have just never experienced the ordeal of consciousness without it. It is the air I have always breathed. I meet atheists and am as baffled at their lack of faith – at this level – as you are at my attachment to it. When people ask me how I came to choose this faith, I can only say it chose me. I have no ability to stop believing. Crises in my life – death of loved ones, diagnosis with a fatal illness, emotional loss – have never shaken this faith. In fact, they have all strengthened it. I know of no “proof” that could dissuade me of this, since no “proof” ever persuaded me of it.

Now, in all fairness to Andrew Sullivan, this is the cornerstone of “belief” but it does make a mockery of any debate. In science a theory is “believed” to be true until some evidence is discovered to show that it is not. In belief, there is no need for evidence one way or another because people are indoctrinated from childhood to accept it as true. The idea that “faith chose [me]” is laughable. This is an otherwise intelligent, educated person creating a “supernatural” force to explain the fact that growing up in a Christian family, learning about Catholicism (in this case) pretty much from birth and the attendant “brainwashing” (for want of a better word) has created an unshakable faith in him. I am 100% sure that if he had grown up in a Pentecostal, Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, Jain (and so on) family he would be equally saying the “faith chose him” but it would be a different faith.

Now, even though I am an Atheist there are numerous ways in which any Deity could convince me of his or her existance. That does not mean I have “less” faith than a “believer,” it simply means I am rational. I have not been brainwashed. I am not insane. If Andrew Sullivan was talking about a teacup floating in orbit around the Sun, people would laugh at him. Because he is talking about the other invisible fantasy, people respect him

Is that not madness?