By: Fredric Rice To: Rick Mcfarlane Re: Testing the claim of deities rm> If God, (perhaps

Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

By: Fredric Rice To: Rick Mcfarlane Re: Testing the claim of deities rm> If God, (perhaps at Charlie's request) presented himself to you, rm> personally, for direct observation, how would you identify rm> Him as such? That presupposes a great deal, not the least of which that Charlie's deities would be the deities to put in an appearance. Since Christianity is extremely blasphemous, any 'creator' deity which existed would naturally be quite different than the tyranical ones depicted in the death cult's mythologies. But to answer your question, that should be quite simple: shoot the claimant, cut him into wafer-thin sections, feed the parts as dog food, then see if the claimant rebuilds itself out of multiply dispersed piles of dog shit. Now even that isn't enough. In India, as I'm sure you know, there are hundreds of people called (of course) "God Men" -- English translation. They peform wonders which we here in the West recognize are sleight-of-hand tricks which, as James Randi said of Uri Geller, "are the kind of tricks I used to read off the back of cereal boxes when I was a kid." The ignorant believe them to be gods as totally as any Christian believes in their gods. The reason why my test isn't enough is because how can I be certain that the person I shoot, slice-up, feed to dogs from which I collect the shit, is reanimated back into the individual who claims to be a deity? Under the control of the claimant, have I deluded myself into the belief that I had performed the test with tight, unasailable controls? 0-= The best answer for "how would you know a deity when you see it" should be obvious: Don't. There is no need to believe any real deity if he or she were to put in an appearance. Any real deity would not require belief. It would be absolute blasphemy to state belief in the very face of a deity in any event. No honest deity would require or expect worship, servitude, groveling, fear, resentment, hatred of others, hatred of self, or any one of a thousand things which most "monotheistic" religion believers wish to demand that they would. I want to restate that because it's important: ANY REAL DEITY WOULD NOT REQUIRE BELIEF. And why would no honest deity not require anything of its creation? Quite obviously because it could afford to. It would not be the egotistical, revengeful war gods of the past. Were the deities making the claim responsible for creation, creation itself would be indicitive of the deities' lack of needing any such public displays of piety towards it. One can hold the beauty of creation -- and the ugly -- in judgement and the deities responsible would know enough. This attitude (persistant non-belief even in the face of claims from a deity) are no different than persisting non-belief in the face of claims made by people who believe in deities. The attitude is intellectually and morally superior than believing the first man who practices sleight-of-hand convinceingly.


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank