Everyone is an atheist.

Everyone.

If you don't believe me, just ask yourself, "do I believe every single god that man has come up with over the ages?"

If you don't, you're atheistic with regards to those gods.

So I contend that everyone is at least a bit atheist (unless there's someone out there who DOES believe in every god ever invented).

Are you "rejecting" or "denying" the divinity of Zeus or Mithra by lacking a belief in them? Of course not.

Apply that insight to atheists' lack of belief in ANY gods, and the matter of "atheism is disbelief in god", where 'disbelief in god' is really code for 'rejection of my god that I really truly know exists, for reals!', may just be understood better by those having difficulty with the concept of weak atheism.

Because nothing can be absolutely proven or not proven in terms of divinity by current scientific methods.

I, for example, am an agnostic atheist - I have no knowledge of gods (since there is no evidence of any), and thus don't have any belief in them.

Nothing can be absolutely proven or not proven about Santa Claus by current scientific methods either. Would you therefore say "I neither believe nor disbelieve in Santa"?

Militant agnostic here. I don't know, and neither do you... :)

What does that make me?

At least every mystic I've met says what you said.

Just a quick scan, but I find that label very interesting. The closest label I've used for my "religion" is Deism, 'til now (gotta have a label, 'cause it's too hard trying to explain to people my beliefs). But there are many things about Deism that have nothing to do with my beliefs.

Mysticism, hmmm. Not to go into detail, but I think Deism just got kicked off the shelf.

So there.

That's what it makes you! :D

Very good, though. So are you saying that all interpretations of 'god' - all religions - are basically right and wrong at the same time?

Although who is to define right and wrong in this instance?

Maybe one of the religions hits the nail on the head.

The basic core purpose of religions is to get closer to a Supreme Being. The different core reasons for this purpose is what essentially separates them. Some worship to go to Heaven, some to become better spirits, some to achieve material wealth, some to get 70 virgins, etc.

As far as right and wrong, I meant in regards to how close to the truth (if there is any) about gods the religion is.

I'm of the opinion that, unless you believe in other gods in the same way their followers do, you're atheistic toward those gods.

In other words, since I don't believe in Jesus (not even convinced he existed, yet), I am atheistic toward the Christian god. Likewise, a Christian is atheistic with regards to Zeus, because s/he does not believe in Zeus in the way the ancients did.

Make sense? Or am I muddying the waters?

I don't NOT believe in other people's gods because I believe these gods are my god(s), just worshipped in a different way. Are they wrong in their form of worship? No - ANY form of worship is just one's chosen way of communicating with a higher being(s). It is not my place to judge, because my relationship with this higher being is personal, as is theirs.

My belief in a nutshell.

Hope this gets to you, 'cause I had to go yesterday, and I love this stuff!

I kind of like that philosophy. It doesn't work for me because I still don't believe there is a god, but at least it comes at the world from a viewpoint that appeals to me somewhat. The question I asked the other person is whether that/your viewpoint would allow for there being no god, but that the construct of god is just the "laws of nature." Not trying to be a shithead.

Because what I call "god" can be just about anything, including the laws of nature. This is difficult to explain, 'cause my "religious" belief has no real construct, it's just a sense of something out there that's bigger than me.

still have considered myself agnostic, I had a moment that shifted me to the view that it really is just nature.

My wife and I were white water rafting on the Colorado River north of Denver. We were on a slow stretch. Everyone was a little emotionally wiped out from the previous rapids, so nobody was talking at all. The guide was just letting us drift with the river. We came around a bend, and I saw absolutely the most beautiful sight I have ever seen. The mountains, trees, and river laid out in front of me were just perfect. I have never felt smaller in my life. I knew at that point that there was no god (had been going through the mental stuff before that and all). Nature was just nature and we were just an insignificant part of it. I was nothing compared to this beauty. And I felt good. I was fine with that. Even at the time I "knew" this should have been a "religious" moment that led me to god, but it wasn't.

I don't get why people get so upset that another person believes differently. It's as if their faith is just not strong enough to withstand another way of thinking. My belief is not harmed in any way by your belief. Your nature is my god.

"Trouble no one about their religion; respect others in their view, and demand that they respect yours." - Chief Tecumseh

Beautiful account, by the way. A majestic moment.:pals:

Thanks!

N/T

Who wants to join me?

:popcorn:

It was an honest-intentions post, silly. :)

:popcorn:

The Zhade character started the movie off by making an attempt to let theists know that we atheists aren't really that different than them; it is just a matter of degree to which we don't believe in gods.

The rising action seems to center around the conflict between Zhade and some theists that took offense to that notion. Not sure why. Guess they don't like thinking they are like atheists at all.

The normal "supervillans" of this movie series have not shown up yet, but I'm guessing they might.

Can I have a sip of your soda, this popcorn is really salty.

:popcorn:

:popcorn:

Not surprised by the people who object to even the notion of being even "part atheist"--they always show up in these flicks. I hope this won't be too cliched a film...I dislike cliches. ;)

It's Coke...Hope you don't mind. *offers soda*

:popcorn:

I'm guessing this is going to be another one that ends in a cliffhanger to be continued in another film (that looks a lot like this one).

Milk Dud?

:popcorn:

The plot is getting stagnant. I want to see Part 2 sometime. Go with me? :evilgrin:

Oh, thanks. :D Care for some less salty PC?

:popcorn:

You are a good partner for watching these things.

:D :P :D

I love them. They get literature, aren't afraid to talk about it, and can dish out the sarcasm right back at me. Any REAL English teacher's dream.

We smarties just are irrepressible. Make for an interesting teaching job.

;)

for every god (or God or Goddess) that has been talked about, worshipped, etc, is merely humankind's way of describing That which is Indescribable.

The Dances of Universal Peace honors all spiritual paths, and I have led and danced honoring Kali, the ancient Goddesses, Ram, Krishna, Shiva Buddha, Ahura Mazda, Elohim, Kiria, Allah, and Those Names that few know.

Yikes - I thought that Thuggee had been stamped out in the 1830s -?

No one. Because if God really is infinite and eternal, then belief in anything at all is belief in God.

I have never heard an argument like that before in my life. First of all in order to be lumped into that group you would have to know(or believe) god is eternal. If you dont accept that idea then how does believing in the trees, cars, people, pumpkin pie, etc. make you believe in god?

I happen to think it makes MORE sense, because I happen to believe that God is indeed eternal and infinite, and the same for everyone, although called by different (or no) names.

It makes as much sense--in my mind, none, but as much. Yet, it's considered insulting. Go figure.

Nice try, though, equating god with the universe. However, theists insist god has a personality and usually a penis and is minutely involved with their lives. That's what atheists don't buy.

are mistaken. Their error doesn't diminish God, however.

NT!

who doesn't buy it. All I'm saying is that if there is a God, "he" is all-inclusive, which means believer, non-believer and weird-believer are all part of the same Unity, despite what they may or may not think about it.

My own experience, study and longish life (I was an atheist myself in my 40s, which was a while ago) have convinced me that a "big God," beyond our efforts to define and explain "him," is where it's at.

Whatever that means, exactly.

except in people's belief systems that define and limit their god. By my understanding and belief, if there is an Infinite, it must contain everything. To have a "brand name" God is to exclude all the others.

The need to have corporeal or objective proof is understandable, of course, but it limits one's existence to a scientific one, rather than something more comprehensive.

I'm actually quite happy, and not limited just because I don't accept supernatural beings for which there is no proof.

But the thing is, you may be the one limiting the concept by using the singular. You never know - maybe there ARE lots of diffirent gods, if any. Just as plausible if there's one, anyway.

I think even philosphy or logic will hold that if something is infinite, it cannot also be finite.

Anyway, have a good day.

:hi:

...that there can't be multiple infinities? Infinite infinities, as it were?

do, if they start getting snotty. Then I start listing the names of all the gods I can remember from Norse, Roman, Greek, and Hindu mythologies that they don't believe in. It's the only way to get through to them that there is no active belief system involved in my atheism, just a lack of one.

Few people know I'm an atheist, though, it's just easier that way. I really don't like being testified at and I find most theological discussions exquisitely boring.

I tell my Christian friends I'll believe in any god they can produce. Since none has been able to do that, I'll just have to be content with living my life as a joyous and ethical nonbeliever.

Takes me no more then 5 minutes to make them realise that they have defined their entire existence on the basis of a circular argument(belief) that cannot exist in the natural world. A world their so called god/s created.. :P

You cannot be an atheist if you believe in a god/s. Its that simple.

It is sometimes claimed that the chief etymological problem in defining "atheism" is how to construe the prefix "a." Should we regard it as a term of privation meaning "without," or should we regard it as a term of negation meaning "no"? If we choose the privative meaning of "without," then "a-theism" will mean "without-theism" -- i.e., "without (or lacking) belief in a god or gods." This clearly supports the definition of atheism as the absence of theistic belief. What if we construe the prefix "a" negatively to mean "no"? This has been preferred by those who wish to define atheism as the outright denial of God's existence. But consider: even the negative sense of "a" doesn't, by itself, give us this definition. "A-theism," with the negative "a," translates into "no-belief in a god or gods." Here again, we have an essentially privative definition -- atheism as the absence of theistic belief.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/smithdef.htm

That's called begging the question - assuming atheists believe it is proven there is no god, so that believers can assert that atheists are 'denying god's existence'.

I don't 'deny god's existence' anymore than I 'deny' the existence of aliens. When I see conclusive objective evidence of either, then I'll form an opinion.

All I can say now is no evidence = no belief, NOT rejection.

The writer is showing that even if you use the "a" negatively, instead of positivly, it still doesn't mean the word denies the existence of a god/s.

a particular point to this? I mean, it's just sort of hanging out there. Where do you go with it. For the record, I deny your definition has any validity. But accepting it for the sake of argument, what does it mean in the broader cultural and/or religious context?

the last paragraph of the OP. Zhade is trying to shed some light on the atheists point of view and how it isn't COMPLETELY foreign to the theist's rejection of other gods than their own.

appreciate its beauty and wisdom and wit - right?

:toast:

There is a considerable difference between denying the existence of God, and disagreeing about what/who God is.

...anymore than anyone has ever proven any god exists.

OK.

By saying I'm "denying god's existence", you're asserting god exists.

You have no objective evidence for that. Claiming I'm denying, and saying I'm playing games, is just another way for you to assert your views are correct, and that god exists.

YOU'RE the one playing games, not me.

I have no more objective evidence than you do. That's true. However, our opinions are 180 degrees apart on this issue. You say there is no God, or god. Fine. You are an atheist. I assert the existence of a god. Hence, I am not an atheist. Neither is a Muslim, Hindu, Jew, Buddhist, pagan, etc. They may be wrong, in my opinion, or right in their opinions, or either in God's opinion. But they are not atheists. They just have a different idea of who or what God/gods/goddesses is/are.

You are on one side of the issue, we are on the other. YOu may be right. But because I deny the existence of, say, Allah, which I do, does not make me an atheist of any sort. An a-alla hist, maybe. But I do believe in a God.

Hence, your word games, drawing conclusions with no basis in reality.

FUCK!

Why do you insist on misrepresenting my words and thoughts?

I - do - not - believe - there - are - no - gods. I can't POSSIBLY know that, because I don't have all the knowledge in the universe. If I did, I'D be god.

I am not making the affirmative claim (which would have to be backed up by evidence) that there are no gods. I just don't believe in any because there's no evidence for them.

Are you really, truly unable to grasp the difference?

Christians, by definition, don't believe in Zeus.

Atheists, by definition, don't believe in Jesus.

Believers just accept as true one or more unproven gods than I do. That simple, and I'd hoped it would be clear from the OP that we're similar in our lack of belief in at least SOME gods.

But of course, now I'm "denying god's existence", so I guess some believers will refuse or be unable to see my point no matter how much I dumb it down.

Sigh.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'm sorry that my disagreeing with your post upsets you...but the premise is wrong...I think the term you were looking for actually is "henotheistic" ( saw someone else posted it downthread actually) which means that you acknowledge other gods but don't worship them.

Sorry, but I just think your post wrong and too simplistic.


I was actually commenting to the poster above me, not to you directly, but you somehow chose to be insulted.

No conspiracy- its very clear that a certain core of atheists have chosen to speak for the whole and have overtaken the R/T forum. I've been here since day one of DU. This is an observation, plain & simple.

As far as growing the fuck up, actually, thats pretty funny.

You think I have never been mischaracterized? How young are YOU?

...as to your green kitty...dude, whatever floats your boat is fine with me.

Just don't come in and expect everyone to believe or agree with the stuff you post and get mad when they don't.

Yes. We have finally won. The master plan has come to full fruition. We have overthrown the R/T forum. :silly:

On edit: I have no idea what that mouse was, it was supposed to be Stewie

Just don't come in and expect everyone to believe or agree with the stuff you post and get mad when they don't.

Fascinating. Truly.

You said: "I was actually commenting to the poster above me, not to you directly, but you somehow chose to be insulted."

immediately after saying: "the OP is tremendously flawed, presumptious....and basically just BS"

How can you 'innocently' claim that your comment about the OP should be ignored by the OPer?
I don't see evidence that Zhade was insulted as much as I see evidence that Zhade wanted to call you on your dubious statements.

I don't care for conspiracy theorists second-guessing my motives by intimating some sort of design behind the thread, related to the Atheist Agenda in this forum (of course, the fact that I HADN'T READ THIS FORUM FOR DAYS BEFORE POSTING THE OP invalidates the 'agenda' theory).

But yes, the post from DR is dishonest.

Are we free agents or working for the ZOG?

Think its possible you guys are getting a little too into this whole "you insulted me" thing?

Again, I did not call his memory or his integrity into question...did I? Why attack me?....why the need to bring my integrity or memory into this conversation at all? Because you have no other argument?

I am not "innocently claiming" anything. I shared my opinion on his post. I don't agree with the premise of his post and he clearly doesn't agree with my opinion. Why all the fuss?

Please show me these socalled "dubious statements".

I shared an observation that a certain core of atheists have chosen to speak for the whole and have overtaken the R/T forum. An observation, plain & simple.I have not been the only one to notice this or mention it.

Seems to me all this outrage is a bit over the top. You need a thick skin to post in R/T is what I have been told...perhaps it bears repeating.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

This thought struck me a few days ago, too.

you post something in an open forum and somebody questions it does not make THEM evangelical.

Yes, the OP is an atheist. You have every right to respond and contradict the post. That does not make YOU and evangelist in that instance either. But you were whining about atheist evangelicals. So starting a thread in this forum makes you evangelical? Seriously?

when there are so many of "you" all saying the same thing...starting threads about the joys ,wonder and advantages of being an atheist...trying to tell us we are atheists or what we believe...then, yes, you can be considered at the least "evangelicals" or even fundys.


See...it isn't as much the individual thing...its the group thing. Kinda like the way many atheists seem to figure that if we don't believe as you, we are a pathetically ignorant bunch of true believers...irrational thinkers...sky gods..and all that. You know the terms you use in your own forums.

So seriously, one thread, no. But when the top 15 or so threads aare all about atheism in one form or another, then YES.

:shrug:

There are probably only about 6 really vocal atheists. If you haven't been reading some of the top 15 threads, there are even other atheists pissed off at the 6 of us for being vocal.

You know you can post, too, right. It is that icon at the top that looks like a pencil. Make your voice heard if you don't like the way this forum is going. Post away. Nobody is stopping you. DU seems to pretty much be a free marketplace of ideas.

Oh, and stop posting on the evil atheist threads if you hate them so much. The other thing about a free marketplace is that if nobody likes something, it will sink like a rock.

But what is your alternative? We should just shut up? We should just go to the back of the bus and stop saying what it is that we think? Stop "offending" your sensibilities?

I would argue that there needs to be a belief system to "evangelize" in order to actually be an evangelist. Atheism is not a belief system. It is a lack of one. How would one evangelize nothing?

I evangelize all the time, then, I guess.

1 isn't evangelism but 15 is?

See Rosy, things aren't that simple for us.

On DU, there can be many threads about something without it being evangelism.


I know it's hard to believe, but trust me, it's all part of that whole rational thingy.


You really should read the op, btw, you might learn something.

How much can an atheist talk about religion and/or atheism before they cross your arbitrary line and become "evangelical" about it?

For lack of a better definition right now, I'm going to go with M-W's #5: evangelical being "marked by militant or crusading zeal."

Can they reply to a thread stating that Christians are under attack because a person was forced to take down their Easter display?

Can they START a thread? Is that OK?

At what point do you think an atheist starts to show "militant or crusading zeal"?

Militant atheist is defined as when an atheist opens their mouth.

"I rather think for a lot of people"
:evilgrin:

(Sorry couldn't resist.)

Militant atheist is when one has the need to insult and act smugly selfrighteous when interacting with those who think differently, unable to respect that others may have come to their beliefs in their own way and that they are just as valid as yours.

(And yes you can substitute "whatever" for "atheist")

where, in the OP, there was an "insult" or an incident of "acting smugly", or even an example of not thinking that other beliefs are valid?

It's an assumption on DR's part, made to bolster her allegation.

But I insulted no one, as can be plainly seen.

But especially when they ask not to have other people's religion forced upon them via proselytization, the legal system, the school system, public venues funded by their tax dollars and the like.

An evangelical atheist is one who makes posts with the specific objective of convincing other people to become atheists. That's what evangelising *is* (although my understanding is that it's not what Evangelical means when applied to Christians, confusingly).

"Military or crusading zeal" is a bit more nebulous, but there are clearly quite a lot of atheists who post in this forum regularly who possess it in spades. I don't think it's a sine qua non for being evangelical, though (except possibly in the Christian sense of the word).

thought of it that way, but on consideration, you may be on to something.:)

I believe every single god that people have believed in is another image of God. God is seen differently by different people, and through the years, different ideas have grown up. It's all the one, though, in the end.

I don't have any problem understanding atheism. Why is it you feel so terribly misunderstood?

You know, being told I belive there are no gods, which implies that I think it has been conclusively proven there are no gods.

Of course, that's ridiculous, since in order to be able to know all knowledge in existence to be able to prove there are no gods would make one a god!

Things like that tend to irritate me. No one likes being called a liar, even if the word isn't specifically used.

And it's not a "try". It's an honest thread. I wish people would also stop second-guessing my fucking motives. The whole point is that, unless you believe in all gods AS THEY ARE DESCRIBED BY THEIR BELIEVERS, you are atheistic with regards to those believers' gods.

The whole "all are shades of the One" thing is nice, but it doesn't really address that point.

well I don't think you're a liar.

Our philosophies obviously don't mesh, but that's ok. You don't belittle mine or try to create a dandy box for them to fit in, and I'll return the favor, you know?

And I do think I addressed the point. But it's really not something worth arguing about, you know?

You are absolutely free to define and describe atheism in whatever way you please. No skin off my nose. But just as others' telling you what you do and don't believe is annoying to you, the reverse is also true.

I'm not an atheist. I firmly believe there is a God. I also firmly believe that said God is far too large a concept, a being, for mere human brains to contain. I think humans have been struggling to understand that God throughout all history, and accordingly have come up with different ideas, images, beliefs about, etc. That's sort of outside the God, you know? That's about humanity.

So no, I'm not an atheist. And I don't understand why you feel the need to prove it so somehow. As much as you're looking for respect, that seems pretty disrespectful to me.

You cannot prove God doesn't exist any more than I can prove God does. It's not a question of prove, but one of belief. To me, that means we're both equally legitimate in our choice and both choices ought to be respected.

it's late in the thread, but I am a bit confused about something. If you acknowledge that it has not been "conclusively proven there are no gods" would you not be categorized as an agnostic, then?

Gnostic/Agnostic deals with what you know or don't know
Theism/Atheism deals with what you believe or don't believe

Most atheists are agnostic atheists, in that they don't believe but don't know that there is no god. Another term for these people is 'weak atheist'.

Some atheists are gnostic atheists in that they assert that there is no god; i.e. they both believe and *know* there is no god. As such, these people are sometimes called 'strong atheists'.

Of course, there are gnostic and agnostic theists too.

BTW: In my experience most atheists don't like the strong and weak designations, and there are quite a few people who prefer the term agnostic to atheist. Here's what Austin Cline at Atheism.About.Com says on the subject:
http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm

I should use this as an opportunity for a plug too. Austin will be hosting next week's edition of Carnival of the Liberals. Since DU has its' journals now, this would be a good time for lots of DUers to make their first foray into the blog carnival world. Deadline is Monday, March 27th at 6PM EST. Full details can be found here: http://carnivaloftheliberals.com/topics/administrivia/2006/03/23/that-old-tyme-liberal-carnivaling-callout

that is so simple it hurts. And I'm embarassed I didn't know that.

Thanks for explaining.

Not everyone is as pedantic about their disbelief as some of us DU atheists. :-)

It's not that we funamentalists don't believe in them, we just don't believe they're gods.

Aren't you glad I set you straight?

You're welcome.

(that was all sarcasm, btw).

Devlish optical illusions?

Hell, even the bible says there are other gods - "thou shalt have no other gods before me" and all that - so technically (trinity aside) Christianity isn't really monotheistic, except in regards to worship.

(Religion = headexplode for me. Too much detrius to wade through for too little nebulous, possibly-all-made-up reward. But people are free to engage in the mental gymnastics if they wish, I won't stop them!)

the negative reaction this thread has provoked. Seems to be very irrational. But then again, some people probably view being called an athiest as some others might view being called gay.

As for your post, I would have to agree 100%. Personally, I don't buy the argument that all gods are representations of the same idea. I do believe in a "Universal Spirit" but I don't think humans can even come close to describing how great and wonderful it is. Man's gods are often the exact opposite of this concept.

...or whathaveyou, my point was that, unless you believe in those gods as they are believed in by their followers, you are atheistic with regards to their gods.

As far as negative reaction - some of them are the usual suspects, who just like to piss on us, and as for the others, I don't know - but I think your comparison to being called gay might be spot on, and it shows how some people really feel about atheists.

And the worst part of THAT, if I'm right, is that this thread was intended to reduce division between atheist and believer, not increase it!

The anger towards me for putting forth this premise really hurts, because I THOUGHT I was trying to make a reasonable point.

I thought it was extremely reasonable, anyways. :pals:

speaking for myself only, and no one else:

We don't see ourselves as atheists. At best, we see ourselves as agnostic towards other's concepts of God, or have an inclusive notion that shares many or all concepts of God.

My own concept in God has been reflected by several other noters here, but we are talking past you. You don't get what we are saying, I don't think, or don't care because it doesn't fit your definition.

And, just for myself, I don't see what the point of this argument is. This concept of "we are all atheists" is like the "babies are born atheists" conceit. It has, as far as I can see, no functional purpose. It doesn't make me feel closer to atheists, it is just a red herring, an irrelevancy to my beliefs and outlook. It is a statement without value, whose premise I don't agree with.

Part of the problem that I have talking to some atheists here is that their concept of God is so limited, in my opinion. They attack this limited idea that I and others here don't defend in the first place, and then try to confine us within their definition of God. Sorry, it won't work.

just to drive the point home, I will be calling you a "semi-atheist" every time you tell me or another atheist that we have a belief system in god. You should have no problem with me doing that.

I think it is disingenuous to call yourself "agnostic" to other gods. I don't believe that you read Greek mythology and say "Hey, I believe that may have happened." I think that you read Greek mythology and think it is a good story, with a good moral, and helped the Greeks to explain the world around them. That is what I think about Christianity. You don't think Zeus really did those things that are in the mythology. Or Hercules. Or Hermes. Or any of the more "godly" things they did. They are good stories to let us think that there is something out there greater than we are that is watching over us. That is what I think about Christian mythology. The OP was an attempt to point that out to you.

I don't think you are "talking past" us; I don't think you took the time to get past your initial "offense" at being referred to as somewhat atheist to really consider what was being said.

I am not a semi-atheist.

But, really, your attempts to label me or define my beliefs for me interest me not the slightest little bit.

goblinmonger:
" don't think you are "talking past" us; I don't think you took the time to get past your initial "offense" at being referred to as somewhat atheist to really consider what was being said."

No, I understood it the first time I read it, I am not particularly offended, the OP is just wrong. Basically, he is setting up a straw man to knock down. Whatever.

You say you aren't. You explain why you aren't. You seem genuine in your statement that you aren't.

But you are.

Semi-atheist kwassa!!!

Now imagine someone has said that to you 100 times. Still going to be fine with it?

and it seems deliberate to me, so I'm done.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I don't get it either. I thought it started with the best of intentions - a great way to try and help others understand where atheists are coming from.

Thats the thing. This thread is a completely benign post. It makes logical sense, and insults no one. If you don't believe in Zeus, you are an ATHEIST, at least partially, because of that. If a benign post like this gets people offended, then WHAT THE BLOODY FUCK CAN WE FUCKING TALK ABOUT IN THIS FUCKING FORUM. Seriously, whats the point? Is religion something we can't talk about? Do I have to walk on eggshells.

I generally do enjoy argument. I enjoy debate. I realize I go too far sometimes, but I've never said something they I didn't think was worth saying. I even understand when people get upset when things get heated. What I don't understand is this whole point of this forum if it isn't for this expressed purpose. Why don't we just close it down, then the christians can go to their forum, atheists to theirs and pagans or whatever to theirs and have a big circle-jerk amongst are own kind. Whats the point of this?

And why is it an insult to be called an atheist? Is it because we're evil? Is that it? Even thought everything the OP said was completely true?

doing so insists on labelling those who disagree with your viewpoint, while claiming that they do that to you.

You may call yourself anything you please. You may define your own beliefs or lack of beliefs in any way you choose -- that's all fine by me.

You should not claim to call me something or define me. I'll handle that myself, thanks.

Why is that so hard to understand?

There is absolutely no way to have a meaningful discussion if the terms always circle back to some weird sort of evangelical atheism. I am not an atheist. That doesn't mean atheists are bad or good, it only means that is not what I am.

If you'd like to discuss the topic civilly, I'm sure many here would be willing. But you don't get to be the only one to set the terms, and you don't get to box me or my beliefs in to suit your own.

After a million snarky posts telling us the definition of atheism as "not believing in a deity", that a atheist is to belief as a bald man is to hair, that atheists don't believe in ANYTHING, we have a sliding scale, where a monotheist is almost an atheist.

In some threads, the very concept that an atheist shares something with a believer is an insult. In this thread, it's demanded that believers share something with atheists.

And in each, there's an inabilty to do anything but agree or face outrage.

I certainly would not define for someone else what atheism is. In fact, I'd guess that it might be something different to different people calling themselves by that name. Certainly not for me to decide.

So I got pretty riled being defined myself. I do think it's a shame if that's happening on both sides of this far-ranging discussion, because I think it can be avoided, with a little consideration.

I saw this thread earlier in the day but didn't read it because this is a common argument. Reading the thread now I'm rather amazed at the reaction.

As far as I know this quote is attributed to a tagline used by Stephen F. Roberts prior to 1995 on Usenet's talk.atheism and alt.atheism newsgroups.
http://freelink.wildlink.com/quote_history.htm


The meaning of atheist is simply without belief in god or gods. Everyone, absolutely everyone, is lacking belief in some number of gods (unless you believe in all gods). With respect to those gods that you do not believe in, you are an atheist -- without belief in a god or gods. The degree to which anyone finds such a thought offensive is, I think, indicative of the degree to which they are uncomfortable with the concept of atheism as a whole. In other words, if you find this thought offensive then to some degree you are bigoted against atheists. But then the U. of MN. survey told us the degree to which atheists are stereotyped in the U.S.
http://www.ur.umn.edu/FMPro?-db=releases&-lay=web&-format=umnnewsreleases/releasesdetail.html&ID=2816&-Find

Some people believe in one god as the one source and power over all existence, who "abounds everywhere and dwells in everything". Some people believe in separate gods, a god for each thing.... a god for trees, a god for a city, middle management gods and higher level gods.

It's like a picture puzzle. You can have the pieces assembled into one picture or the pieces spread out individually all over the table. It's all the same thing. It's just a matter of whether you see the one as many, or the many as one.

let me ask you straight out. And you have to give me a yes or no. No maybes.

DO YOU BELIEVE IN ZEUS OF OLYMPUS (Y/N)

Evoman

I would put myself in the category of belief that "the many are one" and There is one source and power in existence.

Others believe that each thing has it's own god. The ancient Greeks were sort of in that category and had a god for each thing they found important. But all those separate gods taken together would add up to a one-source god.

So, the question should not be "do you believe in Zeus" but rather,"do you believe each physical entity and human activity has it's own god, of which Zeus would be an example or one of those gods". Those qualities that the ancient Greeks identified and named "Zeus" are incorporated into what I would identify as One Source.

So Zeus came down as a goat, impregnated humans. We have winter because the silly girl ate some pomegranate seeds. Some flowers are in existence because that guy just thought he was so damn beautiful he couldn't move away from the water.

You are fine with ALL of that?

I don't take that literally any more than I take the stories of the old Hebrew bible literally.

You are conflating the deeds, alleged by humans to have been done by these gods, with the belief that the god exists.

You are making the assumption that to believe there is god, then it is necessary to believe what people have said that god is like and what that god has done.

You may also be making the assumption that to believe there is god means to also believe there is a heaven or afterlife of some sort.

You may also be making the assumption that human rationality is a very high-level form of thinking and perception. (i.e. if we can not imagine and figure out rationally, what something is like and describe it, then it doesn't exist.)

Before Christianity was spread all over the place, for the most part, each tribe or nation had its own god or gods. As a result, there were a whole bunch of gods, including Zeus. That made sense because you wouldn't want to assume you had the same god as the next tribe, whom you might be at odds with. It makes sense that people would believe their nation had its own god. That's different than believing the stories of what that god is alleged to have done.

The ancient Jews are said to have come up with the idea that there is only one god, and that god is the one source of all things. (Although I have seen that idea attributed to the Egyptians.)

But what it amounts to, is that some people see one source for all things and some people see that one source divided up into separate entities. It's all the same thing.

Not being sarcastic.

So there is the distinct possibility, within that philosophy, that there is actually no god but that the "one source for all things" are just the "laws of nature." No?

Again, not being sarcastic.

Well, I sort of think the "laws of nature" may be the visible attributes of a one-source god.

More importantly, I believe atheists and agnostics should have the same and equal rights with any and all religions. Your thinking is reasonable, I just don't agree with it.

I like the court decision on the Boy Scouts. (Boy Scouts can either consider themselves a "private" org and discriminate against whomever they want and not be able to use public facilities for free, or they can be a public org and NOT discriminate against atheists, gays or anyone else and they can use public facilities for free.) I am against government "faith-based" funding.

Although it is said that you "cannot prove a negative", there is a sort of "negative proof". (i.e, you lost your car keys, you have looked inside 90% of your house and have not found the keys. It is logical for you to say "the keys are not inside my house.) I don't personally feel atheists have provided the "negative proof" that there is no god.

I do though, respect your opinion and feelings about the subject. I also appreciate atheists taking on orgs and government in the courts on the matter. I also appreciated the discussion! I am a fairly religious Jew. (Keep in mind that Jews don't proselytize.)

by a RABID catholic. My mom told me as I was growing up that you (read: the Jews) had horns on your head and that is why you wore those hats. Seriously. I shit you not. You also killed my mom's lord. Shame on you.

I have since entered into the land of reality and have found that most of the Jewish people I know who are actively religious are very logical and have thought things out quite well. I usually have very good discussions about a variety of things. Something I wish the Christian religions would adopt, but most of Christianity (not all for those of you reading over my shoulder in this discussion) is based on having the followers NOT think for themselves. Those are the religions that I really fear.

I think that you and I are just at different ends of the yin and yang of this. You think the natural laws are a reflection of god and I think that god is a reflection of the natural laws--if that makes any sense at all. I have no problem with that.

I would suggest, though, that most atheists don't see it as our burden to provide the "negative proof" for which you speak. First of all, I would indicate that it is a fallacy to ask us to provide that. Secondly, I tend to take a statistical bent on this. To me, it seems that there being no god would be the null hypothesis. If you want to argue that there is something, you would need to provide the proof. That is true of god, elephants, deserts, snow, anything. A tribesman from the desert of Africa may not believe me if I told him there was something called snow. I would not ask him to prove that there isn't. I would have to try and find a way to prove that there is. Hope that makes some sense as to how I view the world.

"I think that you and I are just at different ends of the yin and yang of this. You think the natural laws are a reflection of god and I think that god is a reflection of the natural laws--if that makes any sense at all. I have no problem with that."

I will agree with that. That is well-said!

Being of Jewish faith is not so much about belief, as it is more about what you do in your daily life and how you do it. We have a whole list of those dos and don'ts. (613 of them, to be exact) Not all of them are possible in this day and age and some Jews are far more observant of them than others.

My own (strictly personal) belief is that human rationality is not a particularly high form of intelligence. There may well be things that we cannot perceive.

The discussion has been a true pleasure! Thank you!

Since a lot of us atheists don't assert that it is proven there are no gods, I think we're in the clear on that one.

I thought the position that it is unknown whether there is or isn't a god, was considered "agnosticism". So, going by your definition, what is an atheist and what is an agnostic?

Keep in mind that I don't intend to contest those definitions ... I'm just asking.

I don't have any knolwedge of gods (since there has never been objective evidence for any), therefore I don't believe in them.

I DON'T, however, believe there is evidence that proves there are no gods. So much info in the universe, and we know only so much, so...yeah.

It's essentially a null position, with the option of believing in god should there ever be convincing objective evidence of such. Hope that helps!

In the case of a Christian (e.g.), as they do not believe in the gods of Olympus, and by definition believe only in their god (Yaweh), do you agree that s/he is atheist with regard to Zeus et al?

(Not talking about the "all are One" concept, since Christians by and large do not subscribe to that notion.)

Around 50 years after the death of Jesus, whom the Romans crucified slong with a couple of hundred thousand other Jews at various times, (crucifixion was the Romans' favorite form of execution for rebellious Jews), Paul wanted to make a new religion and as part of that, he created the concept of the divinity of Jesus. Paul apparently wanted his new religion to increase in numbers and he looked to Greeks and Romans for converts.

Paul innovated other ideas to make his new religion of Christianity, different than his former Jewish religion .....such as not observing kashrut and a few other things. (It's pretty hard to attract non-Jewish converts to your new religion if they are going to have to follow a lot of food restrictions and get circumcised.)

Jesus, who was a Jewish man, a patriot son of ancient Israel, an itinerant preacher, and probably a Pharisee (based on what he said being pretty much the same as the Pharisees), .... was made over by Paul and the early Christians in the guise of a Greek or Roman god, as Greeks and Romans were the folk, whom Paul wanted to proselytize.

So, I would say that the concept of Zeus was incorporated into the Christian concept of Jesus. But that is categorically different than what I said about "the many are one" or the "one is many".

I don't find they do, mostly - and in the rejection fo that knowledge, and the acceptance of Paul's version, don't they still believe in one god and not others as they understand them to have been worshipped?

I have no problem recognizing that, and if I posted the thread today, I would say "Anyone who believes in one specific chosen belief system, such as Christianity or Islam, are atheist toward all other gods".

See, I can admit to making an error. What I can't fathom is the sheer anger from some at the mere thought of being associated in any way with atheism, when they (if of a specific religion) fit the argument I made in the OP. It says a lot about how they really feel toward atheists.

I think some of the wailing from theists is carry-over from past lost arguments and their inability to bow our heads to their beliefs. Oh fucking well.

I tip my hat to all here who DIDN'T question my motives, assume an atheist R&T conspiracy, and actually considered the OP, flawed though it may be.

and I don't have any negative feelings about atheists. As I already posted, I rather appreciate their efforts to keep our so-called "government" from enforcing a specific religion or any religion at all on us.

NT!

I can't say I've seen much of that here, either -- at least coming from believers.

The problem, once again, is that you -- perhaps unwittingly -- did something that was offensive: you attempted to box us in, define us according to your own terms.

I've seen plenty of people get quite upset when the same was done to them, you know?

There's a lack of respect in that, and THAT, I'd say is what makes people upset.

If you want to understand the other side, you've got to let go of your own firmly held beliefs long enough to see things from their side. That means looking at people with faith in a supreme being without disdain or disrespect -- wondering honestly why they came to the conclusions they did. You'll continue to disagree, but you'll probably learn something, either about them, yourself, or human nature, in the process.

And, IIRC, no one on this thread believes in (e.g.) Zeus and Mithra as their followers believed in them, so my point wasn't boxing anyone in - it's a fact that if one does not believe in the divinity or existence of said examples, they are atheist with regards to those examples...even in the case of 'every god is part of the whole' posters, because they are not believing in those gods as their followers declared those gods to be.

In fact, I'd go a little further, and say that liberal Christians, for instance, are atheist with regards to Falwell's god - I've heard countless times "I don't believe in his god" from liberal believers, and that again is a form of atheism.

If people take offense at that, they're showing THEIR disdain and disrespect for the null hypothesis that is (weak, non-affirmative) atheism. Atheism is not evil or arrogant or anything. It just is a lack of belief in gods (with the exception of strong atheism, which is an unsupported by evidence as the alleged existence of gods).

caught in language tangles, with a good-sized dollop of this forum's tone...

It sounded to me as if you were attempting to bend us to your way of thinking. I see now that probably wasn't your intent -- but misunderstandings happen, and there's just some language that is simply freighted now, you know?

Try "was in no way my intent, or even the outcome".

This was a simple matter of definitions, not trying to force a view on anyone. Atheism is what atheism is, and it applies even to believers if they reject even one other believer's god(s).

Hope I've been able to clear it up a bit.

Why does Zhade bother?

Why, for that matter, do any of us bother?

Any time we present, in the most benign of ways, simple facts or comments we get smeared in the most pompous and snide ways by the usual suspects.

Yet they constantly clamor that the atheists are always on the attack. :eyes:

I think a lot of us are hoping to show believers that atheists are just like they are except we don't believe in god(s). And certainly I think we do more harm by remaining silent than speaking up. So we keep throwing the same old basic concepts out there hoping that people eventually catch on.

We're mean, nasty bullies who want nothing more than to take away their Bibles, burn down their churches and kill every last person who dares to wear a cross in public. It's the "War on Christianity" don't you know? :sarcasm:



Do excuse me, I'm feeling a little frustrated right now. :mad:

These are terribly frustrating times. I get that way at least once a week myself.

Right about now I'd like a nice drink, :beer: but alas, I am on duty.

Perhaps I'll just put on some nice music instead.

....*ahem*...(if I may offer a suggestion, check out the link in my sig) ;)

He used to BE on of the "usual suspects". He was rude, arrogant, and dismissive of atheists because of his religion (he's said as much, IIRC, so I'm not slamming him).

But he changed. How? By being secure enough in himself to actually listen to what we were saying, instead of defensively raising his hackles and getting into a pissing match with us over who would define our beliefs.

I am extraordinarily proud of that young man for his growth. He's a shining example of a liberal believer, and one of the reasons I still bother to post my thoughts.

(Plus, if the bigots and assholes here think they're going to drive me away or get me banned, they're deluding themselves. After all, I'M not the one who's gotten banned from other DU forums.)

that when there are whole threads dedicated to the flying spagetti monster, tolerance isn't apparent. I know that is not your post here and isn't even your post out there, but I don't think an entire thread dedicated to mocking others beliefs will allow anyone to grow. I completely respect your views and I think you have presented a reasonable theory. I am of the belief that we have a creator, but I have no idea what the hell he/she/it looks like or expects of me or even if this god expects anything out of me at all. It may sound ridiculous to some, but I just can't wrap my mind around the theory that we just are. Just like you, I'd love some proof either way. I haven't been here (on DU) that long and I have only recently looked at this forum. I have to say when I come across threads that bear no use other than mocking those of us who do believe, it is a real turnoff.

If you don'tyou're atheistic with regards to those gods.

Nope. You're henotheistic, not atheistic.

I don't think you are right in all cases. Most Christian religions deny the existence of other gods. I think there is something about that in the 10 commandments. Right near the top.

"... And let all the gods worship him." Deut. 32:43 Dead Sea Scrolls

" ... Worship him, all you gods." Ps. 97:7b NKJV

While the New Testatment as seen by Christains has the term "God" in three distinct manners, the belief is that is only one true God by "nature".

Indeed the progressive Christain agrees with the conservative Christain in seeing what are called "other gods" as a category of false deities - but who can also be seen as messengers acting in the place of God as his mouthpiece and representative.

The R/T forum is not about to replace a seminary, and posts in the forum do not replace years of study and reflection, but please allow me to agree with you that "Most Christian religions deny the existence of other gods", while at the same time I do not not posted 25 pages on why I agree with you on this point!

:-)

We gotta stop meeting like this :P

There are religions that may accept the deity of other gods without worshipping them, but Christianity ain't one of them.

:toast:

but they call them demons. Franklin Graham is perhaps the most obvious, in re his comments about Allah. Then there are the Christians who turned the gods of the lands they proseltetyzed into saints. Brigid comes to mind. They may not worship those "other" gods, but they certainly believe they exist. (And Lucifer's a whole other can o' worms. The relative power that some Christians seem to bestow on him raises the question of whether he's in fact seen as a god, albeit unofficially.)

The OT is essentially henotheistic. For instance, that Commandment up close to the top of the ten says, "You shall not worship any other gods before me." Not besides me--before me. Yahweh comes first, but allows for poor relations. In the Genesis story, he decrees that Adam and Eve should be thrown out of the Garden lest they eat of the Tree of Life and "become as we are." Now, who's this "we," Kemosabe, unless the writer of the creation story believed in the existence of multiple gods? And on, and on.

Whether it's acknowledged or not,polytheism/henotheism is deeply ingrained in the substrate of Chritianity. Medieval Catholicism dealt with its deeply frightening vision of an angry Christ and an even angrier Father by restoring the Great Goddess in the person of Mary, "to whom her Son can refuse nothing." The Protestant Reformation reacted violently against her, but wound up raising Satan to equal or near-equal stature with Christ. So yes, officially Christianity may not be henotheist. Scratch the surface, though, and there are some very ancient Names to whom honor is given.

You're misunderstanding what henotheism is.
On the occasion that one says "that other god does not exist" while holding a belief in their own god, they are not being henotheistic. They are being atheistic in regards to that other god especially if that other god is part of a separate theology.

...that my OP was based on a partially-flawed premise. As explained above, I can accept that, and would modify the OP if I had it to do over again.

In a way, though, I like that the true colors of some here were revealed. It makes it worth the pain of the thread.

If s/he's not, though, the assertion of henotheism is valid. Now, there are true monotheists in many religions, including Christianity, Hinduism, and especially in Judaism and Islam. The latter two, though, are the only ones I'd call structurally monotheist; and of those two, only Islam is historically strictly monotheist.

It is not true that all pantheists are henotheists.

All monotheists are atheist in regards to all other gods but their own.

Fundamentalist Christians believe that they are wrong and some believe that people of other religions are going to hell but they don't consider them atheists. Some think more of athesists because they think that other religions are worshipping demons or other entities who are enemies of God. Others think more of people with other religions because they are open to worshipping a god and believing in the spiritual realm.
I personally believe in God. Although I have a religion and a personal theology that isn't exactly an organizeed religion's theology, I agree more or less with the other posters that believe that different religions just interrpret the same deity differently.

I wasn't saying that people of a specific religion call others of another religon atheists, but that people of any chosen religion (e.g., Christianity) are atheist with regards to the gods of other religions.

They agree that most deities don't exist and disagree about only one of them.

So we really have much more in common than one might think. ;)

You get it.

Meanwhile, the dictatorship marches on...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2185459

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Yes, I am rejecting and denying that either Zeus or Mithra is divine.

Thanks for finally being useful!

What you are saying is like this:

I say: "I don't like to eat pickled pigs feet."

You say: "So you are vegetarian with regard to pickled pigs feet."

I say: "Huh?"


It is also like this:

I say: "I don't like to wear white suits like they wore on Miami Vice."

You say: "So you are a nudist with regard to white suits like they wore on Miami Vice."

I say: "Huh?"

That's atheism - a lack of belief in gods, in this case, those two.

doesn't mean I am a "nudist with regard to Miami Vice suits."

In exactly the same way,

Just because I don't believe in the divinity of Zeus or Mithra, doesn't mean I am an "atheist with regard to Zeus and Mithra."

If you don't, you're atheist with regards to them.

As in it's okay to kill people if god tells you to. :scared:


And atheists have their morals questioned?:eyes:

It's not like his stance is a surprise.

His contiuning to be allowed here is, kinda.

My hometown newspaper (back when it was worth something-before Gannett bought it) used to print L'sTTE
from militia types and fundamentalists.

My dad says it was because it's better to know what's out there.

But they sure aren't divine. That was the question - whether I believe in the divinity of them. I don't. That doesn't make me an atheist.

"I only drink beer, a six pack a day".

"I only drink wine, a bottle of wine every day".

"We have so much in common, both being teetotalers!"

the fundamentalist Christian in our midst. Fascinating.

Most of the people in this forum aren't bigots.

A match made in heaven, eh?
:rofl:

several months ago. But you just love to label other posters as fundamentalists. You never stop to ask yourself "Am I a fundamentalist?"

(that) have concluded that the only rational explanation for the observed facts regarding the universe is that it was created by God"?

linky

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word."

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming".

Paul Davies: "The laws ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose".

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."

John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in."

George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory."

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."

Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance."

Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it."

Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine."

Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God."

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics."

Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."

Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument."

Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him ."

Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed."

Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'."

Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life."

Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan."

Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science."

Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique."

Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design."

Then we have Isaac Newton, Johann Kepler, Robert Boyle (the father of modern chemistry, Lord Kelvin, Louis Pasteur, Michael Faraday, etc., etc., etc.

Of those quotes, only 8 mention *God* specifically. All the others are either generic references to design, or questions (that don't indicate the speaker's stance). There are an infinite number of possibilities other than "god" to explain design. So to start off, you're being dishonest.

And of those 8, none of them say that God is the only rational explanation. They are all merely the opinions of individual scientists - what they think as individuals. That's what's great about science - people are allowed to have different opinions, they just have to back up those opinions (if they want others to accept them) with evidence.

What's more interesting is that for most of the quotes, I can find no exact references on the web. Every single mention of them just points back to another copy of the list. Are there original sources for these quotes?

Jeepers, Zeb. Here I was all excited because I thought you FINALLY had something to fight back with. But it's just more of your same dishonest tactics and evasion.

These MAIL THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW! collections are always sloppy and dishonest. A good-sized roster of scientists who've concluded God is The Answer can be assembled without including the junk in this one, with people who neither support Intelligent Design nor "have concluded that the only rational explanation for the observed facts regarding the universe is that it was created by God."

Science does not function upon consensus in the absence of evidence. You seem dead set on arguing to the authority. Finding believers within science is of little value, I would suggest you concentrate on finding science within your beliefs. A more daunting task. Careful, "god did it" is not science, back to square one.

FM Arouet666, but I only posted this very reluctantly, after being followed around the board for days by another poster, who kept challenging me to post such a list, and making fun of the fact that I had not done so.

This is not my attempt to argue to the authority. This is simply giving that poster what she repeatedly asked for.

Now you're whining because I expected you to back up your bullshit?

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

"I made up stuff and mean old BMUS wants me to prove it!"

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

"She's just like those mean old scientists who require evidence when we say Intelligent Design is science!"

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!


Fyi, Doc is aware of your ridiculous claim BECAUSE HE WAS THE ONE YOU WERE REPLYING TO WHEN YOU MADE IT!!!

You can't even keep up with your own bullshit.

"but I only posted this very reluctantly"

Which tells me you never had any evidence to back up your little declaration.

I'm thrilled to see you admit it.

You are correct that it was one of FM Arouet666's posts that I was responding to originally in another thread.

And if you will look at his post, it was this comment that prompted me to make the claim in the first place:

"Science delves deeper into the origins of the universe and at no point has anyone, other than a believer like yourself, suggested that a supernatural explanation is needed."

I had a little fun with the circularity of that statement, and then made my statement about the many reknowned scientists.

So it was not that I resorted to arguing to the authority ab initio. Rather, FM Arouet666 stated that no one (other than believers) has ever suggested that a supernatural explanation is needed.

In essense, all he was saying was that only people who believe in supernatural explanations believe in supernatural explanations.

How silly a statement that was. Yet I responded with a serious post about how there are many renowned scientists who have suggested supernatural explanations.

That's what started this. I made my points on their own merits, and only listed scientists to back up my points when (1) FM Arouet666 stated that no one (other than believers) has ever suggested that a supernatural explanation is needed; and (2) you followed me around the board repeatedly taunting me to post a list.

trotsky's right.

I see no evidence that most of them conclude "that the only rational explanation for the observed facts regarding the universe is that it was created by God".

What you copied and pasted is the generic christian apologetic list of out of context quotes that has been circulating for years.

You didn't even look any of these up, did you?

If you had you'd know that:

Australia’s world-renowned physicist Paul Davies said that ID is codswallop, not science but creationism in disguise.
~ The Australian September 03, 2005

Davies writes: "I should like to make my own position clear at the outset. As a professional scientist I am fully committed to the scientific method of investigating the world. I believe that science is an immensely powerful procedure for helping us to understand the complex universe in which we live. History has shown that its successes are legion, and scarcely a week passes without some new progress being made. The attraction of the scientific method goes beyond its enormous power and scope, however. There is also its uncompromising honesty. Every new discovery, every theory is required to pass rigorous tests of approval by the scientific community before it is accepted. Of course, in practice, scientists do not always follow the textbook strategies. Sometimes the data are muddled and ambiguous. Sometimes influential scientists sustain dubious theories long after they have been discredited. Occasionally scientists cheat. But these are aberrations. Generally, science leads us in the direction of reliable knowledge.
I have always wanted to believe that science can explain everything, at least in principle. Many nonscientists would deny such a claim resolutely. Most religions demand belief in at least some supernatural events, which are by definition impossible to reconcile with science. I would rather not believe in supernatural events personally. Although I obviously can’t prove that they never happen, I see no reason to suppose that they do. My inclination is to assume that the laws of nature are obeyed at all times. "


and from a bio of Fred Hoyle: What made Fred Hoyle such a fascinating figure in big-time cosmology was that he combined the accomplishments and understandings of the century’s elite – think Einstein, Bohr, Feynman – with proposals associated with cranks. In mainstream science, he helped construct one set of theories that looks spectacularly right, and another set that looks just as spectacularly wrong. As an apparent member of the lunatic fringe, he talked about an alien consciousness that ran the earth, diseases from space, and panspermia (his intriguing proposal that interstellar space dust is composed largely of bacteria.) His career raises interesting questions about the role of orthodoxy in the sciences, especially cosmology, where answers are necessarily provisional.

Of the ones who might be in your corner:

Tipler might not be a good source for quotes considering he "argues that the robots we should be able to build by the next century will ultimately spread themselves throughout the universe, each generation of robot producing ever-superior versions of itself. He estimates that robotic life will blanket the galaxy in a mere million years. In a hundred million years, it will spread to the
Virgo cluster of galaxies. By then, homo sapiens will likely have long vanished from the universe.
Finally, after the passage of a billion billion years, give or take a hundred billion years or so, the universe will be uniformly populated with an extremely advanced form of life that will be capable of feats far beyond anyone's (but Tipler's) imagination."
~http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/tipler.txt

But if you like him, he's yours.

Henry F. Schaefer is a fellow of the Center for Science and Culture of the Discovery Institute.

You can have him too.

Greenstein is asking a question, not answering it, and in more than one religious internet forum I found people who were of the opinion that he is an atheist.

I could find no direct sources for the quotes by Milne, Kistiakowsky, Sandage, O'Keefe, Polyakov, Harrison, Schawlow, or von Braun.

Please provide the full context and links to those sources.

Also, please provide complete quotes including links to original sources that prove that Isaac Newton, Johann Kepler, Robert Boyle (the father of modern chemistry, Lord Kelvin, Louis Pasteur, and Michael Faraday also concluded "that the only rational explanation for the observed facts regarding the universe is that it was created by God".

Geez, Zeb, I didn't expect much and that's exactly what you've provided, except even less so.

Greenstein is asking a question, not answering it, and in more than one religious internet forum I found people who were of the opinion that he is an atheist.

The following is drawn from the same source the ID clowns pulled their first quote:

Do we not see in its harmony, a harmony so perfectly fitted to our needs, evidence of what one religious writer has called "a preserving, a continuing, an intending mind, a Wisdom, Power and Goodness far exceeding the limits of our thoughts?" A heady prospect. Unfortunately I believe it to be illusory. As I claim mankind is not the center of the universe, as I claim anthropism to be different from anthropocentrism, so too I believe that the discoveries of science are not capable of proving God's existence-not now, not ever. And more than that: I also believe that reference to God will never suffice to explain a single one of these discoveries. God is not an explanation.

http://www.paradigm108.com/paradigm/ConSci/Selfev&undeniable/ch35-9.htm

Ed Harrison didn't conclude that God was in the works. Though he thought the evidence for design was near irrefutable, he so disliked the multiverse theories that... he posited that the universe was created in a lab by aliens.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/A2589672

Jastrow, as the list notes, is an agnostic. He hasn't argued for God, he remains an agnostic:

The theoretical cosmologists are very active inventing various exotic ideas for a non-deist first cause, and that means, of course, the possibility of the creator. I'm an agnostic because I see the thrust of the discoveries toward the idea of a first cause, but everything else I know about humankind and the universe tells me that it could have happened without an overarching plan. And yet, when you step back and look at the whole picture that seems hard to believe. So as I've said in a number of places, I'm just stuck in the middle.

http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=30

Ellis has a stance similar to Davies, that religion and science are valuable, both are disserved when they exceed their realms and encroach on the other. And for the ID idiots who've cited him:

There is no serious case for `creation science’ and little for `intelligent design’, and I’m not interested in defending them. These are extremes, which can be easily dismissed from a scientific viewpoint. However there are more defensible positions relating science and religion.

http://admin.sun.ac.za/sentraal/ellis/science_and_religion.htm

I love a challenge too.

Unfortunately, the obsessive internet circle jerks promoting these "quotes" are their own argument against evolution.

And intelligent design.

But criminy, it's not me being good, it's the crackpot ID claimants being bad. This sort of shit is dishonest.

"But if you like him, he's yours." :rofl:

What, you don't know about the self-replicating robots? Didn't you get the memo? They are wicked crazy and taking over the universe as I type. Hell, they may actually be the ones typing, how would you know?

Interpreting is the same thing as dismissing. You got me, I'm a fundie. :rofl:

There is another sort of person, one who believes that all the Gods are the same one. Sort of like, languages. In different cultures, people have different names for the same thing- take the word "house" for example- in english it's "house" in french it's "maison," in Italian it's "abitazione" or "casa"- there are even more than one name in the same culture! However, no matter what we call it we can all agree that it is a place of dwelling. In essence all religions are more connected than you think. All the different cultures that believe in a deity consider their God(s) a deity/deities that is/are more powerful than humans. What I'm saying is that some people have accepted the other "names" for Deity and in a sense, believe in all the gods.

Firstly, I love Joseph Campbell's work.
My take on his lessons is that all humans share a passionate experience of being alive that they express through aesthetic symbolism and intellectual abstraction, not that all concepts of God are true or even point in the direction of some Ultimate God.

If, as you suggest, every revelation of God through human consciousness indicates an at least dimly truthful apprehension of God, it follows that the God over whose name people kill is authentic.
If that's true, than God should be allowed no more moral authority over humans than the laws of gravity or thermodynamics.

"All the different cultures that believe in a deity consider their God(s) a deity/deities that is/are more powerful than humans."

Not really, that's a myth. ;)

I suppose the concept is that the atheist is just a little more skeptical than a religion person, because everyone disbelieves something. It's true, but so what? There's still a content to what is being disbelieved.

Take this little made up vignette about courtroom testimony on a traffic accident.

HINDU WITNESS: The light was green!

METHODIST WITNESS: The light was red!

ATHEIST JUDGE: These disputed facts show that there was no traffic light at all in this intersection.

because he asked a policeman to check on whether there was a light there and whether or not it was working correctly at the time of the accident. When, the cop comes back, he tells the judge that there is indeed no light there, and that another witness said that the light blew down in the recent wind storm before the accident, and was most likely responsible for the accident. The judge takes the word of the cop and the third witness, dismissing the other two witnesses. :)

Which better fits the situation here. It's no more correct to say "I just believe in one less god than you" than it is to say "I just wear one seat belt less than you" or "I'm just slightly more pregnant than you."

of not believing in gods, the believer has much in common with the atheist.

The atheist, weak or strong, believes in no gods, while the believer usually believes in only one of them, while not believing in any of the other gods. So, they have a lot in common. What makes the believer so sure that the other gods don't exist?

Of course there is a little joke imbedded in there. The atheist and the believer arrive at these conclusions in different ways. The atheist is skeptical and uses reasoning to conclude that there are no gods from the lack of evidence and that extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence. The believer believes that the other gods don't exist and that one god does exist in ways that lack the skepticism and reason of the atheist. They accept that there is one god, but not many gods without requiring evidence to support that conclusion.

"The way to see by Faith is to shut the Eye of Reason."
- Benjamin Franklin

Other than that, hey, they had much in common.

but only one believed it was unsinkable. All boats are sinkable. ;)

So was the Titanic an atheist in regards to its sinkability?

But a little different. Here is how mine goes.

Hindu: The light was green!

Methodist: The light was red!

Evoman: hmmm....*walks to that intersection and sees four stop signs* uh...there are no lights here at all. From my observation, there are only stop signs. You guys are fighting about something that doesn't even exist.

Hindu and Methodist: OF COURSE YOU DONT SEE THEM! You have no faith in the traffic lights. Besides, its says on our maps that there is supposed to be a traffic light here!

Evoman: Those maps our 20 years old. Those lights were going to be built, but the plan was scrapped after that new highway was built. You guys are basing your fight on a 20 year old map that isnt relevant anymore.

Hindu: Why don't you believe us. Have some respect.

Methodist: Why are you argueing about those traffic lights.

Evoman: The fact that I don't see any traffic lights, and the fact that even you guys who see them disagree about the lights, leads me to the conclusion that there probably is no traffic light and you guys are making things up to get off the hook after the accident. You see what you want to see, not whats really there

Hindu and Methodist: *stone evoman*

Hindu: the light was green

Methodist: no, the light was red.

I would pay to see your's in production.

I especially like the 20 year old map bit.

Reminds me of the Star Trek episode about the five lights.

Be right back...

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"evoman" always requires the religious to do something outrageous to make his point. After all, if he doesn't pretend that someone wants to kill him, then he actually has to address an issue or two.

Nothing like a little blood libel.

that you have no flair for the dramatic. Thats why your dialogue was dry and uninspired. Besides, if your going to write something, at least make it accurate. An atheist, especially someone intelligent enough to be a judge, would never argue what your atheist argued. On the other hand, I admit my characterization is inaccurate as well....no religious person would ever and has ever stoned a non-believer. That would just be crazy!

After all, you need something outrageous and inflammatory, like a murder, in order to have your character "win" the argument--not the argument about the traffic light, which you don't care about, but the argument about religious being evil and inferior. After all, look at them...they just stoned me!

An atheist would, in an opposite fashion, argue exactly as the atheist judge did. It happens right here in this forum, where the inconsistency between religions is treated as evidence that none of them are right.

The OP, to the sense it means anything at all, is part of that. After all, you disbelieve some religions, ergo, you are atheist, and none of the people who insisted that atheism is defined as the belief in no diety make a peep. Why?

Yes, you get it. An atheist would use that inconsistency as evidence. However, my friend, your error was in thinking that evidence IS THE ONLY evidence that the judge/atheists accepts. In fact, we atheists have bundles of evidence, things like the fact we aren't made out of clay, that prayers aren't answered, the fact that religion has literally been wrong about almost EVERYTHING that we have found out scientifically.

Now then, I had no problems with your play. You completely mischaracterized the atheist by implying that inconsistency is the only evidence but it doesn't bother me. I just responded with my own play (which, except for the stoning part which was just for comedic/dramatic effect, is a lot more accurate). After that, you start tearing my play apart and insist that I am mischaracterizing the theists. Well, my man, it appears that you are indeed a hypocrite. I, however, am not, because I am fully aware my play is inflammatory! Lol.

You have the atheist losing and looking like an intolerant blowhard. Instead of the judge going to the videotape of that light-less corner, like any judge (atheist or otherwise) would, you end it like you did. So I will say this, "After all, you need something outrageoous and inflammatory, like a one-dimensional, idiot bigot atheist, in order to have your characters win the argument-not the argument about the traffic light, which you don't care about, but the argument that atheists base their "beliefs" on scant evidence."

What if I had made the atheist judge theist.

Hindu: The light was red.

Methodist: The light was green.

Methodist Judge: Hindu, fuck off. The light was green.

HAHA thats even better.

Boo yah

But strangely enough, you find it insulting. Huh. I guess you're complaint is that it's TOO accurate and insufficiently inflammatory. Well, I didn't mean it to appeal to sort of audience that enjoys that sort of thing.

And apparently, because you've been shamed by your portrayal of religious killing people as demogogic and inflammatory, now the religious is MERELY telling people to fuck off. Oh, well, you know, people grow. I'll say this for you: you're consistent within the parameters of being anti religion and anti religious. None of this pretending to have a reasonable, sensible conciliatory position and then making chickenshit little slander asides to third parties. No disingenous pretense for you. My compliments.

Nobody said it was the only reason for disbelief. But it comes up as one, and was part of the OP.

Nuff said.

1) I don't know what you meant by the "looking like". I'm lost.

2)You mischaracterized atheists. Then you chided me for it. Your a hypocrite

3)I'm not ashamed of anything. In my estimation, the fuck off was funnier in this case. The stoning thing was funnier before.

4)Your consistent with attacking atheists only. If religious Duers say something inflammatory, suprise suprise...no Inland.

5)You characterized the judge, as a simplistic dolt who only accepted that one reason for disbelief.

I don't pretend to be something I'm not. I don't like religion. I make no secret of that. Honestly, I think its illogical and nonsensical. That does not mean I hate religious people, though. My girlfriend is a christian, as are most of my friends.

Now then, Inland. Are you pretending to be something your not...


Evoman

See, that's the thing about being for the demogogic and the inflammatory as "illustrations". You think that just being more insulting somehow proves something. It doesn't. It's just your way of having fun.

That's why the "stoning" and "fuck off" are "funny". It's "funny" in the same way that all such jokes are "funny", that is, it's not responded to with a genuine laugh but a nasty sneer and some fist pumping. But apparently you can come here and share your true feelings in a way you can't share with your friends in the real world.

uh..yeah, pretty much.

I still think your scenario was more simplistic and inaccurate than mine. While mine made a point snidely and in an inflammatory fashion, yours didn't make any point whatsoever.

(or you willfully miss the point), but I didn't argue that people disbelieved in other religions. I argued that they did not believe in other gods, and are atheist with regard to those gods.

The point stands.

But you knew that, and really don't argue the point in good faith, as shown by what you say about me to third parties behind my back. I'll just discuss it with someone who isn't doing some sort of passive aggressive dance with me. Bye bye.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:rofl:

but it is too funny to pass up.



And you keep giving him the ammo, Inland.

The only regret I have being on your ignore list is that you aren't in on my pledge thread nor my belief thread to give evoman even more ammo to write his play with. Cause his play is the shizzle.