"New Atheism" and Science

[SleepyWitch]

hiya all.
the other day I read an article about "New Atheism". the article summarized the book"The God Delusion (http://www.amazon.co.uk/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0593055489/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/026-2458373-7270829?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181121483&sr=8-1)" by Richard Dawkins.

has any of you read this book? does it really say anything new about atheism?

It also said that this new kind of atheists are very radical and believe that science is the panacea for all problems in the world and that only (natural) science can eventually discover "the truth"

do all atheists believe that natural science can solve all problems and explain everything? those of you who are atheists: what's your opinion?
in other words, are religion and science mutually exclusive? does being an atheist automatically mean you believe in nothing but science?

personally, I don't like religions and I'd consider myself some kind of atheist or agnostic, but I don't believe science can explain everything. nor do I believe all areas of life should be scientificalized (??? scientized? be pervaded by a scientific mode of thinking).

[NikolaiI]

Hi.

I read the about the first third of that book. All of it is very interesting, especially the stuff about outer space. And an interesting quote by George Bush senior where he says he doesn't think atheists should be considered citizens or patriots. I'd like to see Dawkins write something in the category of philosophy, he's a good writer.

The book starts out basically giving examples of persecution of atheists. Then it defends atheists, and the rest of the book is about proving atheism. Or rather, disproving God - hence, the title. But then I only read the first 1/3-1/2 of it.

I did have some problems with the book, minor ones though. I don't agree with all of his arguments, for instance, his rebuttal of Pascal's Wager seemed rather weak. But, he did have lots of good points concerning arguments, and pointed out a lot of fallacies. It seemed emotionally driven, but then I guess he has a pretty big axe to grind.

Like I said, I didn't find all of his arguments particularly convincing. They didn't shake my faith really, only sort of refined my belief. But then, my belief of God doesn't fit with the God he calls a delusion.

I give his book a good review. It was well written, sometimes it was even beautiful. I'm looking forward to finishing it someday, I also really want to read "The Ancestor's Tale", by him as well, which my dad recommended.

Religion and science are definitely not mutually exclusive. More often people argue creationism against evolutionism, so it depends what you mean. A lot of people will tell you they are mutually exclusive, and I'm not sure what they would say to science vs religion?

Religion and science are not polar opposites, either. You can run a link between them via Religion, Theology, Philosophy, Psychology or Monadology, Science. At least that's how I usually see it. And certain philosophers were also theologists and scientists, like Pascal. So I wouldn't say they are exclusive.

But then, my own personal affiliation is unique. I am atheist, theist, deist, and pantheist. I don't believe in anyone else's God, and that makes me atheist. My God doesn't fit to any of those categories, it is closest to a sort of Pagan God, but doesn't fit that either. I don't see a contradiction, because I don't think any label is accurate to any person. I will change my belief tomorrow.

I wonder what is the difference between a scientific mode of thinking and a spiritual one. What are the thoughts that fit a scientific mode? A spiritual one? "Mmm, waking up, looking around, seeing things," etc.? I think...it's good to learn about all kinds of things. I love philosophy and literature. I think it's best to be partly scientific and partly spiritual.

I'm not clear on what New Atheism is, though I think I get it. Morality is not restricted to religion, for instance; there are morality books in the philosophy section. I think both science and a tiny bit of religion is good. I dunno. I think it's all good to study. Anyway.

[Lote-Tree]

I have read the book.

The argument is against Super-natural "God" or "Gods" - The "God" who is a another being "out there" who crated the Universe, listens to prayers, forgives sins and punishes "evil-doers" and rewards hell and paradise etc ie He is the God of the Abrahamic faiths (or any form of such a deity in that mode). It is not against the "pantheistic" God of Hinduism or even Einestein or Spinoza. It is not even against the God of the Mystics in a way. It can also be said that it is not against the God of the Deists. In fact the author suggests that a "Deistic God" is indeed worthy of veneration. So we are left with the God of the Abrahamic faiths - that form of God the book argues is delusional because it is super-natural.

And the argument itself? The argument goes something like this (please correct if I got this wrong): Complexity - like human beings or other animals - does not arise by itself - it is said to be highly improbable. If this is true then the being that created the Universe therefore must be even more highly complex and hence even more improbable and thus, such a being certainly does not exist.

[NikolaiI]

Yes, basically he said that the solution of God creating the universe compounded the problem and made more answers not less.

One argument I remember against intelligent design was the rock and the flat surface. The rock has millions of sides, lines and angles, and is near infinitely complex. But there is no shortage of rocks. A flat surface, however, a square stone or something, is simple, smooth, etc, and is not found in nature, but made by man. So nature is complex by nature, and the argument is backwards. It should be arguing for a creator by the simplicity of our bodies.

[kiobe]

Darn it. Being on the west coast I am allways late to the party. I read the book twice and Lote-Tree has done a great job of encapsulating the thrust of the book. I went to see Mr. Dawkins speak at Powels Bookstore a couple of months ago. It was...........great. Great, this is why I am not a writer.

[Turk]

Hi.The book starts out basically giving examples of persecution of atheists. Then it defends atheists, and the rest of the book is about proving atheism. Or rather, disproving God - hence, the title. But then I only read the first 1/3-1/2 of it.


I didn't read the book, so i won't make comments but i would like to say this is really pathetic beginning.

Firstly talking about persecution of Atheists, and trying to show them "innocent", so assuming that will automatically create sympathy for those Atheists and so when he started to defend atheists reader will think he's right. Really pathetic.

:thumbs_up <-- Look it reversed. :)

[SleepyWitch]

I didn't read the book, so i won't make comments but i would like to say this is really pathetic beginning.

Firstly talking about persecution of Atheists, and trying to show them "innocent", so assuming that will automatically create sympathy for those Atheists and so when he started to defend atheists reader will think he's right. Really pathetic.

:thumbs_up <-- Look it reversed. :)

yep, I actually agree about this. it's a tried and tested mechanism.. it would work for any group of people, though...

but apart from the beginning, your summaries sound much better than that article I read. Thanks Nikolai and Lote. judging from your summaries, the book does treat some ideas I haven't heard before.
that article made it sound like there were only old chestnuts in it.

[Taliesin]

do all atheists believe that natural science can solve all problems and explain everything

Not an atheist, but an agnostic, still, we would like to point out that solving all problems is impossible, since there are of infinite number of them (Gödels incompleteness theorem) and so we can never run out of them, so it will never be that boring.

[weepingforloman]

I have read the book.

The argument is against Super-natural "God" or "Gods" - The "God" who is a another being "out there" who crated the Universe, listens to prayers, forgives sins and punishes "evil-doers" and rewards hell and paradise etc ie He is the God of the Abrahamic faiths (or any form of such a deity in that mode). It is not against the "pantheistic" God of Hinduism or even Einestein or Spinoza. It is not even against the God of the Mystics in a way. It can also be said that it is not against the God of the Deists. In fact the author suggests that a "Deistic God" is indeed worthy of veneration. So we are left with the God of the Abrahamic faiths - that form of God the book argues is delusional because it is super-natural.

And the argument itself? The argument goes something like this (please correct if I got this wrong): Complexity - like human beings or other animals - does not arise by itself - it is said to be highly improbable. If this is true then the being that created the Universe therefore must be even more highly complex and hence even more improbable and thus, such a being certainly does not exist.

I believe that Mr. Dawkins has missed an important thought-- the most complex things in the world (advanced machinery, genetically engineered organisms, etc.) all arise from something even more complex, namely, the human mind. Based on strict observation, one would surmise that complexity can only come from greater complexity. Therefore, I find it most probable that something even more complex is at the back of everything: He is the Father of facthood, and the most complex Being possible.

[SleepyWitch]

I believe that Mr. Dawkins has missed an important thought-- the most complex things in the world (advanced machinery, genetically engineered organisms, etc.) all arise from something even more complex, namely, the human mind. Based on strict observation, one would surmise that complexity can only come from greater complexity. Therefore, I find it most probable that something even more complex is at the back of everything: He is the Father of facthood, and the most complex Being possible.


And the argument itself? The argument goes something like this (please correct if I got this wrong): Complexity - like human beings or other animals - does not arise by itself - it is said to be highly improbable. If this is true then the being that created the Universe therefore must be even more highly complex and hence even more improbable and thus, such a being certainly does not exist.
not having red the book, I don't know enough about Dawkins' theory to grasp all its implications.
but i think I agree with weeping on this, especially because of the probability factor

Complexity - like human beings or other animals - does not arise by itself - it is said to be highly improbable. If this is true then the being that created the Universe therefore must be even more highly complex and hence even more improbable and thus, such a being certainly does not exist.
yes, human beings may be highly improbable. but they happen to exist. so once they exist (despite the low probability), doesn't the probability of the existence of a more complex being increase as well?
sorry, I'm no good at maths... but it seems illogial to me to say humans are improbable therefore God is even more improbable, seeing as humans do exist.

[Lote-Tree]

I believe that Mr. Dawkins has missed an important thought-- the most complex things in the world (advanced machinery, genetically engineered organisms, etc.) all arise from something even more complex, namely, the human mind. Based on strict observation, one would surmise that complexity can only come from greater complexity. Therefore, I find it most probable that something even more complex is at the back of everything: He is the Father of facthood, and the most complex Being possible.

I think you misunderstood the question. Dawkin's Hypotheisis answers the Theists most asked question - complex things do not arise on it's own. It is improbable that complex things can arise on it's own. Thus it had to be created. If this is TRUE then God who created the Universe must even more complex thus this kind of God does not exist. But we know that Complex things are easily built up from simple things. All they need is a set of simple rules to follow. The complexity of DNA is built up from simplicity of chemical bases C,T,G, and A. Complexity of computers is built from simplicity of binary digits of 1's and 0's.

When we look at nature - at heart of nature there is simplicity. At the heart of nature there is unity. That is what we find. Our bodies are made of organs, organs are made of cells, cells are made up of proteins, proteins are made of molecules, molecules are made of atoms, atoms are made of protons and neutrons, protons themselves are made up of even small blocks called quarks and this continues until we reach the level of the Quantum Energy Field. So we are made of same stuff - at this level we are unified.

[JGL57]

I'm a long time student now of Eastern Wisdom traditions and their ontology - Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism.

Such are seen by westerners as either pantheistic or monistic, but I think the concept of the Non-dual, the Great Tao, Absolute Being, etc. in just an way of saying 1. ultimate reality is a Unity 2. we can't understand "what" this unity is, or even if this "What?" question is logically proper and 3. the "how" question - how Unity produces our world of multiplicity, is forever up for debate and is thus a question of lesser importance, since "we are it and it is us" (Brahman = Atman, Samsara = Nirvana, etc.).

I have read Dawkins and the other "new atheism" books of San Harris and Christopher Hitchens and the big focus is, indeed, on the lack of plausibility of western monotheism and all its claims of historical and miraculous truths/facts.

I think the time has obviously come for severe questioning and critique of literalist monotheism. I believe the view of the late Joseph Campbell, famed comparative mythologist, will come more to the fore every day among educated people world-wide, i.e., that religion is mythic narrative, and can be inspiring, useful, interesting, and evocative of the best that is human - we just need to understand the difference between concrete historical facts on the one hand, and metaphor, analogy, mythic symbol, and the psychologically-based archetypes in our subconscious, etc. on the other.

From Dawkins' discussion of Einstein and Spinoza, and Harris's discussion of Buddhist meditation, and Hitchens' tip of the hat also to deism, I think these "new" atheists get it. We are not dealing with Karl Marx, Ayn Rand, or Madelyn Murray O'Hair anymore. That was then - this is now. Atheism as synonymous with modern enlightenment and humanism is what is now contrasted to orthodox literalism of many if not most monotheists.

As to the design argument, I think the reductio as absurdum problem pointed out by Dawkins wins the argument in any jury where logic is the standard. The fact that many monotheists don't understand that an eternal complexity like god is an even more pronounced problem than the complex universe, i.e., "Why does complex GOD exist, rather than nothing?" is just proof of lack of capacity or prejudice.

[SleepyWitch]

I think the time has obviously come for severe questioning and critique of literalist monotheism. I believe the view of the late Joseph Campbell, famed comparative mythologist, will come more to the fore every day among educated people world-wide, i.e., that religion is mythic narrative, and can be inspiring, useful, interesting, and evocative of the best that is human - we just need to understand the difference between concrete historical facts on the one hand, and metaphor, analogy, mythic symbol, and the psychologically-based archetypes in our subconscious, etc. on the other.

sounds interesting, JGL, thanks for bringing it up.


]As to the design argument, I think the reductio as absurdum problem pointed out by Dawkins wins the argument in any jury where logic is the standard. The fact that many monotheists don't understand that an eternal complexity like god is an even more pronounced problem than the complex universe, i.e., "Why does complex GOD exist, rather than nothing?" is just proof of lack of capacity or prejudice.


When we look at nature - at heart of nature there is simplicity. At the heart of nature there is unity. That is what we find. Our bodies are made of organs, organs are made of cells, cells are made up of proteins, proteins are made of molecules, molecules are made of atoms, atoms are made of protons and neutrons, protons themselves are made up of even small blocks called quarks and this continues until we reach the level of the Quantum Energy Field. So we are made of same stuff - at this level we are unified.
ok, i think I got it now :)

[weepingforloman]

I think you misunderstood the question. Dawkin's Hypotheisis answers the Theists most asked question - complex things do not arise on it's own. It is improbable that complex things can arise on it's own. Thus it had to be created. If this is TRUE then God who created the Universe must even more complex thus this kind of God does not exist. But we know that Complex things are easily built up from simple things. All they need is a set of simple rules to follow. The complexity of DNA is built up from simplicity of chemical bases C,T,G, and A. Complexity of computers is built from simplicity of binary digits of 1's and 0's.

When we look at nature - at heart of nature there is simplicity. At the heart of nature there is unity. That is what we find. Our bodies are made of organs, organs are made of cells, cells are made up of proteins, proteins are made of molecules, molecules are made of atoms, atoms are made of protons and neutrons, protons themselves are made up of even small blocks called quarks and this continues until we reach the level of the Quantum Energy Field. So we are made of same stuff - at this level we are unified.

Surely you do not think that, at the subatomic level, nature has unity and simplicity? According to the quantum physicists, existence itself is not constant, an electron that moves from one energy level to another never exists at an in-between point. According to the quantum physicists, absolutely anything is theoretically possible (my laptop might suddenly fall through the top of desk). And if we are made up of the same stuff, yet are so different, does that not suggest a more than physical/chemical difference is at work? Oh, and, by the way, are you a proponent of String Theory? Or do you subscribe only to the more basic quantum theories?



As to the design argument, I think the reductio as absurdum problem pointed out by Dawkins wins the argument in any jury where logic is the standard. The fact that many monotheists don't understand that an eternal complexity like god is an even more pronounced problem than the complex universe, i.e., "Why does complex GOD exist, rather than nothing?" is just proof of lack of capacity or prejudice.

Something has to be first. That something would probably have to be tremendously complex, because it gave rise to many other complex things. And, yes, ultimately it is still a matter of faith-- how could it not be? You cannot prove the non-quantifiable. You cannot disprove the non-quantifiable. God can never be proved or disproved, by points along the road to Him or away from Him can be debated.

[Lote-Tree]

And if we are made up of the same stuff, yet are so different, does that not suggest a more than physical/chemical difference is at work?


Underneath the differences we are made of same stuff.

[weepingforloman]

I am aware. That was not the point. The point was that it would take something fairly complex to build such radically different (and successful) things out of the same material, just as it would take creativity and intelligence to build a machine entirely out of modelling clay.

[Lote-Tree]

The point was that it would take something fairly complex to build such radically different (and successful) things out of the same material....


No. It does not. All it needs is very simple rules to build up complexity. Complexity of proteins in our bodies, in our cells are built up of just four bases CTGA. Complexity of English Language is built of only 26 letters.

[weepingforloman]

First of all, English was created by intelligent beings (and I believe that DNA was too, that's not the point). I suppose we are at an impass. I believe that complexity out of simplicity is the work of God, you apparently believe it is merely randomness. So be it. I quit the fight.

[JGL57]

Something has to be first...

That is not an argument. That is a tautology. We all agree to that.


That something would probably have to be tremendously complex, because it gave rise to many other complex things...

False logic. Whence the complexity of "that something"? If it "just is", then complexity can just be. Your own argument defeats itself - there is nothing for me to do than to merely point this out.


And, yes, ultimately it is still a matter of faith-- how could it not be?...

For a person who is ignorant of basic twenty-first century science, maybe. Otherwise, one understands evolution by natural selection. A person can surely believe by faith in any particular conceivable thing, including a flat earth - but the earth still remains spherical.


...You cannot prove the non-quantifiable. You cannot disprove the non-quantifiable. God can never be proved or disproved, by points along the road to Him or away from Him can be debated ...

Let me see if I have the count right. This is the 876,950,839,943rd time, I believe, that a religionist has stated that "Well, you can't disprove god."

And this is the 876,950,839,943 time that an atheist has had to point out the illogic of that and explain that negatives cannot be proved, whether they be the non-existence of fairies, leprechauns, angels, gods, fire-breathing dragons at the center of the sun, or whatever.

Anybody want to bet that we are finished with this little dance, i.e., that there won't be an 876,950,839,944th challenge issued by a religionist to an atheist to prove a negative, somewhere on earth in, say, the next 3.2 seconds?

[Lote-Tree]

First of all, English was created by intelligent beings


No. No one sat down and designed English Language. Language Evolved from simplicity of the begining to the complexity of Shakepear sonnets.



I believe that complexity out of simplicity is the work of God, you apparently believe it is merely randomness.


The argument was can complexity arise from simplicity on it's own? The answer is yes as long as there is some simple rules to follow.

You can still appoint God as the Rule Giver or you can say Rules themselves are inherent in Matter/Energy.



So be it. I quit the fight.

I did not feel I was fighting. I was only giving you a counter argument.

Go in peace.

Shalom Salaam Shantih and peace
Regards,
Lote.

[NikolaiI]

modeling*, like traveling.

[kiobe]

First of all, English was created by intelligent beings (and I believe that DNA was too, that's not the point). I suppose we are at an impass. I believe that complexity out of simplicity is the work of God, you apparently believe it is merely randomness. So be it. I quit the fight.

That's funny!! I am guessing you didn't have the required 3 years of stems and roots and word origins.

[weepingforloman]

No. No one sat down and designed English Language. Language Evolved from simplicity of the begining to the complexity of Shakepear sonnets.



The argument was can complexity arise from simplicity on it's own? The answer is yes as long as there is some simple rules to follow.

You can still appoint God as the Rule Giver or you can say Rules themselves are inherent in Matter/Energy.



I did not feel I was fighting. I was only giving you a counter argument.

Go in peace.

Shalom Salaam Shantih and peace
Regards,
Lote.

The "I quit the fight" remark was merely expression. I don't think this was a fight either.

Grace and Peace.


That is not an argument. That is a tautology. We all agree to that.



False logic. Whence the complexity of "that something"? If it "just is", then complexity can just be. Your own argument defeats itself - there is nothing for me to do than to merely point this out.



For a person who is ignorant of basic twenty-first century science, maybe. Otherwise, one understands evolution by natural selection. A person can surely believe by faith in any particular conceivable thing, including a flat earth - but the earth still remains spherical.



Let me see if I have the count right. This is the 876,950,839,943rd time, I believe, that a religionist has stated that "Well, you can't disprove god."

And this is the 876,950,839,943 time that an atheist has had to point out the illogic of that and explain that negatives cannot be proved, whether they be the non-existence of fairies, leprechauns, angels, gods, fire-breathing dragons at the center of the sun, or whatever.

Anybody want to bet that we are finished with this little dance, i.e., that there won't be an 876,950,839,944th challenge issued by a religionist to an atheist to prove a negative, somewhere on earth in, say, the next 3.2 seconds?

If nothing was first nothing could ever be. That is clear and simple. You CAN'T disprove God. I am not saying that justifies His existence. I hope that even you would see that God is far more logical than leprechauns/dragons (center of the sun? Where'd you get that one?). I don't think evolution is the story, but I am willing to believe in it if it is sufficiently proved to me. I don't think evolution proves God is nonexistent (that would be a feeble God, no?).

Grace and Peace.

[JGL57]

If nothing was first nothing could ever be. That is clear and simple. You CAN'T disprove God. I am not saying that justifies His existence. I hope that even you would see that God is far more logical than leprechauns/dragons (center of the sun? Where'd you get that one?). I don't think evolution is the story, but I am willing to believe in it if it is sufficiently proved to me. I don't think evolution proves God is nonexistent (that would be a feeble God, no?).

Grace and Peace.

But you are still hung up on challenging others to disprove your unproved and un-disprovable god.

That's not our (atheists) job. Logic 101 - one cannot prove a universal negative.

It is your job to demonstrate that what you are saying has some meaning. As far as I can see your personal god may exist, or he may not. In either case, what is the difference to me? So far it's like you claim that invisible fire-breathing dragons live in the center of the sun. OK. What is the difference to me - particularly - one way or another?

[Redzeppelin]

It is your job to demonstrate that what you are saying has some meaning. As far as I can see your personal god may exist, or he may not. In either case, what is the difference to me? So far it's like you claim that invisible fire-breathing dragons live in the center of the sun. OK. What is the difference to me - particularly - one way or another?

The difference exists in the consequences of our choices. I'll avoid Pascal's Wager - but that's ultimately what we end up with. As weeping has alluded to - the difference between God and dragons (etc) is that none of the other listed entities provides answers about morality, suffering, sin and our existence. God does.

[weepingforloman]

But you are still hung up on challenging others to disprove your unproved and un-disprovable god.

That's not our (atheists) job. Logic 101 - one cannot prove a universal negative.

It is your job to demonstrate that what you are saying has some meaning. As far as I can see your personal god may exist, or he may not. In either case, what is the difference to me? So far it's like you claim that invisible fire-breathing dragons live in the center of the sun. OK. What is the difference to me - particularly - one way or another?

It is all the difference.

Grace and Peace.

[JGL57]

It is all the difference...

No it is not.


Grace and Peace...

Thank you.

[Lote-Tree]

The "I quit the fight" remark was merely expression. I don't think this was a fight either.

Grace and Peace.

Bueno :-)

Regards,
Lote.

[weepingforloman]

No it is not.

I believe your immortal soul is in the balance.




Thank you.

Of course.

[JGL57]

I believe your immortal soul is in the balance...

And I don't care what you believe about imaginary things.

Billions of Hindus would think you are just plain ignorant, if they knew you were alive and had such opinions. Do you care?

OK, then.

[weepingforloman]

Yes, I care. I would care for them-- and hope that they would see the beauty and truth that is Christ.

Peace and Grace.

[JGL57]

Yes, I care. I would care for them-- and hope that they would see the beauty and truth that is Christ.

Peace and Grace.


- The beauty and truth that if literalist christianity is correct, the majority of humans were born only to end up in eternal pain?

Hell is a twisted and morally warped concept. Decent people ipso facto reject it.

[NikolaiI]

What's ipso facto? Christ is not the most beautiful being. Krishna, the Buddha and others are equally beautiful. And aren't satanic things supposed to be beautiful to our eyes, too?

[weepingforloman]

I disagree, especially with the "Satanic beings" thing... Unless you are alluding to my previous comment about the various aspects of nature, that makes no sense. In that case, I will say that devils (I assume this is what you meant) now reveal only one or two aspects of God: 1. they are powerful (not nearly as much as God, but still superhumanly powerful). 2. they are spirit entirely, without matter, just as God is.


- The beauty and truth that if literalist christianity is correct, the majority of humans were born only to end up in eternal pain?

Hell is a twisted and morally warped concept. Decent people ipso facto reject it.

You know, it really isn't. I don't know all there is to know about Hell. I know that God is to create a "new heavens and new earth." This is after the section of Revelations that discusses the torment of Hell. Perhaps everybody will be granted a new body on that new earth. Who knows? I don't.

Grace and Peace.

[NikolaiI]

I disagree, especially with the "Satanic beings" thing... Unless you are alluding to my previous comment about the various aspects of nature, that makes no sense. In that case, I will say that devils (I assume this is what you meant) now reveal only one or two aspects of God: 1. they are powerful (not nearly as much as God, but still superhumanly powerful). 2. they are spirit entirely, without matter, just as God is.

Have you see any of the above-said? It's in your mind. They are all complete blessedness in my mind. Each is as beautiful as the other...

I don't believe devils exist. The idea was that Satan is alluring, and in his temptation he makes himself seem like all that is good and true and logical and beautiful. Did you not get that?

[weepingforloman]

Ah, now I get what you meant. Well, in that sense, we are definitely not "supposed" to see Satan as beautiful, but we MAY see him as beautiful. I disagree with your assertion that "they are all complete blessedness." I don't think either one of us would make headway if we discuss that, so I vote we drop it.

[JGL57]

You know, it really isn't. I don't know all there is to know about Hell. I know that God is to create a "new heavens and new earth." This is after the section of Revelations that discusses the torment of Hell. Perhaps everybody will be granted a new body on that new earth. Who knows? I don't.

Grace and Peace.

Oh, so you are a liberal christian? :thumbs_up

[NikolaiI]

I'm fairly sure I would make headway. Anyway, that wasn't my assertion. My assertion was: "They are all complete blessedness in my mind." I only spoke it that way because that's the prejudice of our language. You know the English teachers who drill into you "Don't say 'I think' or 'I believe'"? Well, they might be wrong.

Okay, forget them and think colours. And sounds, and smells, and images of nature. Forget all of them, and just think of the beauty of nature, the majesty of it, and that is blessedness.

[weepingforloman]

Oh, so you are a liberal christian? :thumbs_up
No, not at all. I'm CALVINIST-- ask somebody you know who drives one.
But I am willing to admit I am not intelligent or wise enough to comprehend all of scripture.


I'm fairly sure I would make headway. Anyway, that wasn't my assertion. My assertion was: "They are all complete blessedness in my mind." I only spoke it that way because that's the prejudice of our language. You know the English teachers who drill into you "Don't say 'I think' or 'I believe'"? Well, they might be wrong.

Okay, forget them and think colours. And sounds, and smells, and images of nature. Forget all of them, and just think of the beauty of nature, the majesty of it, and that is blessedness.

And scavengers? Parasites? Death? Disease? Famine? Drought? The world is not all at peace, nor is it all good-- though it is intended to be, and will be.

Grace and Peace.

[Unbeliever]

I don't think it's so much that there's anything new about the atheism, per se, but that atheists are now more willing and able to speak out about their atheism.

[ennison]

Satanic forces are behind most of the World's pain.

[hyperborean]

Satanic forces are behind most of the World's pain.

thanks for the logical input. :lol:

[Unbeliever]

Satanic forces are behind most of the World's pain.

Sure, let's blame Satan so us poor humans don't have to take responsibility for our own actions.

[JGL57]

Sure, let's blame Satan so us poor humans don't have to take responsibility for our own actions.

Actually, god is responsible for all of Satan's actions since god created Satan. And the guy that created god is responsible for all the actions of god. And so forth.

[weepingforloman]

God is the foundation of existence itself... there is no creator of the Creator.

And, no, God is not "responsible" for Satan's actions any more than your parents are still responsible for yours. He created Satan with free will-- so Satan's choices are his own. Likewise to you (and me).

[SleepyWitch]

erhem, if God isn't any longer responsible for Satan, doesn't that also mean Satan is no longer responsible to God?

what about humans then? if God created us with free will, wouldn't that mean we are no longer responsible to him and can therefore do whatever we want?
hurray, bring on the booze and women/men of negotiable affection :)

[SleepyWitch]

I don't think it's so much that there's anything new about the atheism, per se, but that atheists are now more willing and able to speak out about their atheism.

I see...
why do you think this is?

[JGL57]

God is the foundation of existence itself... there is no creator of the Creator...

Possible - and completely unproven to day, and theoretically unprovable In contrast, via Ockham's Razor, I think existence is it's own foundation - pushing things back one step doesn't clarify the issue - it muddles it.


...And, no, God is not "responsible" for Satan's actions any more than your parents are still responsible for yours. He created Satan with free will-- so Satan's choices are his own. Likewise to you (and me).

Again, this dispute between us involved our different understanding of the implication of the attributes "omnipotence" and "omniscience" - which are the alleged attributes of an allegedly existing god.

- Damn - I getting one of my migraines with auras - I'll take this up tomorrow with you.

[Tuesday]

I see...
why do you think this is?

I think it's a natural act of opposition in the face of rising religious influences on society and politics. Just look at the attempts to have creationism taught at public schools.

[Unbeliever]

I'm unsure exactly why this is, but it may have something to do with the realization by many that religion is dangerous, both to those within a particular religion and to those outside of it. It may also have much to do with the increase in scientific knowledge, and the changing zeitgeist thereby created. It may have much to do, as well, with the growing influence of religion on government, especially in America. There may be other reasons, too, but I think those would cover most of the change.

[SleepyWitch]

I'm unsure exactly why this is, but it may have something to do with the realization by many that religion is dangerous, both to those within a particular religion and to those outside of it.
...........
It may have much to do, as well, with the growing influence of religion on government, especially in America. There may be other reasons, too, but I think those would cover most of the change.

yep, that's what it said in that article, too. just wanted to see if there are any other reasons.
it said that after 9/11 and the terrorist attack in Europe atheists got heated up about religious fundamentalism (not only Muslim one but all kinds of fundamentalism) and this led them to speak up.

[Tuesday]

It's also important and noteworthy that atheists aren't organised at all. They almost have no political power, although there may be a significant number of them out there. This, of course, puts the organised religious communities on vantage ground.

[SleepyWitch]

It's also important and noteworthy that atheists aren't organised at all. They almost have no political power, although there may be a significant number of them out there. This, of course, puts the organised religious communities on vantage ground.

there are some Atheist Umbrella Organizations or suchlike in Germany.. but yep, although they theoretically represent 1/3 of the population, actual membership is very low and they have very little political power

[Unbeliever]

I've recently heard that atheists now have lobbyists in D.C., so maybe the political climate will change a bit.

[ennison]

I'm afraid it cuts no ice with me if a former butcher/baker/candlestick maker turned political murderer claims he was 'only obeying orders' so the inability to grasp that that is entirely logical is not my problem. Basically we have to accept total responsibility as moral agents for whatever we have done, or failed to do, and even if we refuse to here then we will be brought to accepting it later. So far from taking the burden of responsibility away it makes it more obvious. Whom do we obey. Simple and logical to me but uncomfortable to me too. You have enough free will to make your own decisions. No one is able to make them for you.

[weepingforloman]

Possible - and completely unproven to day, and theoretically unprovable In contrast, via Ockham's Razor, I think existence is it's own foundation - pushing things back one step doesn't clarify the issue - it muddles it.



Again, this dispute between us involved our different understanding of the implication of the attributes "omnipotence" and "omniscience" - which are the alleged attributes of an allegedly existing god.

- Damn - I getting one of my migraines with auras - I'll take this up tomorrow with you.

I am aware that it is unproven, and indeed, unprovable-- I am stating my own belief. Existence itself cannot be its own foundation-- you need something eternal if you are to have a foundation at all. What people forget in the omniscience/omnipotence argument is that God makes decisions. He made the decision to grant free will to certain creatures, including Satan, and including human beings. He is not restrained by His own power.

[JGL57]

I am aware that it is unproven, and indeed, unprovable-- I am stating my own belief. ...

I agree here. It is all competing assumptions, convictions, beliefs and the like – humans don’t do well at producing irrefutable certain knowledge (though some THINK that they do.)


Existence itself cannot be its own foundation-- you need something eternal if you are to have a foundation at all....

I agree here also. Logically, there must be a ground of being, a “something” that is not contingent in any way, is not subject to change in time, is not limited in any way – a theoretically unobservable something beyond all observable somethings that can only be described apophatically, rather than cataphatically. Thus, e.g., Hindus/Buddhists view this Ultimate Being as the Non-Dual, beyond all pairs of opposites. Thus they don’t think of Ultimate Being as either personal or impersonal, but something beyond our understanding – the transpersonal.

In any case, my disagreement with you is that I don’t envision Ultimate Reality as a guy – and you apparently do. Whatever. Just don’t give me messages from your guy god and expect me to take the process seriously, and we will have no serious disagreement. M'kay?


What people forget in the omniscience/omnipotence argument is that God makes decisions. He made the decision to grant free will to certain creatures, including Satan, and including human beings. He is not restrained by His own power...

This entire statement is based on assumptions I don’t share – see my reply above.


I've recently heard that atheists now have lobbyists in D.C., so maybe the political climate will change a bit.

It'll take a long time, I'm thinking. The largest nationwide atheist/agnostic organization in the U.S. has about 10,000 members - about the size of the average local mega-church.

The problem is that many atheists are political conservatives, others are radical libertarians or anarchists, many are Ayn Randroids, and most atheists in academia are socialists, some even Marxists. If you can get all these types together, then you would probably be good at herding cats. :lol:

[linz]

I'm sorry but if your trying to make a bound of atheism, science, existentialism, nihilism, and all the meaningless wits found within, than this is the thread for you! It might be more intuitive to debate whether mental is only physical, after all, our knowledge of the brain is very small compared to the surgeon who operate on the organ? And since none of you can prove that mental is simply physical you will all talk in circles. The Muslims have a particular word for such paradox's and enigma's mustered over like an orgy in the Western world. And that word is, in common-man's terms 'useless'!

[Scheherazade]

Linz> Please feel free to ignore the threads or topics you dislike or disagree.

[weepingforloman]

I'm unsure exactly why this is, but it may have something to do with the realization by many that religion is dangerous, both to those within a particular religion and to those outside of it. It may also have much to do with the increase in scientific knowledge, and the changing zeitgeist thereby created. It may have much to do, as well, with the growing influence of religion on government, especially in America. There may be other reasons, too, but I think those would cover most of the change.

I'm relatively sure that governments much more closely approached theocracy in the PAST.

[weepingforloman]

In any case, my disagreement with you is that I don’t envision Ultimate Reality as a guy – and you apparently do. Whatever. Just don’t give me messages from your guy god and expect me to take the process seriously, and we will have no serious disagreement. M'kay?
I don't envision God as a guy, He is obviously not human... But, I believe in a God with will, intelligence, etc.... I believe in a God that is a person.




This entire statement is based on assumptions I don’t share – see my reply above.

My response was based on the idea that we were speaking solely in terms of theology, obviously if you do not believe in Yahweh, you cannot be expected to believe in any specific theory about Him.

[JGL57]

I don't envision God as a guy, He is obviously not human... But, I believe in a God with will, intelligence, etc.... I believe in a God that is a person...

You refer to god as "Him". Persons come in two varieties, hims and hers. Pick one. Unless you are claiming that god is a hermorphadite?

So god is a person but is sexless - god is a generic person - god is not anatomically correct - god is just "smooth" twixt the (spiritual) legs? Corn flakes, tooth paste, and off-patent presciption drugs come in generic - persons do not. That is one of the necessary parts to the definition of person.

My dog has intelligence and, believe me, he is willful. But he is not a person, Thus, the fact of intelligence and willfull behavior does not make an entity a person.

I cannot make sense of what you are trying to say. Sorry.