Atheists....

[Redzeppelin]

The one positive benefit of making Arthurian literature into a "religion" is that it is derivative of Christianity - so, of all the legendary material you could chose, at least you chose one that has a legitimate baisis. Good job.

[cuppajoe_9]

Are you telling me my generalization is inaccurate? Because you've listed some denominations that have IMO compromised the Bible that makes my gereralization flat-out false?

If we are using my wording of your generalization ("it [evolution] appeals solely to atheists") and if we are in agreement that the denominations I mention a) are theistic and b) accept that biological evolution happens (regardless of who or what originated it) then yes, your generalization is flat-out false. If you mean that most atheists accept the theory of biological evolution, then you are most likely correct.

I'm allowed to have my opinion - even if you and the above listed denominations disagree.

Certainly. You, however, did not make a statement of opinion, you made a statement of fact:

You must reject the supposition of divine creation for any other theory to even seem to be sensible. [Bolding mine]

Given that we were talking about the theory of biological evolution (and not the origin of life on the planet, of which that theory says little), you seem to be saying is that acceptance of the theory of evolution and belief in a divine creator are mutually exclusive. It is, in fact, quite possible to hold both ideas in one's mind simultaneously without any doublethink, regardless of whether or not you, personally, do. The idea of theistic evolution is not immediately self-contradictory, and is quite wide-spread.

I haven't forgotten that - but my comment was based on the belief that you are a highly intelligent and well-read young man, and that even if one is an atheist, surely one would see from comparing the two that they are radically different in scope, intent, audience and social value.

I haven't compared the scope, intent, audience or social value of the Grail Legends to the that of the Bible. The only parallel I have drawn is that both claim the existance of a certain person and neither provide any evidence. I am not commenting on the value of either, I am drawing an analogy. I apologize if you are offended by the anaology.

Because a belief in the Lady of the Lake cannot change your life, free you from an addiction, guide your choices and decisions and provide a framework from within which to assess the value of the world around you.

You're making a Jamesian "true because it's useful and useful because it's true" argument, unless I'm badly misreading you? Fair enough, that was the answer I was looking for.

Your view, IMO, costs too much to hold - because if I'm wrong, I've just spent a good chunk of my life believing foolish things; if you're wrong, you've lost everything.

And if the ancient Egyptians were right, we're both screwed. I doubt if I'll lose much sleep over it. I appreciate your concern, however.

You have, however, now caused me to set aside time to further delve into the idea. Have you dome any cross-referencing yourself?

Can't say I have. I'm not really an Arthurian legend specialist. Monmouth's History would be a good place to start, if you're interested, but I've got enough reading to do as it is.

[Redzeppelin]

If we are using my wording of your generalization ("it [evolution] appeals solely to atheists") and if we are in agreement that the denominations I mention a) are theistic and b) accept that biological evolution happens (regardless of who or what originated it) then yes, your generalization is flat-out false. If you mean that most atheists accept the theory of biological evolution, then you are most likely correct.

My language may have been inexact; I was implying the latter.

Certainly. You, however, did not make a statement of opinion, you made a statement of fact:

Fair enough - though would you expect me to speak differently about what I believe to be fact? I think much of this goes on on both sides of the fence (esp in the evolution vs. creationism thread).

Given that we were talking about the theory of biological evolution (and not the origin of life on the planet, of which that theory says little), you seem to be saying is that acceptance of the theory of evolution and belief in a divine creator are mutually exclusive. It is, in fact, quite possible to hold both ideas in one's mind simultaneously without any doublethink, regardless of whether or not you, personally, do. The idea of theistic evolution is not immediately self-contradictory, and is quite wide-spread.

I see my error - I tend to lump all evolution together and I'm not always careful about the distinction. Sorry. I do understand the difference, and I speak primarily about the origin of life on the planet (of which evolution must address if God is eliminated as an option).

I haven't compared the scope, intent, audience or social value of the Grail Legends to the that of the Bible. The only parallel I have drawn is that both claim the existance of a certain person and neither provide any evidence. I am not commenting on the value of either, I am drawing an analogy. I apologize if you are offended by the anaology.

Right - and I get the basis of the analogy - I suppose I'm trying to push the analogy further by showing that there is a weakness within it that won't allow it to seriously stand as an option because the contents of each is very different; as such, I'm suggesting that not all "mythology" is created equal. In fact, C.S. Lewis - an expert on literature - confessed that as mythology, the Bible was actually not even well-written mythology because it didn't follow much of the necessary patterns of mythology. My point is that both you and I know that there is a difference in the legend of the Lady of the Lake and the "legendary" contents of the Bible.

You're making a Jamesian "true because it's useful and useful because it's true" argument, unless I'm badly misreading you? Fair enough, that was the answer I was looking for.

No I'm not. I'm not saying that the qualities I listed prove that the Bible is true; I was applying another qualification to both proffered "faiths" to further underscore the difference between the two; a real faith changes lives; a pseudo-faith does not.

And if the ancient Egyptians were right, we're both screwed. I doubt if I'll lose much sleep over it. I appreciate your concern, however.

I'd be worried if and only if the Egyptian's version of God answered all the necessary qualifications that God must answer in order to explain the existence of life, the universe and morality - luckily, no other god does so, so I'm pretty confident in my position.

[Zirkle2007]

In my opinion, and no offense intended, there is no such thing as an athiest. They are simply people who really don't know if there is a God. They are agnostic, not athiests.

[Redzeppelin]

In my opinion, and no offense intended, there is no such thing as an athiest. They are simply people who really don't know if there is a God. They are agnostic, not athiests.

I understand this logic; I suppose I would reply that the agnostic at least presents the position that he might be open to the idea, provided some sort of "evidence" could be produced. In that way, I might call an agnostic a "passive" atheist. An atheist, by contrast, seems to hold the position that there is no "evidence" to be found, and even if it could be, it would more than likely be dismissed (what good is evidence for something that they refuse to acknowledge exists?). But - I speak for my atheist brothers/sisters and ought not: gentlemen/ladies - care to comment?

[Matrim Cuathon]

an agnostic is not a "passive atheist." agnostics believe that it is impossible to know whether or not a creator exists. atheists believe that one doesnt.

[cuppajoe_9]

There are two types of atheist and two types of agnostic:

A strong (or positive) atheist believes that no gods exist.
A weak (or negative) atheist does not believe in gods.
A strong agnostic believes that it is not possible to have knowledge of gods either way.
A weak agnostic is not sure whether or not gods exist.

All agnostics are weak atheists, but not all weak atheists are agnostics (a person to whom the concept of gods has never been explained, for example, is a weak atheist but not an agnostic). People who describe themselves as atheists are usually strong atheists (i.e. they believe that no gods exist). This does not, however, imply that strong atheists are necesarily closed minded, or that they would not change their minds of sufficient evidence to the contrary was presented (as in the case of the philosopher Antony Flew, for example).

Fair enough - though would you expect me to speak differently about what I believe to be fact? I think much of this goes on on both sides of the fence (esp in the evolution vs. creationism thread).

Yes, quite a few people on both sides tend to use the word 'opinion' in a way that is, in my opinion (heh), mistaken. Statements such as "In my opinion, humans are/are not descended from ape-like creatures" have the the same logical value as "In my opinion, that car is red" or "In my opinion, the atomic mass of xenon is 131.3". It works the other way too: "In fact, Finnegans Wake is the greatest novel of the twentieth century".

My point is that both you and I know that there is a difference in the legend of the Lady of the Lake and the "legendary" contents of the Bible.

Of course. I wasn't trying to imply any similarity further than the ones I specifically pointed out.

I'm not saying that the qualities I listed prove that the Bible is true; I was applying another qualification to both proffered "faiths" to further underscore the difference between the two; a real faith changes lives; a pseudo-faith does not.

I'll be more specific: you are making the case that the idea that a god (or, rather, your God in particular) exists is useful in terms of improving the quality of life of the faithful, and should therefore be treated as true, right? That is exactly William James's point.

[The Atheist]

There are two types of atheist and two types of agnostic:

A strong (or positive) atheist believes that no gods exist.
A weak (or negative) atheist does not believe in gods.
A strong agnostic believes that it is not possible to have knowledge of gods either way.
A weak agnostic is not sure whether or not gods exist.

All agnostics are weak atheists, but not all weak atheists are agnostics (a person to whom the concept of gods has never been explained, for example, is a weak atheist but not an agnostic). People who describe themselves as atheists are usually strong atheists (i.e. they believe that no gods exist). This does not, however, imply that strong atheists are necesarily closed minded, or that they would not change their minds of sufficient evidence to the contrary was presented (as in the case of the philosopher Antony Flew, for example).

Yes, quite a few people on both sides tend to use the word 'opinion' in a way that is, in my opinion (heh), mistaken. Statements such as "In my opinion, humans are/are not descended from ape-like creatures" have the the same logical value as "In my opinion, that car is red" or "In my opinion, the atomic mass of xenon is 131.3". It works the other way too: "In fact, Finnegans Wake is the greatest novel of the twentieth century".

Well said.

I get so bored with these statements which come up as though pre-determined by some kind of christian lottery:

"Hey, it's your turn to point out that they can't be actual atheists..."

N.B. to any which think that way:

In case my screen name doesn't give it away, I'm a strong atheist.

It's taken me nearly half a century to arrive at strong atheism, having passed from an openly atheist child to an agnostic youth, a questioning twenty-something, an atheist thirty-something and on to where I am now, a complete and outspoken atheist as I near fifty.

Just a note for christians - every single one of your positions or arguments is something I've already heard many times over the years and can be summed as up "anecdotal evidence + a collection of Abrahamic god myths = christianity".

You're welcome to retain the comfort-blanket of the big sky-daddy, but please do not, even for a millisecond, suggest that you know anything about life on the side of the road where there are no gods - the real world - because you have no idea why I'm an atheist and almost certainly all of the reasons you've been given to explain why people are atheists are irretrievably wrong.

Atheists are atheists for the simplest of reasons - there are no gods. We'll never agree on that, but I do respectfully ask that you learn to tell the difference between fact and fantasy. It's all very easily explained - from the voice of Jesus you respond to, to the religious awe you feel in contemplating your god. It's all physical and you can find the facts, should you choose to do so.

You won't find the truth on an internet message board, but you might if you open your eyes for a second or two along life's journey.

And note my first Orwell quote - it applies equally to religion as The Party

[Redzeppelin]

There are two types of atheist and two types of agnostic:

A strong (or positive) atheist believes that no gods exist.
A weak (or negative) atheist does not believe in gods.
A strong agnostic believes that it is not possible to have knowledge of gods either way.
A weak agnostic is not sure whether or not gods exist.

All agnostics are weak atheists, but not all weak atheists are agnostics (a person to whom the concept of gods has never been explained, for example, is a weak atheist but not an agnostic). People who describe themselves as atheists are usually strong atheists (i.e. they believe that no gods exist). This does not, however, imply that strong atheists are necesarily closed minded, or that they would not change their minds of sufficient evidence to the contrary was presented (as in the case of the philosopher Antony Flew, for example).

Thank you - that is helpful.

I'll be more specific: you are making the case that the idea that a god (or, rather, your God in particular) exists is useful in terms of improving the quality of life of the faithful, and should therefore be treated as true, right? That is exactly William James's point.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that the results or overall effects of following a particular faith system might be said to reveal its value. A dangerous statement, I'll admit - but few things in life adhered to passionately are immune to such risks.

[ennison]

CUPPAJOE JUST GETS CLEVERER. I wish I could believe him not. I feel through the ether a young man heading for a profound and terrifying conversion

[Redzeppelin]

CUPPAJOE JUST GETS CLEVERER. I wish I could believe him not. I feel through the ether a young man heading for a profound and terrifying conversion

Boy - wouldn't that be something.

[cuppajoe_9]

What am I supposed to be converting to? (Or is it converging with?)

[Redzeppelin]

What am I supposed to be converting to? (Or is it converging with?)

I assumed ennison was discussing Christianity. (Hence the use of "terrifying")

[cuppajoe_9]

Yes, it would be. I've tried it before, and I didn't much care for it.

[Redzeppelin]

Yes, it would be. I've tried it before, and I didn't much care for it.

Would you believe me if I told you that sometimes age changes things? I spent much of my 20s paying "lip service" to God and the Christianity I was raised within but living my life as I pleased (and I am still reaping the unfortunate results of many of those choices ); years ago, my father (attempting to steer my away from an "interfaith" relationship that had the potential to turn later into a "holy war") warned me to be careful - that what I'd grown up with might come back and re-assert its value in my life. He was right.

Carl Jung asserted something similar in his treatment of the Grail Legend - that young men often come into contact with something profound in their youth that only truly makes itself known to them in middle age. For an interesting treatment of this, I recommend Robert Johnson's short book He.