...In death, as in life, Hitchens joined the religious as just another idealist!

While most Olo'ers may not notice, I applaud Graham Young for allowing this article to be posted today (Sunday) - not normally done.

Given the assumed differences in opinion between OLO's chief editor and that of Christopher Hitchens, this speaks volumes. Thank you.

.
"idealist"?? - hardly. Hitch was more a realist, though did have some views that resulted in some interesting alignments.

His support for the invasion of Iraq was intriguing.

His ability to view things rhetorically was second-to-none

eg http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hJ0eOUVnyFA

There's more here - http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/dec/16/christopher-hitchens-debate-highlights-video
.

For those unacquainted with the power of Hitchens' writings, here is a selection that was put together by David Sessions of The Daily Beast.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/16/the-best-christopher-hitchens-longreads.html

It doesn't matter whether you agreed with Hitch on everything, or anything, or just some things. What is clear from these articles is that the world has lost a significant voice, articulate and compelling on a range of subjects. And someone who wrote stunningly well.

Thanks Bon Mot. Actually it was so much that I "allowed" the article to be published, but that I commissioned the writing of it and suggested that it be published today.

I realised that people would be wanting to read about it today, not tomorrow, and to leave it until later would short change both the author and our readers.

I used to enjoy Hitchens' writing, but I thought he had faults, and one was that he was too certain about everything. He also had a virtue which overwhelms that fault, which is that he wasn't afraid to make enemies by saying what he thought.

I obviously don't agree with him on religion, and I also thought he was too one-eyed about the invasion of Iraq, an invasion which I didn't support in principle, but once it had begun supported in practice. But I did admire the way he was prepared to put former comrades and allies off-side, and he made many valuable points against the propagandists on the other side.

Thought I'd write this comment as a way of giving members of this forum some more insight into how editorial decisions are taken.

Graham, I couldn't agree with you more (well, except for the religion bit).

In your editorial decision, you have demonstrated 'respect' - so very important, particularly these days.

Thanks again - and thanks for the insight, it is helpful.

Btw, I think you actually meant "Actually it wasn't so much that..."

GrahamY,
Many regulars logging on for Monday's articles will assume there have not been any posted since Friday am, so they may miss this .... ??

I am intrigued with your comment about "the invasion of Iraq, an invasion which I [GrahamY] didn't support in principle, but once it had begun supported in practice."

What about the "practice" involving such arrogance that Iraqis were soon activated to attack "the liberators"?? and set the whole event back several years?

We live in a real world McReal. I wouldn't have invaded Iraq. Far cheaper, and probably effective in the longer term to enforce the no fly zone, let the Kurd's develop their own autonomy and wait for Saddam to die or fall from power.

It would have involved people dying, but they would have been different people, and who knows where the balance of deaths would have lain.

And then there are all those issues of domestic sovereignty, and I could go on.

But once the invasion was mooted by the US you had to be on board because it couldn't be allowed to fail. The consequences of that would have been worse than going in.

In the end it was a high risk gamble that paid off. The real question is not whether it succeeded, but whether an alternative strategy might not have succeeded better.

The Iraqis by and large didn't rise up against the US, but the invasion did unleash a mini civil war, and there were opportunistic forces like Al Qaeda and the Syrians and Iranians who got involved as well.

I thought Hitchens arguments were valuable, but I did see him as part of a cheer squad. And he had a former Marxist's bias in favour of violent overthrow. We published many who were formerly from the hard Marxist left who took a similar view. Indeed, the Neo-Cons in the US come from the same stable.

And when I publish something on the weekend because it is timely I always include it in the emails on the Monday. People will see it.

David writes

'Revering the works and words of Christopher Hitchens is really giving acclaim to an outstanding proponent of reason and clear thinking processes'

until you compare them with the words of the Master and Saviour.

Hitchens, the atheist supported an atrocity, the invasion of Iraq, and its consequences. I would have expected an atheist to have more compassion.

He might have been eloquent and engaging, however on the matter of Iraq, he was morally bankrupt.

let me begin with a quote..""Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein""

so there is fact
statistic...or lie
much depends on the spin..
[or eloquence..of the one delivering the mess-age]

thing is we are energy activating the flesh
when we die..the energy that cant be detected nor destroyed/law..comes into affect

if hitchkins...was so clever
it wasnt comming from his body..but his mind
[the person he is/was...isnt written in his physical brain]
it likely was wrote large on his heart

and that is what this life here is for
to find our passions...[to fill eternity]

i wish he had used his mind to find a better way
not judge destroy the old way...what is blind faith in religeon..or blind faith in science..but a trust...trusting they have fact..then trusting their fact

hitckids had no fact
he had words...words other write large on their own heart

he has in his brief time...decieved near as many as any other deciever
[but when is the right time..to say so]

when sir joe died
protesters were asked and remained mute
and now it seems pety to pick at his dead corpse

so when is the right time to rebuke error
when is the right time to talk ill of the dead
[especially if you know he aint dead][indeed is suffering
by his own hand...depending on how much he really believed in no god]

god is like hitchkids...we cant speak ill of the dead
or of those who cant defend themselves..[or refuse to argue with children]

you who loved him
now think him dead
but what about us..who know he aint..

should we stand mute
say nuthing

lets hear of a lover of hitckins..putting up his main points
in a few pages...

then sort the gift
from the grift of the gab

to quote auther[the other christ-off/er]

quote..""We can expect detractors
to exit from the woodwork over the next months.[/quote]

just like the other christ
got his destracters

""There will be half-true and untrue rumours and stories
of a hateful nature,""

yet not one FULL truth?
just half truths..and untruths[lol]

""which will only go to reinforce
the greatness of this one human
who once trod the earth..in a dignified manner""

oh dear we got the first saint

"""Revering the works and words of Christopher Hitchens
is really giving acclaim to an outstanding proponent of reason and clear thinking processes.""

yes just as boxers have their idols
and the arts have theirs
and religeons got theirs

the antireligeonists now got their saint

""He had the remarkable ability to place shared concepts,
ideas and thoughts in an order not easily achievable by others.""

yes he had a way with words
but did his words crerate hope...or dilute faith
did he validate or just desiminate others 'works'..with his words

what are his ten key points?
[you know definitive statements..that if refuted refute his theory]

""His outstanding written and oral delivery
provided a basis for his colleagues, friends and admirers to build their own repertoires into more workable condition.""

yes having the right buzzwords
to the right type...its money in the bank

like holding an al gore authority...
to use his format..on seas rising

if you know what your trying to say
how many words does it take..to say this is my proof

can we get some main..bullit points
crist-offer 'hitch'....main points are...?

and im not reading his expensive book

"Hitchens, the atheist supported an atrocity, the invasion of Iraq, and its consequences. I would have expected an atheist to have more compassion."

Given that he was so derogatory of Mother Teresa, Christopher Hitchens did not believe in the meaning of, let alone practise, compassion.

Mr Hitchens was trenchant, incisive in his criticisms of Henry Kissinger, but eventually seemed to go quiet about the doings of that fellow. Can anyone point me to an essay of Chris's that explains why he "moved on", or whatever it was he did, in easing his pursuit of Dear Henry?

Oh well.

So long to a facile wordslinger. Rumour has it that Yahweh has offered him a 17-Eternity pass to Heaven, and he may yet accept it, if Yoani Sanchez gets a similar offer. Imagine, basking in unending glory, with another of the Empire's court jesters.

We can examine the statement "To die without illusions is to die a strong man." That is a generalisation that applies to nobody. Although Hitchens did not have the particular illusion that there is a God one cannot honestly say about him or any other person that he had no illusions.

One of Hitchens' articles examined the generalisation, "Whatever doesn't kill me makes me stronger." He made the point that his cancer had not killed him but had made him considerably weaker.

Another false generalisation is that religion lessens the fear of death.

From Roy Porter's "Flesh in the Age of Reason":

"Like Johnson, Boswell was tortured by a fundamental fear of death. He sought reassurance of any kind from anyone. He harassed the dying David Hume. The sceptical philosophe’s calm at his impending demise from liver cancer drove Boswell ever more distraught: he wanted to see in the unbeliever the fear which gripped himself. In vain he tried to make Hume reveal some spark of faith. At the sceptic's imperviousness, Boswell became increasingly desperate:

“I ... felt a degree of horror, mixed with a sort of wild, strange, hurrying recollection of my excellent mother's pious instructions, of Dr. Johnson's noble lessons, and of my religious sentiments and affections during the course of my life. I was like a man in sudden danger eagerly seeking his defensive arms.

The thought of somebody dying without dread was unbearable.""

Sophocles said, "It is good to die young. It is better not to be born at all." Regarding the latter not everyone is that lucky.

Thanks for this thread.

You may not always have agreed with Christopher
Hitchens but listing to him debating learned and
religious figures on the Bible, Hell, and Jesus,
was entertaining. One has to admit the man had
style.

I admire Hitchens as a great polemicist and writer capable of stirring people's passions--if not their imaginations, or empathy. It seems to me Hitchens epitomised and played up to the myopic and predictable paranoia of a supercilious, imperialist-rationalist Set, conspicuous for its indifference to the evils it presides complacently over, yet outraged and intolerant beyond all measure of anything eccentric or idealistic or non-conformist or, worst of all, critical.
This is not merely sour grapes at Hitchens's ostensible betrayal of the left, whose representatives are often as deserving of censure as any group; I'm often critical of the left myself. But Hitchens wasn't merely critical of elements of leftist propaganda after 9/11--his epiphany--as he liked to recount, he abandoned the left and embraced the liberal-rationalist right, not only against political leftists, but economic reformists (same thing), religious idealists, malcontents, dissidents, aliens, and critics of every stamp.
I would have had more respect for Hitchens if he'd taken no side but was critical of all--no side is above criticism--but he crossed the no-man's land and chose to defend the dominant material and ideological force in the world--seduced by the dark side, you might say, which makes a fetish of human rationalism and imagines itself self-righteous. Hitchens and co have helped make liberal rationalism an ideology, as cock-sure as Catholicism was in its hayday, and just as deluded. Worse, he's diverted much of what political dissent there was into futile ideological intolerance.
In his sober (thoughtful) moments I suspect Hitchens's was conversant with the hypocricies that underwrote his rage, but he never lived long enough to expose them, as I'm sure he eventually would have.
Unfortunately, he never had time to think better and recant.

I agree Lexi.
As much as some of the things he wrote or spoke about were controversial in the extreme, I still admired him for saying what he felt.
He certainly had several religious leaders chasing their tails, and that always makes me smile :)

Squeers obviously doesn't agree...
<"Unfortunately, he never had time to think better and recant."

Why should he recant his words simply because they are different to your beliefs Squeers? He simply didn't believe in the writings of an old book said to be inspired by someone claiming to be the son of a mythical being.

It is not a great stretch for someone to be skeptical of such outrageous claims.

Rest in peace Christopher Hitchens...

Suseonline,
Thank you for that superficial response to my post--which attempted a condensed criticism of Hitchens's political stance in the world, and not merely his criticism of a book I have little time for myself. What you've quoted me as saying should be read in the context of the whole.
This thread is clearly devoted to panegyrics and dissenters are not welcome. Indeed, the liberal rationalists and their followers in general are good at dishing it out but are highly sensitive to criticism.
Indeed they're above it and generally don't deign to reply--at least not reflectively.
Not that I expect Hitchens to reply..

Squeers, thank you for thanking me for being superficial!
A back-handed compliment if ever I saw one.

In any case, your last comment about Christopher Hitchins made me smile... thanks for that :)

Thanks Suseonline for accepting my rebuke so graciously, I felt you gave my post short shrift.
Reviewing the article again it seems to me a shame it hasn't provoked any real engagement. For a start the tone seems more appropriate for a holy relic than human clay; on the other hand, half of it is a plug for atheism rather than a eulogy for Hitchens; atheism too that's apparently a virtue in itself, such that we need not be concerned about it's political or ethical credentials.
There's lots of other interesting material too that might have provoked comment. The twice insisted comment that Hitchens is "forever removed from existence". Apart from rubbing it in so emphatically, even Hitchens implicitly acknowledged that this is an item of faith rather than certain knowledge. Indeed, later David Nichols lauds Hitchens for recognising that "no human concept or reliance on tradition can provide absolute answers". Nor can any provide absolute negations!
Then there's the comment, "A healthy mind [whatever that is] does not wish for its own extinction". The Buddha was afflicted with an unhealthy mind then, since extinction is the goal of Theravada (the doctrine the Buddha taught). Indeed the world is afflicted with a great many unhealthy minds preoccupied with a death wish, even while they cling to life. Thanatos rules and Hitchens's atheism offers no comfort in terms of a "good life" in this world, while obviating the next. And that's the nub of my criticism; I've asked before what the liberal-rationalist atheists stand for in terms of a vision for humanity?
Personally, I've always found the idea of my mortality something of a comfort in such a distressing world and don't fear death at all, only the manner of death. And I do see it as the promise of blessed release. I despise death and have never understood the morbid fetish we make of it, which perhaps explains my lack of respect. What worries me more is I despise life; not life per se, but the life we've commodified and demeaned, which Ditchkins implicitly support.

I think we both know the reason for that, Squeers.

>>Reviewing the article again it seems to me a shame it hasn't provoked any real engagement.<<

The problem with the article is that it makes a fetish of Hitchens' atheism. A mistake that is normally made by Christians, who try to persuade us that atheism is just another facet of religion.

Hitchens didn't take the stance that he did on so many topics "because" he was an atheist. It wasn't the driving force, e.g. "I am an atheist, therefore I must support the war in Iraq", or "I am an atheist, therefore I must expose Henry Kissinger for the showpony charlatan that he is".

He happened not to believe in a Supreme Being. He also adamantly and vociferously opposed the manner in which so many had turned their Supreme Being into a socio-political tool, the better to control and exploit their fellow human beings. But he did so in precisely the same manner that he excoriated anyone who made political capital from mass deceit.

It would be a shame if Hitchens became defined merely by his atheism. It would be doubly shameful if this were to occur through the agency of atheist "organizations".

squeers quote/'""I've asked before what the liberal-rationalist atheists stand for in terms of a vision for humanity?"''

me too
its a shame we wont know
thus need to guess

but if its anti thiest...im all for that
if its anti/theo
im against it

there is..[anti..]a[thiest
or anti..[a]theo

or a/gnistic...who aanti..[a]..gnostic's

or some other such
flawed BELIEF..susstem

to wit miss belief..rather than diss-belief
cause it gives them..mindnumbing relief

""Personally,I've always found the idea
of my mortality something of a comfort""

yep me too

i know this insanity will end
for all of us..regardless of belief..[or thiestic bias]

but not
cause of this world

""in such a distressing world..and don't fear death at all,
only the manner of death.""

all death is dead
regardless of the process

the pains of death are numbed..many die seemingly in peace
drugged to the eye balls..[many sleep away eternity...cause they dont realise they are 'dead']

if dead..they reason
why arnt i dead...lol

circular reasoning
im not dead
so how can i be ';dead'

""And I do see it..as..the promise of blessed release.""
no drugs do that

we 'die'...but not into buddistic nuthingness

thats pure delusion..[energy cant be created nor destroyed]
your life essence [spirit]..lives on
in your new body[your soul]

till you release it
into its eventual..eternal body..of light

""I despise death"'

i embrase it..in its time

""...the morbid fetish..we make of it,
which perhaps explains my lack of respect.""

yeah hitch..*is dead
no kids..where he is...now

""What worries me more..is I despise life;
not life per se,..but the life we've commodified and demeaned,""'

no mate
we must all..pass this way
via one life sentance...to l-earn...!

to what passions..of the new
next/life..same..we give our energy to
as we chose..here/now..[to love]..more of the same..is a given

I see where you are coming from Squeers, but I don't see how one man, such as Christopher Hitchins, can explain his reasons for being an atheist and cause such angst among God-believers?

At the end of the day, all the God-believers will still believe that their God is real and that all the atheists will find this out when they die!

The truth is that no one will ever be able to come back and tell us all the truth though.

I don't class myself as an atheist as such, although I am very much a skeptic who will continue to ask questions and not believe everything I am told just because it has always been that way.

Believing things just on 'faith' is a hard concept for many intelligent people.

I would not presume to tell anyone else what they should and shouldn't believe, but I would also expect to be able to ask questions about those beliefs without being damned to hell for it!

" It is the great protection afforded civilisation by atheism. It is the underpinning of a method of thought that recognises no human concept or reliance on tradition can provide absolute answers."

Had they been still alive, would the Atheist Foundation of Australia have considered inviting the world-renown atheists, Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao, who specialised in ethnic cleansing and intellectuals cleansing respectively, along to the 2012 Global Atheist Convention

Suseonline,
as Pericles says, "It would be a shame if Hitchens became defined merely by his atheism". Indeed his atheism is the least interesting aspect to Hitchens's life and oeuvre. Atheism's just as boring as theism; a load of tedious equivocation over belief or the lack of it, and as you say, we'll probably never know. As Pericles suggests, it's the social/political implications of our beliefs, as institutions, that ought to concern us. While atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief to the average punter, organised atheism that sets up to institutionalise unbelief and be an influence in the world, should be interrogated as to its political/ethical credentials.
Spruiking unbelief as if it's a panacea in itself and all that's wanting in the world, is daft, obsequious and potentially dangerous.
Clear thinking, unencumbered by superstition, is only the beginning; it still has to consider the human condition and how we should live.
I'm going to take advantage of the link Pericles provided and read more Hitchens in order to try to understand where he at least stood on the broader question of how this world should be run.
In the meantime I look forward to the publication of an Atheist Manifesto.

Raycom

'Had they been still alive, would the Atheist Foundation of Australia have considered inviting the world-renown atheists, Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao, who specialised in ethnic cleansing and intellectuals cleansing respectively, along to the 2012 Global Atheist Convention '

Thats a classic. Maybe they could of debated the Pope as to who murdered the most people.

Gee, I get tired of this dopey of line of thought…

<<Had they been still alive, would the Atheist Foundation of Australia have considered inviting the world-renown atheists, Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao, who specialised in ethnic cleansing and intellectuals cleansing respectively, along to the 2012 Global Atheist Convention>>

…Duh.

Why would they, Raycom? There’s nothing within atheism to support what they were famous for doing. Unlike all the slaughter in the name of God - which is actually endorsed by holy scriptures and in writing.

Suseonline,

So in what way are you not an atheist?

<<I don't class myself as an atheist as such, although I am very much a skeptic who will continue to ask questions and not believe everything I am told just because it has always been that way.>>

Because you really don’t seem to believe in any Gods.

AJ is blinded to the dogmas of atheism that has led to millions of deaths. Pseudo science is used as justifcation to murder the unborn as much so as people use the name of God. No wonder he gets tired of the 'dopey'lines.

"would the Atheist Foundation of Australia have considered inviting the ... Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao, ... along to the 2012 Global Atheist Convention"
Posted by Raycom, Wednesday, 21 December 2011 1:41:55 PM

Considering both were religious, they probably would not have accepted.

Stalin set his religion aside soon after leaving his seminary studies, but found religion again in WW2 and remained personally religious for the rest for his life, not that the Committee cared.

Mao was raised Buddhist.

Sorry runner, but atheism doesn’t have a set of tenets and nor is it a claim to truth, so there cannot possibly be a dogma.

<<AJ is blinded to the dogmas of atheism that has led to millions of deaths.>>

But a pretty bold statement to make after we’d just finished discussing the immorality of Christianity nonetheless.

<<Pseudo science is used as justifcation to murder the unborn as much so as people use the name of God.>>

Could you point me to an example of abortion being justified with "pseudo science"?

<<No wonder he gets tired of the 'dopey'lines.>>

No. I get tired of it because, despite having been through that debate many times over on OLO, you theists have never once provided a reason to blame the communist regimes of the 20th century on atheism (nor why being able to would have any significance) and yet we still get some random idiot pop their head in occasionally to make a daft comment along these lines as if the suggestion hadn’t been discredited multiple times already on this forum.

You guys are like robots sometimes, just repeating whatever nonsense you’ve been programmed to.

Similar to the concept of "GIGO”, I guess.

AJ you do play dumb

'Could you point me to an example of abortion being justified with "pseudo science"? '

Refusing to acknowledge a child until you have an acceptable period to determine whether you want to terminate it or not.

@GrahamY: But once the invasion was mooted by the US you had to be on board because it couldn't be allowed to fail.

I don't understand this. They failed in Vietnam, and world continued on. Why would Iraq be any different? And does the same logic apply to Afghanistan?

I recall you saying elsewhere you supported Australia's because it made sense to be in the same tent. Much as I disliked the war myself, that was my position. But I can not see any harm in exiting from Iraq, beyond losing all the brownie points we had won from being in the tent.

GrahamY,
I was alluding to how the Coalition forces (mostly US forces) were so overwhelmingly arrogant that the local quickly turned from receptive to very hostile. What factors contributed to that?

McReal

You conveniently overlook the fact that both Stalin and Chairman Mao committed the atrocities as committed Communists, who opposed any form of religion in accordance with undertaking their objectives of godlessness. Therefore, they qualify eminently as atheists in that context.

Judging from what I have read of Hitchens, the man appeared to have a -quite reasonable- contempt for sycophants and toadies.
If there were such a mode of existence allowing consciousness after biological death, (and the existence of such a mode did not require the existence of a deity) and the entities existing in such a mode were capable of spying on our existence (horrible thought) I suspect the former Hitchens would be thinking of this piece, “what a load of crap”.
Would he appreciate being run up someone else's flagpole? (even if, as in this conjecture, death was not an intensely 'life changing' experience...)
I suspect the coming troubles will not be so much from the religious or the non-religious or even the anti-religious, but rather from the zealots on both sides; just as it has ever been.
Unlike the wry Squeers, I don't “look forward” to the Atheist Manifesto... But I don't doubt it's coming.

[Deleted for trying to discuss moderation decisions plus abuse. User suspended for good.]

[Deleted for discussion of moderation.]

Squeers wrote: If OLOers wants to read a real modern Orwell, try Terry Eagleton, though I doubt he'd be to your taste--barring a few noble exceptions (including C J Morgan). If OLOers wants to read a real modern Orwell, try Terry Eagleton, though I doubt he'd be to your taste--barring a few noble exceptions (including C J Morgan).
Dear Squeers, One problem with Terry Eagleton is that he is full of rubbish.

Terry Eagleton wrote In Praise of Marx. From his essay:

"The truth is that Marx was no more responsible for the monstrous oppression of the communist world than Jesus was responsible for the Inquisition."

However, Eagleton doesn’t mention what was responsible for the deaths. Eagleton's truth is a lie.

Most people grant that the Holocaust was no accident. It was simply Nazi ideology in practice. The corpses produced by the Marxist murderers were no accident either.

I wrote “Why so many corpses” which can be found at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12693.

Look it up, and you will see how the Communist Manifesto was a recipe for oppression and murder.

The Marxist murder machines murdered on the basis of class, and the Nazi murder machines murdered on the basis of race. There are still believers in the two stinking ideologies. Eagleton is no Orwell. He is just another apologist for an oppressive ideology.

Orwell had little use for either ideology. Please don't blacken Orwell's name by comparing him with a stench like Eagleton.

[Deleted for arguing about moderation decisions.]

Dear Poirot,

I see nothing to justify the invasion of Iraq. Bush lied the US into that war. I think Hitchens was absolutely wrong in supporting that war. However, that does not excuse the Marxist murders and the ideology that inspired those murders.

It somehow seems that if one condemns the Marxist murders then one must support the war in Iraq. That is nonsense.

The Marxist generated corpses were no accident and were a consequence of the Marxist ideology. That does not excuse US imperialism and the war in Iraq. The Iraqi corpses were a consequence of US imperialism. Eagleton is simply another apologist for the Marxist criminals, and Hitchens is another apologist for the US invasion of Iraq. Eagleton and Hitchens - both apologists for the corpse makers.

Dear Poirot,

Apparently being on the left means one must ignore or excuse the corpses the Marxist criminals made and being on the rights means one must ignore or excuse the corpses the imperialist criminals made.

How about for once thinking of human suffering and mass murder and condemning whoever or whatever justifies it. There are too many Eagletons and Hitchens who will support mass murder as long as the murderers share their ideology.

Bravo David f.
I have always been amazed that insanity can be used as a defence in a murder trial. How can killing another human being ever be described as 'sane'? Equally it bothers me the continuing argument over capital punishment, even in this country. How can people suggest that the state has no right to murder, when the state does it all the time? We hear with great sadness about one of our children dying “for their country” overseas; why is it we rarely hear of how many they killed? And on those occasions when we do, it's (apparently) a cause for celebration, not mourning.
I mourn not only for the victim, but also for the perpetrator. I know (and have known many more) returned soldiers, and all without exception regard themselves as permanently scarred by their experiences.
I am not a pacifist. I have always been prepared to fight to defend and protect my family, but I will never throw the first punch. Invading another country is an act of aggression, and selectively invading countries not on the basis of the evil of the regime, but on the country's mineral wealth is an obscenity.
Might I also point out that the 'left-right' division is superficial and simplistic? There are libertarians on both sides, i.e. Ron Paul is on the 'other side' from me, yet I agree with far more of his contentions than I disagree. He is for instance the only presidential candidate who is not in favour of US imperialism -as well as the Gold Standard and personal liberty.

Davidf quoting Eagleton:
"The truth is that Marx was no more responsible for the monstrous oppression of the communist world than Jesus was responsible for the Inquisition."
This is absolutely true; I think the practitioners of murder and oppression deserve the credit for their crimes and not their twisted version of a humanist philosophy.
I've already registered my thoughts on your silly anti-Marx thread: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12693#219273
Marx is no more responsible for Stalin's atrocities than he is for the recently deceased mad dog leader of North Korea, who is being disingenuously mourned as a virtual deity. This can hardly be said to have been inspired by Marx, who was a materialist and had no truck with deities whatsoever, minor or major.
As for the Manifesto; you've only read it through a jaundiced eye and read your villainy "into" it. I had intended to write a defence of it in response, and would still like to when I have the time--though nothing I could say would defeat your prejudice, or anyone else's, I should think.

But to clarify, I was comparing Eagleton to Orwell as a prose stylist; whatever you think of the subject matter, he's a brilliantly witty writer, on par with Orwell and superior to Hitchens imo.
Eagleton does defend Marx, but he also defends Jesus, a radical by any other name (indeed he's {Eagleton} a lapsed Catholic still influenced by theology). But first and foremost, like Orwell, Eagleton's a literary critic and his essays are masterful.
Have a nice day, David.

aj/quote..""There’s nothing within atheism
to support what they were famous for doing.""

included for con-text

""Unlike all the slaughter in the name of God"...!

please give some facts[proofs]
full text..not just one line...taken out of context

""which is actually endorsed by holy scriptures and in writing.""

what qwritings
what scriptures egasactly
[if thats not gouing off topic]

maybe as their own topic
one for each 'text'...

is there one saying god is pleased with murder
or one that says ye shalt NOT murder?

if its endorsed...show which ones
and i will show you ten to say you got that context wrong

god has grace mercy/love light..good
anything not all good..isnt giving back to god!

the good god who created materialistic 'life'
a place..where even the least..can be beast
till the evolve spiritually

if the text is to guide us
to the higher things of spirit...[and to the eventual good
its things like love god by loving neighbour...not some line of text]

look at the big picture
but lets hear the line texts
and pluck the weeds ADULTERATED..into how we read 'the text'

like..if its not all good..for all
its not a good offering..for good[god]
only good..is perfect

but only one reaches the high measure
god..not son..not priest...ONLY ONE IS ALL GOOD
all loving loving all living...all giving all charity

basing the plight of our soul
upon anmy words of man...well thats a slippery slope
filter the words..if its nmot about getting nearer to good [god]

then its nothing
if its not good..its not really..a things that helps
but gives us..a lower starting pioint..that allows us to climb higher

knowing that step
is closer to the good
than the last step was

one under god wrote:

""Unlike all the slaughter in the name of God"...!

please give some facts[proofs]
full text..not just one line...taken out of context

""which is actually endorsed by holy scriptures and in writing.""

Anglican Bishop John Shelby Spong has recognised the evil promoted by holy scripture and would like other Christians to recognise and deal with it. The Bible was written by humans who incorporated the prejudices in it. There is no context in which one can put the following quotes which will mitigate their evil. From his website:
http://johnshelbyspong.com/sample-essays/the-terrible-texts/

RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY:

“No one comes to the Father but by me” (John 14:6)

This text has helped to create a world where adherents of one religion feel compelled to kill adherents of another. A veritable renaissance of religious terror now confronts us and is making against us the claims we have long made against religious traditions different from our own.

ANTI-SEMITISM:

And the people answered, ‘His blood be on us and on our children’” (Matt. 27:25)

No other verse of Holy Scripture has been responsible for so much violence and so much bloodshed. People convinced that these words conferred legitimacy and even holiness on their hostility have killed millions of Jewish people over history. Far more than Christians today seem to understand, to call the Bible “Word of God” in any sense is to legitimize this hatred reflected in its pages.

SEXISM:

For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.” (1Cor. 8-9)

The message of the Christian church was once that women are evil to their core and it was built on the story of Eve. She was taken out of man and was not his equal, but his helpmeet. Evil entered human history through the weakness of the woman. She was made to bear the blame and the guilt. She was the source of death.

He also blames the Bible for inspiring homophobia, corporal punishment and environmental degradation. Go the url cited for details. Literal believers in the Bible have caused great human suffering.

Poirot - thank you for picking up on the essential meaning of my post.

I'll leave others to argue the bleeding obvious, that no single person is completely 'right' about everything. The important thing is that we acknowledge our flaws - not easy, certainly haven't perfected it, but do keep trying. Whereas others believe their power can be used to silence others, ignoring that people may remain silent but that does not imply acquiescence.

Non religious people need the Hitchens, the Dawkins, the AC Graylings, even the Father Bobs and Shelby Spongs and other public stirrers - not because everything they say is right or even true or justified but because to never question authority is to remain apathetic and simply bullied.

The greatly flawed and brilliant Hitchens was never the fodder for bullies.

david/quote..""RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY:

“No one comes to the Father
but by me”..(John 14:6)"""

replied here
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4898&page=0
[*post limitations*]..!

""A veritable renaissance of religious terror""

oh please....[its allways darkest before the dawn]
not till we see a better way can we go there

""ANTI-SEMITISM:

And the people answered,
‘His blood be on us..and on our children’”..(Matt. 27:25)""

this story begins with judas...!
read that in context...it was THE PEOPLE...not the judge
not god..not fate not karma...it was a mob

an unamed lot of pepole
WHERE ARE the semite/JEWS..named
zionists arnt sematic jews...any blood can only be on those 'doing the deed...lol..sheep following orders[neuremberg refuted that excuse]

""No other verse..so much bloodshed.""'

yes we the people certainly got the guilt
but hey lets be specific..WHERE ARE SEMITES NAMED?

""Far more than Christians today..seem to understand,"""lol

""to call the Bible “Word of God”..in any sense
is to legitimize..this""[semetic..your word]..""hatred reflected in its pages.""

mate..the jew..isnt the 'only people'

""SEXISM:

For man..was not made from woman,..but woman..from man.
Neither was man created..for woman,..but woman..*for man.”..(1Cor. 8-9)""..

read the laws of levie
a father can forgive his daughter...[foolishness]
husband forgive wife...brother forgive sister...etc etc

eve is FORE-given
in many ways...[forgivable]..by adam..her brother[they are clones]
by adam her husband...adam her father...etc etc

besides...eve wasnt told
[gen 3;1...'the serphant did ask eve..:did god really say''...[to you]
or did your insestious brother/father/hush-band...say it to you]

adam told her
[its a control issue...thats why woman
wernt allowed to read the book...!

heck the scam guilt trip would be over overnight

oh david...i read the law/book..to learn the law
you got nuthin..in a court-case..only here-say

anyhow post limits....lol
[and all that]......

more later

@Ammonite: Deleted for trying to discuss moderation decisions plus abuse.

That's a shame. I read your post this morning, but was busy. Now that I have time to respond I see it is gone.

I wasn't aware CJ has passed away, although now I look I see it was discussed at the time. Very sad news. CJ and I disagreed vehemently on some things, and CJ didn't hold back in putting his point of view. In my mind that made CJ one of the better sparring partners I had on OLO. It was a shock to see you say he has left us.

For me the weird thing about the feud between GY and and CJ wasn't the passion of the feud itself, it was that in the end despite CJ's endless railing at GY's moderation decisions he kept coming back, subjecting himself to it, suspension after suspension, ultimately sneaking back after being banned. I wonder how CJ rationalised this to himself? He hated the process, yet could not resist what it created.

To me, this makes CJ one of GY's most passionate fans. The poignant thing is that now, even after CJ's death, neither man seems to realise it.

moderation...carries its own moderators...
if moderate....its perfect...[thats why cj came back]

but lets not distract from our odes..to ch
and hope no more leave

paul..quote..'''He also blames the Bible..
for inspiring homophobia,""

lol....sepperation of the sexes
where all nuns are married to god[or to jesus]
not the same thing...or woman not allowed at sacred cerimonies

or maybe sodd-um and gormora?
anyhow feel free to name
i will try to explain

""well then he missed some things

corporal punishment and environmental degradation.""

scape goating?

god dont punish[nor order/decree]
anyone to be punished...this is the perversion of man

the chirst saidc leave the wheat grow with the tares
[he didnt say kill them..he didnt say send them to jail for being poor...the guy mixes up his bias...into a fixated blind hate of the text's

tell us
what text[specificly]
validates..the error

""Literal believers in the Bible..have
*caused great human suffering""

im presuming thats used figorativly....

ignorannce of the bible [koran/magdavita...etc]..is excusable
but not ignorance of the good [god]..who sustains living

re environt-mental degradation
gen 1;20-25...founded the trust
gen 1;26...appointed the trustee

a..SERRVANT...to serve
the common weal[wealth]..common *trust

noting 1;27..!
[note the absence of the rib?

he them says to THEM*
'subdue'...not destroy
not own..not exploite...

note specificly..29-30
[thats re the wikiseed/wikigeld..rev 22
based on the seed of exodust..31-40]

noting 40
[was found by the hippies...in the 70's
in the hunter river...[that was joined to namoi river
[meaning in language 'river of life']..govt gave each of us..credit

we share in total...everything
for everyone...none to say you cant be here
so we are...and come back as soon as we can...can even change name

was hitckinds his real name
or just a quality i ascribe..by my bias?

its the vibe
yep its just the vibe

Good people of OLO. This is my one and only post on this thread.

Thank you all for expressing your opinions concerning the death of Christopher Hitchens.

May I leave you with a New Year’s message and feel free to accept or reject it. After all, it is your life.

It would not be difficult to imagine that Hitch thought that the following was a reasonable way of thinking.

Happy New Year to the religious and irreligious alike.

David

What does it gain a person to believe a particular delusion for her or his whole life, when if not true, will never be known.

It is far better to put delusion aside and if wrong, face the alleged consequences and at least know this course was wrong instead of wasting the only life you will ever have, and never know.

one could go on denying their Creator all their life hoping in vain they won't have to pay the price for their actions. Thankfully Christ has provided forgiveness for all those willing to turn from their self righteousness and receive eternal life. Who would you believe? Hitchens or Christ Himself. One will be shortley forgotton the other will reign forever and ever. Have a blessed new year!

Dear runner,

After life there is nothing. That's it. Finito. Kaput. The end. That's all for both of us. I face reality. You don't. However, it really doesn't matter. We will both be dead.

Happy New Year. I am glad to be alive and hope you are also glad to be alive.

i know its futile..epitone..meaning as it does
but lets egsamin the perfect egsemplars

the casual a-thiest..miss/quote..

""What does it gain a person..to believe a particular delusion
for her or his whole life,..when if not true,..will never be known.""

yet if true the holder of the absurdity
must live eternity knowing they were too self obsessed
to notice..its truth..[hear its cautionings]

if im wrong..i will never know it
if your wrong you will well recall it..for eternity

""It is far better..to put delusion aside
and if wrong,..face the alleged consequences""

why reject gods inherant goodness his grace his mercy
HE want nuthin...asks nuthin..expects nuthin

to reject the church/religeon...and insane people...name calling
has nuthin to do with god[at least you so sure..should have valid proofs..of your denialist complicity..but sadly not..!

""and at least know..this course was wrong""

works both ways ol mate

""instead of wasting the only life..lol
..you will ever have,...lol..and never know.""....?

your not saying nuthin
so clearly you dont know neither...lol

david..quote...""After life there is nothing.""

present the science proof ol mate...!

""That's it...Finito...Kaput...The end."""

lol...ok so you believe...but mate what PROOF?

""That's all..for both of us...""...?

""I face reality...You don't."""

LOL
shortage of fact noted


""However,..it really doesn't matter...We will both be dead.""

so you delusion...lol

based on what..a few quotes..
from a book..you think pure lie?

lo

""Happy New Year...I am glad to be alive
and hope you are also glad to be alive.""

i could take it or leave it
but cghose to live it,..[for now]
i wish there was an end..but know there is no end

[energy...[cant be created
nor destroyed]...live with the science fact's
not athiest hope/dreams/delusions...

athiestic/dope
inducing
fact free stupor

UOG, that is the most coherent I have ever read you.

On the Hitchens quote:

"It is far better to put delusion aside and if wrong, face the alleged consequences and at least know this course was wrong instead of wasting the only life you will ever have, and never know."

I have to disagree with your thrust about the "alleged consequences", UOG. These have been laid down by our fellow primates, not by a loving god, surely?

What would His purpose be in giving us the power to reason and to exercise free will if He then coerces us with the fear of eternal retribution if we do not "choose" Him?

What would that retribution be for those who have led a good but godless life? It might be as simple as not passing through to a next existence. So what? Could it be the "hellfire" our fundamentalist preachers rattle? I don't buy any attempt by my fellow primates to lord over me with threats. And what of the majority of the world's people that do not adhere to the bible, written by fellow primates, as guide to their beliefs? Are we all doomed to eternal pain?

You write "HE want nuthin...asks nuthin..expects nuthin"

There can be no consequences, therefore, to rejecting faith.

When one makes an assertion for which there is no evidence there is no reason to accept such an assertion. There is absolutely no evidence for life after death. The fact that many people believe in it is no reason to accept it. There is no reason to believe in such a thing for bacteria, snakes, walruses or humans.

Many people used to believe in a pantheon of gods. The fact that many people believed in it did not make it so. Not to believe in obvious nonsense is a reasonable stance. Death is the end. Kaput. Finito. Gone.

david f writes "Death is the end. Kaput. Finito. Gone."

That is a belief, an assertion, a hypothesis.

This, nor the existence of an afterlife, can be falsified by any experiment, hence they both remain matters of faith. Devout atheism or religiousness both share this fact, so why argue?

"Proof by bold assertion" has never been a part of true science.

Dear Luciferase,

There is evidence that death is the end of life. Organisms that die have no evident existence any more. To assert that death is the end of life is a reasonable assertion. To assert there is more is not a reasonable assertion. We humans are conscious that we will die. Some of us are unwilling to face the termination of our existence and construct or accept the construction of others that death is not the end.

lucifer/quote.."""alleged consequences",..UOG.""

""These have been laid down..by our fellow primates,
not by a loving god,..surely?"">..

fully in agreement
[with the exception of the use fellow primates]
why exclude the rest of creation...that allows instant karma..and eventually death..everything living dies...

[but the essential life energy they represented while alive...live on]...see energy conversation law..E;.[not created..nor destroyed]..

""His purpose..giving us the power to reason
and to exercise free will...if He then coerces us
with the fear of eternal retribution if we do not "choose" Him?""

yes its insane
a parent knows the pride..when their children chose to do the right thing[just like gods joy]...when we try to chose..to the..better
not the childish worse...

[he still loves us regardless...like any truelly loving parent...he 'may'..dislike..the deed..
but not the child

""What would that retribution be..for those who have led a good but godless life?""

the same as those doing the same good
no difference[except...those who chose godless...
want to get to know the good of god better]

[to god we are the same]

[the theory..of religeon..
really dont really rate much mention
where we live our reality of it..each loving living moment of eternity]

[free from creed..we ALL..get
gods still silent[inner]..voice..direct

[no angels
nor demons to tease us..with hints

""as simple
as not passing through..to a next existence."'

never..*

[life energy..must follow..the same energy conservation/laws..

it can transmutate...only
into any other 'energies'..

[the next reality
is more concerned with the essence..
[than the form..that essence represents]..

[our soul form..remains in form..
like we now have..as best suits our eathy natures

except those of animal nature...look more animal like
[so much like..alice..in wonderland character's
coverd in mud/dirt][soul stain]

think of yellowed paper
our spirit..the words on the paper
our soul..the printed page[book]..whatever

we are all a work in process
from a living sperm..into a living egg
[energy plus energy]..that lived its life[energy]

with some having huge
burning passions..[salty]

others barely warm
[salt that has lost its id]

'"So what?
Could it be..the "hellfire"""

see fire..means passions..[energy]
there is a so-called hell...but its a cold fire
to those who are unaffected by that type of passion

[its only real..to those emiting their own energies]

""I don't buy any attempt..by my fellow primates to lord over me with threats.""

nope me neither
[i know i could fearlessly wander throught the vally of fear
cause i know its theuir fear..not mine][they think its real[that they fear]..i know its their delusion

""And what of the majority..their beliefs?""

they make their own delusions real...FOR THEMselves
not for others

""we all doomed..to eternal pain?""

none but those we did to others
all pain repaid in full[if you loved giving it
wait..till those who love giving it..more than you
[give you an eternity..of more of it...

[or till you dont love it..as much as you thought...
and even then it dont end..till you help other's..avoiding any more of it]

to get grace..give grace
you be helped...help...[first]

""You write "HE want's nuthin...
asks nuthin..expects nuthin"

There can be no consequences,..therefore,
to rejecting faith.""

if you believe..in 'it'..
'it's'..more than faith

its begging for more..[of the same]..to be given

Luciferase,

As david f has stated, the onus is on believers to prove the existence of an 'afterlife', Santa Claus or UFOs, the sceptical don't have to prove anything. There is no evidence that our sense of 'self' is anything more than a product of brain function,so there is no reason to assume that humans, in some way, survive the disintegration of the brain.

mac writes "the onus (of proof) is on believers"

Atheists are believers just as much as are the religious. It it just as much up to skeptics to prove there is nothing there as it is up to believers to prove there is. mac gives a reason for holding his hypothesis/belief, as does UOG. Both positions are not falsifiable, so we are left with simply holding faith in our positions.

Experiments don't prove anything, they just support or falsify a belief/hypothesis, Even if an experiment results in supporting a hypothesis, it does not verify the reason/s given for holding the hypothesis.

Whether you are a devout atheist or devoutly religious is a matter of faith because neither position is falsifiable, or supportable for that matter, by experiment.

History is littered with attempts from either side of the faith divide to try to force its position upon the other. That's when you should really be arcing up, not over trying to win this argument.

Due mainly to a good catholic upbringing, I am a devout atheist, much to my poor mother's chagrin. Living as an atheist trains ones mind to value my time in existence and to use it well as this is the only existence I will have.

You seem to have adopted the same fallacy that religionists enjoy deploying every time they feel threatened, Luciferase.

>>Atheists are believers just as much as are the religious.<<

Atheism is the absence, not the presence, of belief in a deity. The absence of belief is in fact the hallmark of an atheist. They cannot therefore in any sense be described as "believers", in the context of religion.

They can, of course, be believers in democracy, truth, justice and the invincibility of Collingwood football club. But the limits of their belief come to a shuddering stop at religion.

There is a modicum of truth in this, though:

>>Whether you are a devout atheist or devoutly religious is a matter of faith<<

Fortunately for the harmony of the world, the vast majority of our citizenry do not wear the "devout" label.

You could describe Philip Jensen as devoutly religious, in that he sermonizes incessantly about God, and rails vocally against the "Anti-Jesus Industry". You can also describe our friend Richard Dawkins as a devout atheist, in that he sermonizes incessantly about the logic of atheism, and encourages anyone who will listen to stop doing evil in religion's name.

Those, it would be fair to say, are examples of devotion, to religion and to atheism. For the rest of us, I suspect the majority of Christians wear their religion lightly, and don't spend any time whatsoever attempting to convert the heathen. Similarly, the vast majority of atheists hardly give their lack of belief a moment's thought, from one end of the year to the next.

>>History is littered with attempts from either side of the faith divide to try to force its position upon the other.<<

This may well be true. It is however hardly a justification for labelling atheists, "believers". After all, For every believer in Collingwood's superiority, there are legions who don't, and even more who don't give a stuff.

Let's say we are ancient Greeks and I propose that there is light we cannot see and you say there isn't, Pericles.

We have each adopted a belief. If I cannot demonstrate that my belief is true, does it disprove my faith and prove yours?

Even if you simply say "prove it" while remaining agnostic, and I cannot do so, is my faith proven wrong?

"Proof" is a mathematical idea, not a scientific one. Nothing in science is ever proven, only falsified or consistently supported. If a belief/hypothesis is supported over and over and over it might become called a law.

I agree that "religionists" deploy the above defense. Their logic and reason, based on their sense of the world around them leads them to a belief/hypothesis that I don't share based on mine. However, I can't "prove" that they are wrong

mac/quote...""There is no evidence
that our sense of 'self' is anything more
than a product of brain function"""

the brain has as much [enegy]..activity as the brain
some say it hold more..of who we really are
than the ;lol brain

http://www.google.com/search?q=the+heart+brain+electical+activity

so you say its all in the brain
GIVE YOUR PROOF..!

,""so there is no reason to assume
that humans, in some way, survive the disintegration of the brain.""'

you got proof we dont?
or just a faint athiest/hope
based on the physical brain delusion

look cut out the brain..and read it like a book...lol
the self is in the mind..not ther brain...[they arnt the same thing]

but if you got proof
present it..

its funny..how in ignorance once
i didnt believe in god..[for the same ignorant reasons of other athiests..i trusted the science...[a good god wouldnt allow it
religeon would serve the gods creation..[priests couldnt pervert their position..etc]

but now[for me]..its ALL..about god..{good}..[and his creations]
i dont blame ingnorant children..for the lies of their fathers/masters..[peer*s]...

if its not good
its not of god

its all energy
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D5742243&sa=U&ei=AT8CT5DGH-KXiAfCs_XkCg&ved=0CCQQFjAG&sig2=nGJFQ6S1cLJAy0QJol1uhg&usg=AFQjCNFMEP4opTb40jyLmHjEjWryvWaxWg

so energy belongs to god
[your brain aint making much of it
so listen to your heart..[like the mind does]

believe with passion
dissbelieve in ignorance
or visa versa..[salt that has lost its taste..is nuthin]

I think Luciferase raises a legitimate point concerning the more 'strident' atheists, as Dawkins has declared he has been accused of.
Sorry Pericles, while I agree with the general thrust of your argument, I'm not so sure of this sentence:
“They cannot therefore in any sense be described as "believers", in the context of religion.”
I think there is a (fine) distinction between non belief in God, and belief in non God -which many atheists seem to have, although I recall even Dawkins didn't give himself 10 out of 10 for atheism.
This is largely why I choose to describe myself as a 'de facto' atheist; I think this is a situation where the truth really doesn't matter; ie I really don't think it matters whether a supreme being exists or not. The real questions are, does such a being know we exist, and does it care? (if it exists.)
This is where evidence is distinctly lacking. Considering what we now know of the size of the universe (s), It seems remarkably arrogant to me. Much like an individual mourning, when one of his skin cells dies.
On the -not necessarily related- question of "life after death" the sloppy use of language has always annoyed me. Surely the question should be whether or not consciousness and sense of identity survive? Certainly “life” goes on, at least at a cellular level. Imagine, say, if each surviving cell carries a mote of consciousness, which becomes a part of something like Jung's 'collective unconscious'. A worthy end perhaps, but hardly of much use to me as an individual. Perhaps we should eat the very good people (ala Heinlein's 'Stranger in a Strange Land), burn the very bad ones and just inter the rest? No sillier than a lot of other religious concepts.
Again, evidence is distinctly lacking.
No doubt, one day I'll be dying to find out.

I think this article by the “Cobourg Atheist” puts the issue into a realistic perspective:
http://www.cobourgatheist.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=724:most-people-dont-even-think-about-religion&catid=186:errors-in-religious-arguments&Itemid=72
I think perhaps the thing that concerns me most about religion is that -by it's nature- it appeals most to people at extremes; people who have been extremely fortunate, and therefore consider themselves blessed (and can therefore do no wrong) like for instance academy award winners (gag), and those who have been extremely unfortunate, and look for supernatural solace.
I suspect there may be a strong correlation between number of religious, and size of middle class.

We cannot prove anything about God or the afterlife. Whether or not either exists is not a matter for proof. One who makes an assertion for the existence of a being or state has a greater obligation than the person who denies it to substantiate its existence. However, neither can prove their assertion.

My lack of acceptance for the concept of an afterlife or God is not a matter of proof. It is a matter of plausibility.

It seems more plausible to me that humans have invented both God and the concept of an afterlife than that there actually is a god and an afterlife.

we all have our beliefs[and diss-beliefs][a-beliefs]
but belief [a/belief]..is so common..its near worthless

thus jesus said/..;''by their works will ye know them''

but for me its not about knowing 'them'
but about knowing more about 'him'[all good]

grim/quote..""The real questions are,
does such a being know we exist,..and does it care?..(if it exists.)""

he knows each of us intimatly
gods life giving/sustaing spirit..lives within all of us
sustains the living..in all of us...[what we chose to believe
or do with that gift..is completly up to us..!]

we are assured free will
to believe or disbelieve
to do or not do

""This is where evidence..is distinctly lacking.""

science has never made life
the best they got is a theory
[on how god dun it...does it..
as much for the most...as the least of life..[living]

""Considering what we now know of the size of the universe(s)""

ok lets go with that
expand your mind...into your body
[every second in each of our finite cells
just the activity in one cell...is thousands of times more..than every book everwritten,..[or every picture ever digetised]..

how else to visulalise
[you growing from a single sperm...and one egg]
into the huge mass of energy you are being right now

,""It seems remarkably arrogant to me.""

me too that some really believe...they are 'doing' any of it[consiously]...when its god doing it all..un-consciously]

the best science can theorise
is autonimous reflex...lol

if they cant replicte
its not science..its a theo-ry

I see the question differently, Luciferase.

>>Let's say we are ancient Greeks and I propose that there is light we cannot see and you say there isn't, Pericles.<<

So the starting point is that you see a light, and I don't see a light.

You say "there is a light".

I say "I can't see one, show me."

You say "I can't show you, because you have to believe in it".

I say "Then how do you know there is a light?"

You say "I just do"

And I say "Well, I don't. And I don't believe there is one, since you can't show it to me."

You say "Well, if you don't believe me, prove that I can't see it".

I say "How on earth can I do that, you are the only one who can see it".

You say, "Well, there you are then, that proves it".

Feel free to add to the exchange, or change any part you like, but that is the way I see the difference between "believing" and "disbelieving", as expressed in religious terms.

Doesn't make for a rational discussion, does it.

Grim,David f and other sceptics,

You might find this book interesting- "why we believe in god/s" by Thomson , JA and Aukofer C.

It's a summary of recent research on the evolutionary basis of religious belief. The authors' thesis is that religion is essentially a by-product of those social adaptions and perceptions that increased early humans' chances of survival.


It's available from the Richard Dawkins Foundation.

one under god,

In my opinion you're still trying to place the burden of proof on unbelievers, it's a problem for believers, not sceptics. According to your logic Zeus,Thor and the Easter Bunny are as plausible as the Judeo-Christian god ( I agree of course).

I'm not a 'strident atheist' BTW,

I may be missing something here, Grim.

>>I think there is a (fine) distinction between non belief in God, and belief in non God -which many atheists seem to have<<

What is the "(fine) distinction" you speak of, between "non belief in God, and belief in non God".

They would seem to me to be poles apart, but I guess that depends on how you define "non God"?

Can you provide any clues?

Sorry Pericles, it was just a silly play on words.
I take it then, you would be offended if I were to suggest: "Pericles believes in no Gods"?

You have it all arse-about, Luciferase.

You don't appear to understand the philosophic burden of proof. But since you don't like using the word “proof”, we'll call it “the burden of evidence” for the sake of this little exercise - it makes no difference to who bares the burden.

The burden of evidence is on the party making the positive claim (i.e. there is a God). Those sceptical of the claim do not have a burden of evidence until at least some evidence in the affirmative is provided; thousands of years later and we're still waiting for something from theists.

Theists believe in a God (or Gods), everyone else is an atheist and even the 'strong' atheists, who state that they don't believe in any Gods, don't have a faith because faith is an existential belief in something without any evidence.

Something else that can be added to the mix; or if you prefer the mix-up…

In the total recorded history of humankind the entirety of gods and God have without exception always been within human conception, description, perception and/or deception.

Not one – ever – has been outside the possibility of human imagination.

I'd also maintain that not one – ever – has been outside the product of human imagination.

In relation to the discussion between the ancient greeks, Pericles says: "So the starting point is that you see a light, and I don't see a light."

No, if you read again the the starting point is "I believe there is light we can not see" in the vein that I may say I believe there is a god we can not see.

I may proffer a reason for holding my belief or I may not. It's irrelevant to the process

You challenge me to, "Support that"

I say "I have no way to do so"

You say, "Therefore I am unconvinced".
This is an agnostic statement until you take the further position that I am wrong, the atheist (or aluminal position in this case), then the onus of disproving my belief shifts to you.

As it turns out in the example using light, several millenia later we have the means support the hypothesis. I could have chosen the belief that matter is made of atoms, which we never have and never "seen" in the visual sense. We can only support belief in them, not prove their existence

Luciferase,

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive and as I alluded to when I said, “…everyone else is an atheist”, “I am unconvinced” is also an atheist position to take. To be specific it would be an ‘agnostic-atheist’ position.

Theism and atheism go to what you believe, while gnosticism and agnosticism go to what you know. Agnosticism isn’t some sort of middle-ground and there is nothing within atheism that says one must convinced or certain of anything.

You’re extremely confused, Luciferase. Are you sure you’re really an atheist? Because you’re making all the classic mistakes of a theist.

AJ, do you know that atoms exist or do you believe that they do?

By all means, choose not to believe in God (capital used to respect others beliefs here) but do not claim to know He doesn't exist.

Your argument around the point of belief vs knowledge is thin indeed and actually not worth getting worked up over, IMO. I'm happy to live in a world of believers and non-believers, or knowers and non-knowers (yes I realize there are bigger words I could use), as long as I am left alone respectfully to my own considered position.

The topic is not entirely academic, of course, and when I feel my atheistic outlook is challenged by issues such as euthanasia and abortion, for example, I participate in our democracy to achieve an outcome based on my beliefs, as do theists.

""individual mourning,..when one of his skin cells dies.""

yes egsactly
god KNOWS energy cant be created,,NOR destroyed
he sustains every lifes energy[that we do to the least..we do to him

""the sloppy use of language..has always annoyed me"""

egsactly...what does survival of the fittest
have to do with the one surving all living.

no death honours the good of life[god]/

""Surely the question..should be whether or not
consciousness and sense of identity survive?""

they do...in total
not a skin cell is left from the story that is you
or i or any...[even the least most hated despised...its all needed to bring us to the atonement..[at one meant][that is most surely all good can be..and only one god is]

""Jung's 'collective unconscious'.""

together we are so great
be one with one and other

""but hardly of much use to me..as an individual.""

man is not designed..to spend eternity alone
[i know im still giving it a go]

only one..is truelly alone
[without equal[peer]
[him]..all good
god

i loved..Heinlein's 'Stranger in a Strange Land),

i grok

""Again, evidence is distinctly lacking.
No doubt, one day I'll be dying to find out.""

we all do
and the minute we know its all true
some just say lord...thankyou

i know your love grace and mercy
now how can i help..[do as you saw jesus do?]
not as the ursurping church orders..[guilts]...us to do

4 me..its about god
good..to copy the good i do see
even in those decieved and decieving

love good by trying to love neighbour..
not his wife/child/dog..nor asssssssets

Sorry Luciferase, but I haven’t a clue what relevance most of that has to do with what I’ve said, sorry.

In regards to atoms, I believe to a high degree of certainty that atoms exist because their existence has been demonstrated. To any extent that is practical, I guess I could also say that I know they exist.

If the atoms in that question were supposed to be some sort of metaphor used as a comparison or an analogy to a God, then it was a pretty poor example, I’m afraid. Transcendental pixies would have been more appropriate because atoms are part of the naturalistic realm that we live in and can know exists. There are no supernatural claims in regards to atoms.

<<By all means, choose not to believe in God … but do not claim to know He doesn't exist.>>

Again, no idea what the relevance is here. I’ve made no claim to knowledge about the existence or non-existence of any Gods and to the extent that we can’t be absolutely certain, I agree with you, but absolute certainty is useless.

To any extent that it’s practical, however, one could go as far as to say that they know God doesn’t exist because it is reasonable to conclude, after thousands of years of coming-up empty handed, that theists have nothing. Strictly speaking, we can NEVER reach absolute certainty, but that doesn’t mean we can't know anything.

I’m having a hard time keeping up with where you’re really at, Luciferase. You were sounding like a theist before, now you’re starting to sound like one of these elitist “agnostics” who actually think there’s anything useful in stating, “Oh, but we can’t really KNOW”, and whose feelings of superiority over being supposedly open-minded, cloud their ability to see that their attributing of equal credibility to both sides of the argument is erroneous and unbalanced.

<<Your argument around the point of belief vs knowledge is thin indeed and actually not worth getting worked up over, IMO.>>

Well, the difference between theist/atheist and Gnostic/agnostic are very distinct and in my opinion, language matters.

AJ,

As you correctly say, “language matters”, we should choose words with care.

There IS a difference between “knowing” and “believing to a high degree of certainty.” This was the point of my atomistic analogy.

A man believes, to a high degree of certainty that God does not exist.

Ergo, he does not know, absolutely, that God does not exist.

A man may be unconvinced by the by theists’ evidence in support of their belief, remaining a doubter (agnostic).

However, should his position be that he knows, absolutely, that God does not exist then he holds no intrinsic superiority over a theist that claims to know, absolutely, that He does.

You say, and I agree in our context, “Strictly speaking, we can NEVER reach absolute certainty, but that doesn’t mean we can't know anything.”

If you read UOG, you will note he claims absolute knowledge, not belief. His position is as impregnable to science as that man who knows absolutely that a god does not exist. One claims knowledge of a god (is gnostic), the other denies its existence (is atheistic). This is not a tidy either/or dichotomy but is where terminology leads.

If I have posited something with which you disagree then please indicate where and leave value judgements about me like “feelings of superiority” and “elitist” out of it

Luciferase,

Yes, there is a difference between “knowing” and “believing to a high degree of certainty”, and I suspected that that was your point. But I had made no claims to knowledge in the post you were responding to and I had already explained that atheism wasn’t necessarily a claim to certainty or knowledge.

So again, I don’t understand the relevance.

<<A man believes, to a high degree of certainty that God does not exist. Ergo, he does not know, absolutely, that God does not exist.>>

Precisely. And unless he makes a claim to knowledge on the subject, then he is an ‘agnostic-atheist’.

Again, the two are not mutually exclusive as you appear to believe they are.

<<A man may be unconvinced by the by theists’ evidence in support of their belief, remaining a doubter (agnostic).>>

Yes, but he would also be an atheist as he is not yet convinced by the arguments from theists and so he does not *believe* them.

Belief - knowledge;
Knowledge - belief.

Like I said before: theism and atheism go to what you BELIEVE, while gnosticism and agnosticism go to what you KNOW. Agnosticism is not a middle-ground (as so many falsely believe), and while it tells others what one knows and/or doesn’t know, it says nothing about what one actually believes; a rather useless and unhelpful label when you think about it.

While there are theists (most of them, in fact) who claim absolute knowledge of God’s supposed existence, I personally don’t know of any atheists who would do the same about the non-existence. Either way, I’m not sure why you’re still going on about absolute knowledge. I’ve already dismissed it as useless and the way your raising of it is proving to be irrelevant to my points here, is a good demonstration of why.

<<If I have posited something with which you disagree then please indicate where and leave value judgements about me like “feelings of superiority” and “elitist” out of it>>

I only said you sounded like that. And I think you're only sounding like that because you're so confused here.

I'm sorry AJ, but I must beg to differ.
I won't be so patronising as to suggest “you're confused”, but I will say some of your statements are confusing.
“Like I said before: theism and atheism go to what you BELIEVE...” perfectly true.
“Agnosticism is not a middle-ground (as so many falsely believe)” Really?
Agnostic: a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic eg: Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality.
That sounds like middle-ground to me. And rather than being “a rather useless and unhelpful label” it also sounds like a better starting point for a scientific exploration of any subject, rather than having preconceived notions, or 'beliefs'.
It's quite fascinating that you can put a few atheists into a room together and they will argue endlessly about the nature of the belief or non belief of the non existence of a non corporeal being.
Wow.

let 'a' equal anti
anti-thiest= athiest
a-gnostic=anti gnostic

noting there isnt such a lable as a-theo
any truelly anti god...but all anti the messages of the mess-angers

to judge god on his creation negativly
implies ignorance of the true good [love grace mercy charity]
that perveaded all the realms...[heck even demons in hell
love[lust]..after each others passions

so there is love..even in the lower hells
christoffer hitckids could have said it so much better
but didnt..[or if he did..it was edited out]

anyhow im against using lables
i believe in good [god]

but appart from that ..im a thiest too
and a gnostic...and a xtian...and a buddist
a b

b what you want to be an a..eh"
but mostly just b the best u you can b
[b=beta]

lets try the names calling thingy

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.theologer.com/2011/04/nine-billion-names-of-god.html&sa=U&ei=5ZMDT7uXGsmjiQfXoJDQAQ&ved=0CBwQFjAE&sig2=G3qD5qunoqMjN9rbnGu-Bw&usg=AFQjCNHI-vbF4f3YZEKFGwtISeIae26kjQ

everything ever named...came from within
[a mind thunk it]..[first]

its clever this alpha-thiest..[athiest scam]
unbelievers steal the supreeem fullfillmenmt of the thiest..[alpha thiest]

alpha/gnostic
and thus the alpha/theo

let rething the a
letting it be..as it was meant to be
ie discriptive honourum..of the alpha/thiest/gnostic/good..[god]

but then the mob rection sets in..
missusing the big a..[as add-verb?]
to negate the fullfillment of the objectives..of the thiest and the athiest

i know god is real..
[based on the probability of the known known's
be they gnostic acts..or science facts..]

the known knowns
rule out science as a cause

yes i know god is real...because
his sign...is logi*c..light life love

all good comes by the a-theo
the one and only truelly good[god]

noted..this advert
Global Atheist Convention

on this link

http://wordinfo.info/unit/2738/page:11

so im not quoting from it
it runs 12 [pages]

Really, Grim?

>>It's quite fascinating that you can put a few atheists into a room together and they will argue endlessly about the nature of the belief or non belief of the non existence of a non corporeal being.<<

I can only presume that this is sarcasm.

I have, on many occasions, been in a room together with a bunch of atheists, and I can assure you that we have never, ever, on any one single occasion, argued "endlessly about the nature of the belief or non belief of the non existence of a non corporeal being."

But perhaps you mix in entirely different circles.

OK, I see your game now AJ. I’d have posted this several hours ago if I hadn’t exceeded my limit, but I see that Grim is right onto you now as well.

According to you it all comes down to definitions. If you read my last posts and simply remove the words atheist, atheistic, gnostic and agnostic (which I only fitted for your happiness) then re-read, perhaps we may have a discussion.

If you are only interested in your self-definition of an atheist, together with hiding behind your self-classification as an agnostic-theist, then what’s to discuss? You want the position that you never actually have to “deny” the existence of a god covered at all exits.

Unfortunately, to be an “atheist” according to many dictionaries is to “deny” or “disbelieve” the existence of a god.

To “deny” is a strident stand that needs defence against challenge, as you well know. To “disbelieve” means to “reject as false”, similarly strident.
Your claim to being agnostic, a simple doubter, is overridden by stridency.

I’m sure you’d happily argue away over this, ad nauseum, through a judicious choice of dictionaries, especially over words like “disbelieve”. I’m not interested in dictionaries at ten paces providing you opportunity to refute by obfuscation. Hiding smugly behind a contruct of self-serving definitions and self-styled classifications avoids defending the indefensible.

I am an honest and unconfused atheist, AJ, while you are a self-deluded or closet one masquerading as an agnostic.

I believe there is no god. I accept this it is simply matter of faith to me, just as for theists. Together we honestly stand but you, AJ, really need to come out of the closet before you disappear up your own orifice!

The hair-splitting over terminology is becoming excruciating, Luciferase.

>>A man may be unconvinced by the by theists’ evidence in support of their belief, remaining a doubter (agnostic)<<

I do not "doubt".

I am entirely unconvinced by the story that is presented.

I have no doubt whatsoever that the story is fabricated.

More than that, I am concerned at the very nature of the "evidence" provided, which seems to build massive claims upon a complete lack of any substance whatsoever.

In Hans Christian Andersen's "The Emperor's New Clothes", a fiction was created, that the people proceeded to share between themselves. All the "evidence" is in fact manufactured along the way. By the tailors, by the courtiers, and most significantly in the conversations between the citizenry, all entirely unsupported by anything that is material (apologies for the inadvertent pun).

"Everyone said, loud enough for the others to hear: "Look at the Emperor's new clothes. They're beautiful!" "What a marvellous train!" "And the colors! The colors of that beautiful fabric! I have never seen anything like it in my life!" They all tried to conceal their disappointment at not being able to see the clothes, and since nobody was willing to admit his own stupidity and incompetence, they all behaved as the two scoundrels had predicted" (The Emperor's New Clothes)

http://deoxy.org/emperors.htm

A classic parable, of people willing to convince themselves in the face of an utter and complete lack of evidence.

Did the small boy who broke the spell "doubt" what his senses told him, that the entire story was a crock?

Or did he, quite simply, know?

Apologies again, Pericles; I hadn't expected anyone to take me quite so literally.
I was of course referring to the 'room' you, Luciferase, AJ Philips, David f., WmTrevor etc., and I are currently sharing.

Touché, Grim.

>>I was of course referring to the 'room' you, Luciferase, AJ Philips, David f., WmTrevor etc., and I are currently sharing.<<

Although to be honest, I'm not entirely convinced that everyone you mention is completely certain that they are atheists. Quite a few of the discussion points are precisely those tabled by Christians, in their attempt to persuade us that atheism is "just another faith".

Speaking for myself, challenging those ideas is why I am posting here. I think of it as practice for the main event.

Grim (and Luciferase),

If I’m sounding confused, then by all means, tell me. People need to know these things and if it sounds patronising, then that’s just too bad. It is ridiculous to the point of embarrassing that you guys don’t know any of this and Luciferase is continuing to dig himself/herself in even further.

If your (unconscious?) selective quoting of me is an indication of which parts of my post were the only parts of my post that you chose to absorb, then it’s no wonder I sound confusing/confused.

You can’t go from (or quote from)...

“Like I said before: theism and atheism go to what you BELIEVE...”

...to...

“Agnosticism is not a middle-ground”

...without adding...

“...gnosticism and agnosticism go to what you KNOW”

...and expect to understand what I’m saying or reply to me in any meaningful way.

Your definition of agnosticism is incorrect and demonstrates a misunderstanding of what atheism is. Theism means to hold a theological belief; atheism is everything else. So Socrates was an "atheist" (and agnostic) in regards to immortality and would only cease to be such until he started believing in immortality. In the same sense, the “starting point” for scientific inquiry would be “atheistic”. Atheism doesn't necessitate a pre-conceived notion, so yes, I'll say it again: agnosticism is a rather useless and unhelpful label.

You are only acknowledging atheism to be what is known as "explicit atheism" and mistaking "implicit atheism" for agnosticism when agnosticism doesn't deal with belief at all. But I tend to avoid the whole “explicit” and “implicit” part because it tends to clutter the issue.

If you still don't understand, then another way of explaining the difference between theism and atheism is to differentiate 'guilty' and 'not guilty' in a court of law: 'guilty' is the affirmative, everything else is 'not guilty'.

You can beg differ all you like, Grim (and Luciferase) but this is the way it is and if you don’t like it, then argue it with philosophers and linguists. Until you find some, though, Wikipedia is a good place to start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

Luciferase,

I'm not playing a "game" here and as you can see from my last response to Grim, he is anything but "on to me".

<<If you read my last posts and simply remove the words atheist, atheistic, agnostic...>>

Then it makes absolutely no difference to your case whatsoever and your inability to separate ‘belief’ and ‘knowledge’, unless it suits you, is telling.

<<If you are only interested in your self-definition of an atheist, together with hiding behind your self-classification as an agnostic-theist, then what’s to discuss?>>

As I alluded to in my last post, these definitions are not inventions of my own making. If you are unhappy with these classifications and definitions, then take it up with philosophers and linguists.

<<You want the position that you never actually have to “deny” the existence of a god covered at all exits.>>

On the contrary, I deny the existence of God almost on a daily basis here on OLO and have even done so in this thread. Again - this inability of yours to distinguish between belief and knowledge.

<<Unfortunately, to be an “atheist” according to many dictionaries is to “deny” or “disbelieve” the existence of a god.>>

Yes, and entirely consistent with what I've been saying.

<<To “deny” is a strident stand that needs defence against challenge...>>

Not if those who argue in the affirmative have not yet put forth a case. Burden of proof... remember?

<<To “disbelieve” means to “reject as false”, similarly strident.>>

Not necessarily. “Disbelieve” is a broad term and is also consistent with the "implicit atheism" I mentioned earlier... http://tinyurl.com/6my9x3f

<<Your claim to being agnostic ... is overridden by stridency.>>

I have never described myself as an “agnostic” and have even expressed my disappointment in those who do so.

<<I believe there is no god. I accept this it is simply matter of faith to me, just as for theists.>>

Spoken like a true theist!

Your alleged disbelief is not a faith as those who hold the belief have not yet fulfilled their burden of proof and your apparent inability to understand this is highly suspicious.

"Although to be honest, I'm not entirely convinced that everyone you mention is completely certain that they are atheists."

You must be psychic, Pericles...

I've been enjoying revisiting last year's Professors Craig and Millican debate and have decided for the moment that I'm going to convert - the anti-God thesis seems increasingly true, or at least I now believe I know it is.

Unfortunately, I suspect this makes me an a-atheist… as if my stutter wasn't bad enough already!

I would to see separation of religion and state. It would not matter what someone believed or didn't believe. Government would not use its powers to enforce or promote religion in general, any particular religion or atheism. Religionists or atheists could not depend on government to promulgate their views.

People would be free to promote their views in the home, churches or any non-govermental institution. However, government facilities such as the public schools would neither promote nor deny religious beliefs.

As a step on the way there has been a lawsuit heard in the High Court which would deny commonwealth funding to the National School Chaplaincy Program (NSCP). The decision is overdue.

AJ,

You provide a couple of new points.

You invent neat dichotomies "Theism means to hold a theological belief; atheism is everything else"

You ARE a theist or you ARE NOT a theist. Atheism is not "everything else" but a belief all on its own. You too can take this up with philosophers and linguists (all of them, not just the judiciously chosen)

Regarding believers (theist or atheist) fulfilling a "burden of proof", proof is a mathematical concept not a part of scientific inquiry. Nobody must "prove", nor can they prove, anything other than a mathematical proposition.

A "burden of support" is more the requirement, i.e. to present evidence to convince. The believer's burden is lifted once the presentation is fulfilled, whether the evidence convinces or not.


I wrote "I believe there is no god. I accept this is simply matter of faith...."

You responded "Your alleged disbelief is not a faith"

I did not use the word "disbelief" so don't mince my words to inject your very own "broad" definition of this word. My position is strident.
Knowledge: There is no god. Belief: I believe there is no god

Dear Luciferase,

Would you be kind enough to tell us about your coming to the belief that there is no God? I hope you can express it in words.

Again Luciferase, these dichotomies are not my inventions and I have demonstrated that to be the case. You on the other hand, are simply repeating this assertion because you don’t like what you’re hearing.

Hardly convincing.

<<You ARE a theist or you ARE NOT a theist.>>

Correct.

<<Atheism is not "everything else" but a belief all on its own.>>

Incorrect.

Atheism, in the broader sense, means “not a theist” in the same sense that asexual means “not sexual”. Or just “no belief” in Gods if you prefer.

Did you not learn anything when I was talking about implicit and explicit atheism, or are you just making this up as you go? Could you at least provide links for some of your claims, as I have?

“Proof” can either be of the logical/mathematical kind, or it can simply mean sufficient evidence to uphold an argument - which is why we generally don’t refer to it as the “Burden of Support” or the “Burden of Evidence”, because the evidence provided must be sufficient to support the argument. The burden is not lifted when just anything is presented. You made that up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

If I tell you there are fairies in my garden and hand you a dragonfly’s wing claiming that it’s a fairy’s wing, does that then mean that our claims are due equal credit until you go sifting through my garden like an idiot and have the wing’s DNA tested?

No, because there are other more rational explanations.

And does it then also mean that you have ‘faith’ that fairies don’t exist until you do?

Of course not!

Similarly, theists have not yet supported their argument with anything that doesn’t either have a more rational and naturalistic explanation (e.g. personal revelation, living organisms) or commit a logical fallacy (e.g. God of the Gaps).

Therefore, they still bear the burden of proof and you don’t have ‘faith’.

As for your accusation of alleged ‘word mincing’ on my behalf... now that’s really getting desperate. And the fact that my point still stands regardless of how you word it is a testament to that.

I have to say I think Atheism was a lot more fun when it was just about “the absence, not the presence, of belief in a deity”, to borrow Pericles' fine expression.
Once again the discussion has been hijacked by the imperfections of language.
Is disbelief the same as 'unbelief', or negative belief? It may be as impossible to “know” that Gods don't exist as it is to know they do, but it certainly isn't impossible to “believe” Gods don't exist, so in that sense, Atheism is a belief system.
I think AJ cracked it when he made the distinction between belief and faith. I can believe “God” doesn't exist, but I don't require faith in it.
On the other hand, AJ starts getting cranky:
“If I’m sounding confused, then by all means, tell me.”
I did. In fact, I provided direct quotes of those parts I found confusing.
“Your definition of agnosticism is incorrect and demonstrates a misunderstanding of what atheism is.”
I find this a remarkably dogmatic statement, particularly from someone who supposedly rejects dogma. I also think it's a tad harsh, considering I cut and pasted from Dictionary.com.
Is Atheism evolving to the point where it has different proponents, all with different definitions? Should we start Atheistic sects?
I bags “Catholic” Atheism, perhaps with Luciferase:
Catholic, adjective:
1. broad or wide-ranging in tastes, interests, or the like; having sympathies with all; broad-minded; liberal.
2. universal in extent; involving all; of interest to all.

AJ is beginning to seem like a “fundamentalist” Atheist: THOU SHALT HAVE NO ATHEISM APART FROM MY ATHEISM, FOR I AM A JEALOUS ATHEIST!
David f. could be a Secular Atheist (or perhaps start the Secular Hall of Those Who Didn't Witness Jehovah?)
Pericles might want to convert WmTrevor to the Reformist Atheists (I just wanna not believe, OK?)
Of course, you're all welcome to be Catholic Atheists; we're very open armed that way.
In fact, we don't care if you convert to us even on your deathbed. We guarantee, you still won't go to heaven*.

*This is a lifetime guarantee we have been offering for hundreds of years, without one single claim.

I hate to have to say this, Luciferase, but you are sounding more like a Christian agent provocateur than an atheist, stirring the pot and chuckling at the responses you get.

>>You ARE a theist or you ARE NOT a theist. Atheism is not "everything else" but a belief all on its own.<<

For the gazillionth time, atheism is not "a belief all on its own".

Here's my angle on it: atheism, as such, cannot exist in the absence of theism.

Consider a situation where there is universal acceptance that God does not exist. The concept "God", therefore, would have no meaning. By extension, there would be no such thing as atheism, and it would not - could not - be described as a belief system.

It is only the existence of theism that forces upon us the label, atheist. But the state we call "atheism" does not itself change, simply because there are people going around saying "there is a God".

We have every right to be somewhat bemused at the vehemence with which theists defend their faith, given the lack of supporting evidence. But that vehemence does not allow the condition of atheism to suddenly morph into a belief system, simply to make theists feel good about themselves.

I strongly believe thurmongersuckles don't exist.

Entertaining stuff Grim, welcome to the Luciferan sect.
He whosoever believeth in me shall final eternal nothing.

AJ, I was chairman of a jury once and, on evidence presented, it was abundantly clear to me the person on trial was guilty as charged. I asked some in the jury room, who were holding out on coming to the same conclusion, what was stopping them from doing so. "Doubt", they said. I asked why they doubted and essentially it came down to the fact that they did not see a crime committed with their own eyes i.e. they did not experience the alleged crime. Other jurors were then convinced by the vehemence of the doubt held by others. The judge called for a majority verdict as we could not reach a unanimous one, and their was no conviction. The benefit of the doubt, regardless of however small that doubt was in my eyes, was given.

Convincing evidence, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Absolute proof is by mathematics or by direct experience. Nobody is can ever "prove" the existence, or non-existence of a god, so it is not logical for you to place that impossible burden upon them. You can only leave them to their faith.

(cont'd)

Pericles, we know we are going to die. Does something of our being survive death, i.e. is there an afterlife? This is a natural question to which one must have an answer, no escaping it. "Yes" and "no" are the only answers possible. "Maybe" is not an "answer" but a starting point for finding one. We can only arrive at an answer to the question by faith or by experience, not mathematically.

The god question derives from "How did we get here?". Were we created? If so, by whom? Sorry Pericles, but that question is inescapable for any truly intelligent life form. If there were not theists, atheists would have to exist holding the view that nothing or nobody created us.

david f asked "Would you be kind enough to tell us about your coming to the belief that there is no God? I hope you can express it in words."

I have not experienced God and I am swayed to doubt His/Her existence through science, e.g: http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=a%20universe%20from%20nothing&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCYQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D7ImvlS8PLIo&ei=PfkET9RuraOIB-iIib8B&usg=AFQjCNGMXDDhsTplt4TDx9KjtPtn5tc7uA&cad=rja

This is becoming somewhat surreal, Luciferase.

>>Does something of our being survive death, i.e. is there an afterlife? This is a natural question to which one must have an answer, no escaping it.<<

There is absolutely no "must" about it.

While it may well be a question that you ponder, it doesn't cause me one single minute's pause. I can't even imagine why anyone who lacks religious leanings would even bother to think about it, let alone believe that it "must" have an answer.

For me, it is of purely academic interest. Quite fun, in its way, as a question raised at a dinner party by a particularly attractive philosophy graduate, who fixes you with those deep blue eyes and gently tosses her long blonde hair...

But I digress.

>>The god question derives from "How did we get here?". Were we created? If so, by whom? Sorry Pericles, but that question is inescapable for any truly intelligent life form.<<

I do recall having some pretty deep thoughts on this topic. I was eleven. Or maybe twelve. I looked up at the stars, and said, "wow", a number of times.

But once I had learned that there was absolutely no possible reason why the universe had not developed independently of a "creator", I stopped looking for metaphysical alternatives.

>>If there were not theists, atheists would have to exist holding the view that nothing or nobody created us.<<

Not so. As I pointed out before, if there were not theists, nobody could be defined as atheist. As a concept, atheism would simply disappear, and we'd be left with physics and chemistry with which to make sense of our existence.

Which seems a fair enough starting point to me.

Grim,

Thanks for the bizarre reply, but if you go back and re-read my posts, you’ll see that your responses directed at me were ineffectual.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic

Note that we are talking about “agnostic” in the context of atheism/theism.

Luciferase,

That’s why I avoided words like “convincing”. They're too subjective. My last link gave some more objective standards for proof.

Try to get absolutes out of your head too. I never said anything about ‘absolute proof’.

<<Nobody can ever "prove" the existence, or non-existence of a god...>>

I agree that it’s not possible to prove a negative, but how do you know it’s not possible to prove the affirmative where a God is concerned? What about a God makes it different? The actual God itself certainly could, that’s for sure.

All you’ve done here is point out why it’s more reasonable to take the default position of atheism, just as a juror needs to start with the presumption of innocence. Perhaps you’re having troubles identifying the similarities here because atheism actually has a label and we don’t initially refer to jurors as the “Not-Guiltyists”?

<<...it is not logical for you to place that impossible burden upon them.>>

It is when there are those who would label atheism a “faith”. Whether or not theists can provide proof for the existence of their God is not our problem, entirely beside the point and a red herring.

<<You can only leave them to their faith.>>

Yes, at the end of the day, all you can do is leave them to their faith.

But that doesn’t mean it becomes our responsibility to, or necessitate that we, downgrade our own position to a mere faith. Again, that they cannot come up with proof is not our problem. They themselves chose to adopt the belief, not us.

And just as Pericles mentioned that the state we call "atheism" doesn’t itself change, simply because there are people claiming that a God exists, the veracity of atheism doesn’t itself change either, simply because it is not possible for those who believe in a God to provide proof.

Surreal indeed.

so much intersting thought
but i got aj/quote...so go with that...

""does it then also mean..that you have ‘faith’
that fairies..don’t exist..until you do?""

most certainly
as pericules says...non belief
must preceed belief...[one cannot be born "knowing"]

so basing non belief..[a-thiest]..
upon belief..[thiest]..is flawed

so i must know what thiest means..[first]
i suggeast that thiest...based on actual 'reason'
must be based in a particular creed...!..[not a generality that covers them all]

reason can under pin..a faith
but faith..cant underpin reason
proof demands facts

faith just disbelieves
till the facts get revealed

so never having seen fairies
we can reason..they dont egsist...untill its proven they do
[but only..semingly]..in the mind..of the child]

'the-ism'..is derived
from a subversion of the greek 'theo'[god]
so the word..as intended should be theo-ism
and anti-theoism..

[the subversion was wrought via dei-ism]

""theists have not yet..supported their argument""

LOL

well thats cause..theoism-ists..got faith
and need no debate..[need not de-bait]
[cause their claim is belief]
[not anti belief]

theism..[the-ism]..of anti faith in god
but as said before most hate[detest]..religeon/creed
specificly the one that fu kket them over..or was allowed abuse

often hating one specific
used to generally revile [blame/deney]..them all

""with anything...!""
...""that doesn’t either have..a more rational"""

lol
arguement?

then some disjoioned joinders

""and naturalistic explanation..(e.g. personal revelation,
living organisms)..or commit..a logical fallacy..(e.g. God of the Gaps).""

rational rationalisations..
and naturalistic explanation

arnt personal rev-elation

naturalistic might relate to...''living organisms''
but natural ensures..it WERNT SCIENCE

natural belongeth to god
[if only as a trust]

that is if you want to claim
NATURAL..selection...as opposed to science selecting

The existential atheist is Pericles, wandering, not wondering, not inquiring, merely an organism responding to stimuli. This new position releases him from his most recent chicken/egg theist/atheist one, and any other for that matter.

AJ, we agree that theists are best left to their faith lest we seek a fight. Until they actually impact upon our lives to the point of making it miserable, they are best left alone, much like snakes.

If you plan on going militantly into the snake-pit (the "main event" Pericles sees coming, not sure what that is, holy war?) then I hope our joust has been a sharpening practice session for you.

I've enjoyed my time in the "room". Happy 2012 to all, gotta go back to work

natural s-election...
is just another pyramid..rating system

from this..*un-named
first life..to man...[lol]

lowerr orders to higher orders
then the other pyromid[with kings at the head]
govt solgers etc..then the scummy believers doing
as the decievers tell them to do

nuthing..to ignorant ape..
to man..to king..to god
but kings dislike god being held over em

better we discredit god
with fairy tales sold to kids
like science evolution [nurture]
claiming to be doing what only god can do..[naturally]

over a hundred..*ape mutations
over billions of years..then abruptly..
[only 80,000 years ago..lol

lol

huh?-man appears...
and athiests arnt gullibale enough
to acept a 2000 year old virgin birth...lol..]

but do swallow
that unprovable..evolving theory*..[tripe]

if god owns anything
he owns nature's nurture!

ape breeds ape..man breeds man

i got billions of egsamples..where that has happend!

i bred fish..that bred fish..
chooks that bred chooks

science has bred googilians [100 zero's]
of MUTATED fruit flies..[from fruit flies]

THE RESULT..*fruit flies...!
not one evolution into new genus

not one evolution EVER..into a new genus..EVER

HAS ever been recorded observed..nor witnessed

yet out faith
god done it...lol..needs proving?

lol
prove ya delusional theo-ry!

ya lot of
a-theo-ists

Therefore,..lol..they still bear
the burden of proof and you don’t have NUTHIN

but ‘faith’
in a theory*..of genus evolution...

not one science fact!

my point still stands
regardless of how you word it
lack of faulsifyable EVIDENCE...is a testament to that a/science FRAUD

ya got nuthin
even got the wrong name
ya lot of anti-theo-ists

Dear Luciferase,

Thanks for your reference to great talk on cosmology.

I'm not sure why you have resorted to insult, Luciferase.

>>The existential atheist is Pericles, wandering, not wondering, not inquiring, merely an organism responding to stimuli.<<

I made it perfectly clear that my line of enquiry into matters surrounding our presence on earth is via physics and chemistry, as opposed to metaphysics and blind conjecture.

You seem to be stuck in this half-light, between theism and whatever you deem to be non-theism, posing "questions" such as:

>>"How did we get here?". Were we created? If so, by whom?<<

The "by whom" part of this is not within my vocabulary, though it clearly remains part of yours. The fact that I don't wander around with my head up my... my head in the clouds getting all mystical, does not indicate any lack of interest in the cosmos. Your assertion that this renders me "merely an organism responding to stimuli" is fundamentally rude.

I am even more convinced now that you are playing some kind of game here, posing as an atheist merely in order to attempt to sow confusion, and score a few points for the otherwise absent Christian community.

Because your arguments are not cogent, nor do they exhibit the thought patterns of one who does not believe in the existence of a supreme being.

>>the "main event" Pericles sees coming, not sure what that is, holy war?<<

The "main event" is simply where Christians pop their heads up on this forum, levelling accusations that atheism is a subset of religious belief.

Holy Wars are waged between religions. E.g. Northern Ireland.

Apologies if you felt insulted, Pericles. It was definitely not intended but as I review what I wrote in a bit of a rush on my way out I can see what you mean. It was abrupt.

More politely now, I hope, I felt your claim that you have never once pondered the question of an afterlife to be completely disingenuous. "...I can't even imagine why anyone who lacks religious leanings would even bother to think about it".

The only way that claim could be true is if one was nothing more than a sentient being. Even trying to live existentially is a conscious act. To claim to be existentialist since birth to the point of having escaped the deepest question doesn't wash with me. One would have to have one's head up one's..er..in the clouds to fail, as more than a sentient being, to consider to the question.

As such, I felt you made the claim simply as a device to fortify your militantly atheistic position. Either that or, I felt, just which of us should be implied as being blond here?

When I was eleven or twelve (45-ish years ago) science provided absolutely nowhere even near the knowledge and understanding it now has. Amazing progress has been made over the last decade, in particular. For me to expect of science, at eleven or twelve, to provide a case for the existence of the universe and myself, would have simply been a giant leap of faith. I congratulate you on the precocious and well placed faith in science you displayed at such a tender young age, Pericles.

Bugga! I've used that darned "F" word. No offence, OK?

Dear Luciferase,

I have never pondered the question of an afterlife.

You wrote: "More politely now, I hope, I felt your claim that you have never once pondered the question of an afterlife to be completely disingenuous. "...I can't even imagine why anyone who lacks religious leanings would even bother to think about it".

The only way that claim could be true is if one was nothing more than a sentient being. Even trying to live existentially is a conscious act. To claim to be existentialist since birth to the point of having escaped the deepest question doesn't wash with me. One would have to have one's head up one's..er..in the clouds to fail, as more than a sentient being, to consider to the question."

I don't regard an afterlife as the deepest question. I don't know why you do. I had a Jewish religious education, but I don't remember an afterlife ever being discussed. When I heard of the concept it just seemed pointless. We don't live before we're born, and we don't live after we die.

For a time I was very religious and thought about religious questions. However, an afterlife was never part of it.

great david speaks for pericules
anyhow we are born ignorant[as a generalisation]

but jesus apparently defended his mothers honour...when she presented him..[to the unimpressed family]..[source somewhere in the koran]..

so clearly the christ...was born aware
[just like pericules]..i allways visualised a steady inclination of knowledge...but i suppose regression of knowl;edge...must also allow its opinioning..

anyhow i was a science nut...[my athiest[reformed the-ist]father
had judged his beliefs and found them wanting..so i was a science loyalist..[having fath in science]..till as i grew up i realised it was badly flawed

as much ax religeonn is flawed..if not more
that the mindless put theirfaith bin others
[be they priests in black dress's..or balding nurds..in lab coats]

i found the peer revieuw system's [both obseved]
was badly flawed..[both see a kind of rule playing
that ends up in absolutist stasis...as like a immaculate teruth[peers]..authority...[interpritating the holy texts..and revieuwing studies][

filtering them for the faithfull flock]
too ignorant or lazy to reason things out for themselves..
thus flocking to sit at the feet of these 'man gods'..idols..
supping on the current trend..in their specialised idio-ology

they of course arnt alone
we got them lawyers wearing dresses and wigs
you got them docters..in lab coated whiter than whitie
not to mention the beuro-rock-rats...in sheeps cloathing
and criminals with the clothing of mass murder..[just-ifi-able war mob]

anyhow
immaculate knowledge..[now there a conception]
jesus i could agree..but pericules...wow im honoured

forgive my ignorances oh master
as you forgive the ignorances of those not in the leraast curious..re this life or the next..[such a fixed narrow means of thought]..

i like to think i dont limit my thought..but those who never considerd the possability..[can they really validate any opinion..beyond a first impression or generality]

do they concieve life..as sans [without]..energy
[energy that cant be created..nor destroyed]

[energies of such use
but with huge karmic comeback..when handled carelessly[mindlessly]..

Hey AJ,
I was referring to Atheism, too. In fact, I'm fairly sure T.H. Huxley was referring to Atheism when he coined the term. I thank ye kindly for the links provided, here is a quote from one of them:
“In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the difference between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief. In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves there is a God, whereas an atheist disbelieves in God”
Still sounds like middle-ground to me.
It seems we're still stumbling over the question of whether “disbelieve” is a neutral stance (zero) or a negative stance. Pericles seems to feel disbelief is zero, making him an Agnostic by the above definition. Luciferase (and I tend to agree) appears to believe disbelief has a negative value, ie Dawkins strongly believes there is no god (negative value).
In which case, Atheism is quite clearly a belief system.
Consider these statements (apologies for taking thy name in vain, Pericles, you're just a useful example):
“Pericles believes there are no Gods” - belief.
“Pericles strongly believes a god or gods do not exist” -belief.
Or this:
“Pericles enjoys (as do I) a system of beliefs (intellectual, social, ethical, rational) which does not require the existence -or putative existence- or any supernatural deities” -non belief.

I would suggest the first two propositions are classical “atheism” (and therefore a belief system), whereas the last is classical Agnosticism, (and therefore a non belief system).
In company with Dawkins, I describe myself as a “de facto” atheist, but for significantly different reasons. Dawkins is de facto, because he strongly believes, but stops just short of 'knowing' (“6.9 out of seven”).
I'm de facto, because I don't give a rats. I have no idea whether God exists or not, nor do I care (except as a matter of curiosity). I honestly don't think proof either way would change my life. I try to treat others the way I would like to be treated, and if God doesn't like that, tough cookies.

Hey David f. you raise an interesting -if hardly original- point. As I understand it, Judaism has never emphasised any belief in an afterlife. The thrust of the Torah was the covenant between God and Man, on this plane.
Man screwed up, he got the sh!t kicked out of him -on this plane.
IOW, I'm suggesting your lack of interest in an afterlife is simply a result of your formative education, just as Luciferase's assumption (based on his Catholic upbringing) is that everyone is obsessed with the notion, based on his formative education.
This, to my mind, raises an important point about decision making. In the last few decades we have come to accept, almost without question, that smart people make better decisions. In fact, we have now gone the extra step in believing that highly paid people are necessarily smarter people, and therefore must make the best decisions.
While Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were undeniably very smart people, there is little evidence to suggest your average billionaire is a genius.
People make decisions according to their experience, including their formative education.
A really smart guy who had a really bad childhood is still going to make bad decisions.
For instance, before we judge Chris Hitchens, we need to check his background.
(I just chucked the name in to make this post topical.)

Nup. Does not compute, Luciferase.

>>To claim to be existentialist since birth to the point of having escaped the deepest question doesn't wash with me.<<

Since when is this "the deepest question"?

As david f politely points out, we were not alive before we were born. Why would anyone - other than someone seduced by mysticism - imagine that there is even the remotest possibility that there might be "life" after death? It is contrary to everything we observe about life around us. We bury people six feet underground, for goodness' sake, and don't see them again.

Outside of zombie movies, that is.

We even burn people in an oven and put their ashy remains in a tin can. That can't be good for the aura.

There is no point in suggesting "ah, well, we don't know everything, do we, so it's entirely possible that we are just spirits, inhabiting this earthly form for a while, before...

Before what?

I have had this conversation with a number of earnest folk over the years - quite often they had long blonde hair, like that philosophy graduate - and never failed to be thoroughly entertained by the sheer effort that it takes, to even contemplate an afterlife. So many inherent contradictions, so little logic, so much fantasy.

But you will be pleased to know that I have promised myself that as soon as I have reached a satisfactorily complete answer as to the existence of life on other planets, I shall turn my attention to the concept of a before-life, and an afterlife.

Should be a doddle.

>>I congratulate you on the precocious and well placed faith in science you displayed at such a tender young age, Pericles.<<

Not really. After all, I didn't need to know that much science, to realize that the stories of our universe I was fed in Sunday school were an utter crock. Once I realized that the stars weren't put there my a mystical omnipotent being, I was able to turn my attention to what science was telling me.

Seemed obvious, really.

They all sound the same to me, Grim. They are certainly all true statements as far as I am concerned.

>>“Pericles believes there are no Gods”
“Pericles strongly believes a god or gods do not exist”
“Pericles enjoys (as do I) a system of beliefs (intellectual, social, ethical, rational) which does not require the existence -or putative existence- or any supernatural deities”<<

But by including the words "system of beliefs" in example #3, you surely put it automatically into the same bucket as the others, and could just as easily be described as a "belief" also. Which would be equally wrong.

As I might have mentioned before, there would be no need for the label "atheist", in the absence of theists. Ergo, it is only the theists' positioning that requires the invention of the term atheist.

There is no difference as far as I'm concerned between i) being oblivious to the existence of gods, because no-one has thought them up, and ii) being oblivious to the existence of gods, even though there is a bunch of people going around saying they do exist.

My attitude doesn't change between the two scenarios. If that makes me agnostic in your eyes, so be it. It will not change my view that religion is emotional, not rational, and that the stories that support their faith are designed to exploit those emotions.

Dear Grim,

I am a creature of my upbringing. I try not to make unnecessary generalisations so it is possible that some may have completely escaped their formative conditioning.

Even though I don't believe in a God the ideas that virgins impregnated by spirits can have babies, God appears as man, dead people come back to life, and guilt for sin is transferrable seem more primitive than a real religion. Buddhism, Judaism and Islam seem like real religions to me, but Christianity doesn't quite make the grade. Good science fiction takes one or two elements in our world, changes them and builds a new imaginary world on the changes. Where the improbabilities mount up it is no longer acceptable. Christianity is like second-rate science fiction. There are too many improbabilities.

david f wrote: "I had a Jewish religious education, but I don't remember an afterlife ever being discussed. When I heard of the concept it just seemed pointless."

Afterlife, Olam Ha-Ba http://www.jewfaq.org/olamhaba.htm Interestingly, the Jewish faith suggests possible reincarnation.

"Pointless"? Do mean pointless in that you didn't care, pointless in that you rejected it, or, pointless in that you had already formed the belief that "We don't live before we're born, and we don't live after we die."?

Anyway, I'm getting the following from you, david f. Neither through your religious upbringing, nor coming to question on your own, have you ever considered whether something of your being may survive physical death.

Sorry, david f, I don't buy it. Your fundamentalist position is derived from decisions based on experiences you have either forgotten or won't acknowledge.

What question is personally deeper than that of the survival of what is your essential, transcendent self? You have taken a position on this, david f, that precludes any other position, i.e. you have chosen to believe one thing and disbelieve other things. That's faith.

Regarding your last post, and Pericles', we all agree here that religion sucks.

Dear Luciferase,

I am aware that there are certain traditions in Judaism that suggest reincarnation. It is something that seems to me pure superstition.

I wish you wouldn’t be so egocentric. You wrote: “Sorry, david f, I don't buy it. Your fundamentalist position is derived from decisions based on experiences you have either forgotten or won't acknowledge.”

Everybody does not have to think like you. The possibility of an afterlife is nothing I have considered in any way. It has never seemed either real or possible.

You also wrote: “have you ever considered whether something of your being may survive physical death.”

Certainly the molecules that compose me will survive my physical death although some will decompose. I wish to be buried in a simple wooden box so that those molecules will be food for whatever creatures are there and will not be wasted.

You seem to be fond of using the word, faith, like a lash. I generally employ Occam’s razor. The position that requires the fewest assumptions is the most likely to fit the facts.

I am not so egocentric as to assume my personal survival is the most important question. I have no reason to think that I have an essential, transcendent self that is apart from my physical body. I don’t go for mysticism.

To me the most important personal question is, “How should I live?”

The locution that something sucks strikes me as both vulgar and unpleasant. Sucking is the first reflex we have, is life-giving and binds us to our mother.

Sorry to butt in and I am not entering the fray, but isn’t it interesting how, atheism, various shades of agnosticism, the definitions of belief and unbelief have taken over the thread which is about Christopher Hitchens’ death.

I think david f put his finger on the button about the elephant in the room with this:

“I would to see separation of religion and state. It would not matter what someone believed or didn't believe. Government would not use its powers to enforce or promote religion in general, any particular religion or atheism. Religionists or atheists could not depend on government to promulgate their views.

People would be free to promote their views in the home, churches or any non-governmental institution. However, government facilities such as the public schools would neither promote nor deny religious beliefs.”

I’m reasonably confident that Christopher Hitchens would certainly agree with this scarcity of obfuscation.

My apologies for the interruption; please continue.

David

Thanks David... and part of his legacy is surely the promulgation of good ideas and the rejection of poor ones.

Having commented earlier I'll finish with this:

The most generous take I can give to some of your argumentation Luciferase is a wilful misconstruction of connotation and denotation of words and expressions.

I believe in breathing and I know Christopher Hitchens doesn't.

Furthermore, I don't even necessarily believe that religion "sucks" but I know that it can.

Elsewhere, I've jokingly posed the question "Do I cease to exist when God realises he is a metaphysical solipsist?" but it is more logically consistent than some of the distinctions you're trying to bring to bear upon the explanations given you, above.

If the universe is curved, and not flat as the current best mathematical models show, your 'atheism' and Yuyutsu's theism might just meet up.

With all due respect, Grim, your quotes and definitions make for such slim-pickings that they almost resemble the quote-mining of creationists. Almost.

Take your quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism for example. Note the word “popular” and that the very next sentence - which starts with the words “In the strict sense, however...” - supports everything I’ve been saying? Not to mention the rest of the article. Note too that the other two links I provided completely contradict that anyway.

Like I said, Grim, slim-pickings.

And I don’t see what there is to stumble over the word “disbelieve”. Nor do I see how the positions held by Pericles, Luciferase and yourself contradict each other or anything I’ve been saying. As I said earlier, "disbelieve" is a broad term, and it can mean both “no belief” and “active denial”

http://tinyurl.com/7ud3uv6
http://tinyurl.com/6qedavk

That’s not debatable.

That being said, let’s look at the definition of atheism. We’ll start with dictionary.com since you like them:

a•the•ist [noun] a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist)

Note the “denies or disbelieves”?

They obviously saw a distinction between the two. After all, I don’t think they’d want a redundancy there. Being a dictionary site ‘n’ all, one would think they pride themselves on their English skills.

But hey, that’s just one definition. Here’s a whole swag of them for you peruse... http://tinyurl.com/7kfl9tj

<<I was referring to Atheism, too.>>

Excellent!

Then you should realise by now that definition you gave was not relevant to what we were talking about since atheism and theism are a dichotomy. Note too that the two definitions that came before yours, supported everything I’ve been saying.

<<I'm fairly sure T.H. Huxley was referring to Atheism when he coined the term.>>

Indeed he was.

He did, initially, refer to it as something separate from atheism too (hardly surprising given the times), and to add to the potential confusion, knowledge is not only a subset of belief but very narrow and difficult one to define.

But when he coined the term, he was making a statement about knowledge.

Thank you AJ, for so comprehensively endorsing the point I have been making for the last several pages. You're right, it is necessary to offer 2 meanings simply because “disbelief” can either have a neutral connotation (not believe) or a negative connotation (deny).
As a for instance, I don't at this time believe in M-theory, which postulates that space has 11 dimensions. This doesn't mean that I believe M-theory is wrong, merely that I don't believe in it (largely because I don't understand it). I'm quite comfortable in not believing in it on that basis; however I would need to know considerably more about it before I could reasonably say I believed it was wrong.
In other words, I'm an Agnostic on that subject.
Frankly, I consider the Agnosticism of the late great Carl Sagan to be far more reasonable than the Atheism of Dawkins. Atheism may once have been a mere “absence of belief”, but now it appears Hitchens, Dawkins et al, have pushed it to the point of very strong belief. As an op-ed writer such an attitude is perfectly reasonable for Hitchens, but Dawkins I feel, as a scientist, clings to a mere shred of scientific credibility (0.1 in 7) in having such strong belief in an untestable hypothesis.
As to the relevance of my comments to this discussion, it all dates back to a statement made by Pericles, which I hasten to add, he qualified in the rest of his post:
“Atheism is the absence, not the presence, of belief in a deity. The absence of belief is in fact the hallmark of an atheist. They cannot therefore in any sense be described as "believers", in the context of religion.”
Dawkins, Hitchens, et al. Can be described as “believers” in the context of religion. They believe it's all bull.

we agree religeon's..[controling peers]..suck

but who simply believes it..
and who can prove..whatever aspect..of what they are saying

i suggest we got more..in common than different

david..quote..""The position..that requires the fewest assumptions
is the most likely..to fit the facts.""

ok we are living..via a cetrtain cause..[mum got her living egg..impregnated with living sperm..][either manually or autonimously]

*this means..*life..
*comes..from life

we have all heard..of people dying...in say an operation
or under ice..[and comming back./.to life]..[movie zombies etc]..

so dead raising..is a truth

we know that radio waves...heat waves...light waves
are essentially unseen..so we know..just cause we dont see it..
dont mean..nuthin is there

lucifer/quote..""my view that..religion is emotional,..not rational""

ok lets go with that
our concious brain..and our autonimous reflex brain
dreams are irrational..and generaly physiical laws..seem constant

one of the brain..
the other a sickness of mind,
one living in a finite..[certiain..assertanable] reality..
the other in emotive imaginative infinitness..

[one physicaly mortal..[death being provabley unavoidable..
the other phycicly unavoidable

unconfirmable...but desriptive of ever lasting...infinitness
[till the unseen becomes revealed]

""and that..the stories
that support..their faith""

IN EITHER REALITY

""are designed to exploit..those emotions.""
not exploit..as much as use..their talents
that more of the same..will be a given

i come back to
the law

*energy cant be created..*NOR DESTROYED..!

your brain..becomes mush for worms
your mind lives on...[if only in its own mind][soul]

ps
re the burning the dead thing
for many spirits..this gives them the finality
that finally sepperates..the living eternal mind..[ego/soul]..
from the physical dead brain...the so fixated into being real[for them]

is..[of no mind
cause it being dead..is as nuthing..]
once the smell and taste of it's material essence..is removed

the different
betwen a living brain...and a dead brain

is..its 'energy'..[not able to be destroyed]
is thus transmutated..into its aural mind/form..

[the astral..'soul' form]
we earned by the quality of our works

wintreasure..quote.."""Do I cease to exist..when God realises he is a metaphysical solipsist?"""

no once you have been created
it matters not what your parent do

""If the universe is curved,..and not flat as the current best mathematical models show,..your 'atheism' and Yuyutsu's theism might just meet up.""

sure when you cram the whole universe..onto a narriow mind..
or a onto a web page[but look at things in scale]..

them lines on ya map..
are miles wide when looked at in scale
or that pin prick of light..spans light years of distance
let alone..that uni-verse...billions [googilians]..of earths suns wide

thinking in the finite physical brain..
limits the infinite eternal mind

flat is relitive to the flatness
of the recieving medium

closed minds..cant see it at all
to them a star..*must be a spark of light
just because some see whole universes..in a speck of light
does this mean..that...*their minds envisioning of it..is right?

have you seen the star's..in the heaven's
you stars of olo..

or take that..materialist
flat en-visioning..lol..on faith?

im noting that hitchkids mindset
is entering the diss beliefers...
when he returns from the dead
the athiests will have their own star[saint]..or whatever

the guy is dead..let the dead..tend the dead

but lets keep the topic going..if only
to reveal the church stands on feet of clay..

one foot in the eternal unseen..[its failing to serve]

the other able to be seen and smelt..felt and touched
[and their minds are fixated in the material perversions of the flesh]..

wolves raping the flock
fleecing the flock

not doing
as their founding..good sheppard's
[gods messangers]..

*did..as hitch is finding now
its not so much as what he said
but what he did or didnt 'do'

Grim,

You start off by claiming that I have endorsed the point you’ve been making, then you go on to repeat the same misunderstanding that I have been correcting all along.

Okay, so maybe we agree on the definition of “disbelieve”. In fact, in retrospect, the only one here who attempted to place a question mark over it was Luciferase with his comment regarding “dictionaries at 10 paces” (and we can all see now how that would’ve fared) so I’m not sure why you’ve been arguing as though atheism and agnosticism were mutually exclusive and nor does it explain why you feel the need to add the unnecessary “de facto”.

Take your M-theory example, for instance; you conclude by stating that your position on it makes you an agnostic. Yet, had my last post endorsed what you’ve been saying, then you would also have acknowledged that in the context of religion, your position on M-theory also makes you an “atheist” in regards to it - an agnostic-atheist to be exact.

To add to this, you then mention Sagan’s proclaimed “agnosticism”, seemingly unaware that when Sagan referred to himself as an agnostic, he did so thinking that atheism was a claim to knowledge on the question of the existence of God. In that sense, he was victim of his times.

Furthermore, you claim that the influence of Dawkins et al has pushed the definition of atheism to the point of “very strong belief” when the definition has incorporated that all along... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AtheismImplicitExplicit3.svg

I'm not sure why you want to cling so strongly to the idea that there is a third exclusive category. Referring to yourself as an atheist may give others (mostly just theists) the wrong idea about how strong your stance is on this topic, but the way I see it, if they’re too daft to understand what it means, then that’s their problem.

But I can’t stand when people molester the English language and I refuse to help propagate, or even enable, the deliberate skewing of definitions that theists engage in just because it makes them feel better.

AJ

I have applied the terms gnostic, agnostic, theist and atheist, as I see appropriate, below

Q1 (Knowing)
Does God exist?

A1 Yes (gnostic)
A2 No (agnostic)
A3 Maybe (agnostic)
A4 Don't know (agnostic)

Q2 (Believing)
Do you believe God exists?

A1 Yes (theist)
A2 No (atheist)
A3 Maybe (agnostic)
A4 Don't know (not an answer to the question)

Please say where do you disagree with this schema and say why?
Please indicate your personal position in this schema, as it stands or as corrected by you?

If you disagree with the term "agnostic" in relation to Q2,A3 then please indicate what word in the English language should replace it)

define/gnostic
http://www.google.com/search?q=define+gnostic

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Gnostic

""gnostic..-Means
"relating to knowledge"..or "clever,..or knowing."""

so..anti-knowledge
or..not/clever
or..not/knowing...lol..

[gnostic..makes perfect sense..
a-gnostic..is non-sense]..lol

""2...Of..
or..relating to..Gnosticism.
n.
A believer..in Gnosticism.""

..the opposing..to believer
is deney-er...or a diss-believer

lol

http://www.gnosis.org/whatisgnostic.htm

""Only twenty-five years ago,..when one used..the word "Gnostic,"
it was very likely to be misunderstood..as "agnostic,"""

lol..it seems it still is..!

""and thus..have one's statement
turned into its exact opposite...!"""

yeah/lol

""Such misapprehensions..are far less likely..today.""

oh lordy/lordy..dream-on

""..It is evident..that a word used
in such contradictory ways..has lost its meaning.""

ie anti..[lol]..meaning?

""No wonder GNOSIS writer..Charles Coulombe despairs..over the situation..when writing recently..in a Catholic publication:

"In reality, "Gnosticism,"..like "Protestantism,"
is a word..that has lost most of its meaning...

Just as we..would need to know..whether a "Protestant"..writer is Calvinist,..Lutheran,..Anabaptist,..or whatever..
in order to evaluate him properly,

so too the "Gnostic"..must be identified.""

as must..the opposing to gnostic
whatever that is..

q1+A2=ignorant of knowledge[agnostic]

know what knowledge..your deneying

""The following characteristics..may be considered normative for all Gnostic teachers..and groups in the era of classical Gnosticism;

thus one who adheres..""[OR REJECTS}..to some
or all of them..today might properly be called..a Gnostic:

{OR A-gnostic]

The Gnostics posited..an original spiritual unity..that came to be split..into a plurality.[

ME
WE

As a result of the
pre-cosmic division..the universe was created.

This was done..by a leader..
who resembled..the Old Testament Jehovah.

A female emanation of God..was involved in the cosmic creation..

In the cosmos,space..and time..have a malevolent character
and may be personified*..as demonic beings/events..separating man/from God.

For man,..the universe..is a vast prison.

He is enslaved..both by the physical..laws of nature
and by..moral laws..

Mankind may be..personified as Adam,
who lies..in the deep sleep..of ignorance,
his powers..of spiritual self-awareness..stupefied..by materiality.

Within each natural/man..is an.."inner man,"
a fallen spark..of the divine/substance.

Since..this exists..*in each man,
we have the possibility..of awakening..from our stupefaction.

What effects..the awakening..is not obedience,
faith,..or good works,..*but knowledge.

Before..the awakening,..men undergo troubled dreams.
Man does not attain..*the knowledge..{gnosis]..that awakens him..
from these..*dreams..

[deleted/..post-limits]

..see link

only you..*know..what you*..are

if you say..your anti-knowing..thats fine..lol
but its time..you saw the joke..*

Luciferase,

You schema is wrong in so many ways, I can only conclude that it’s what you’ve cobbled together over many years using fragmented information - much of which is not correct (can you provide any links to support it?). I can’t correct it in 350 words and nor do I have the motivation to considering all my posts on this thread have done that already.

Where have you been?

One thing I will mention, however, is that your schema doesn’t recognise that atheism/theism and agnosticism/gnosticism are not mutually exclusive.

A more accurate way of putting it would be to say that everyone in the world fits into one of the following categories: -

Agnostic-atheist;
Gnostic-atheist;
Agnostic-theist;
Gnostic-theist.

Strictly speaking, I would regard myself and agnostic-atheist.

<<If you disagree with the term "agnostic" in relation to Q2,A3 then please indicate what word in the English language should replace it)>>

Well, “atheism” already does. I would ask you why you think we need a word specifically for it.

I personally don’t think we need a word for it and here’s why...

Firstly, I don’t think it’s a large enough category to really warrant a word for (particularly considering how lucky theists are that they even get an “atheism” out of us when they are yet to demonstrate one iota of truth in what they believe). In my experience, genuine confusion over what one believes here really only affects those who are slowly emerging from their childhood indoctrination (I’ve been there) and it’s usually a relatively short phase at that.

More importantly, though, theists (who like to think that there’s a third exclusive category of people out there who at least meet them half way) enjoy having a label (i.e. “atheism”) to attach purely to the rejection of their God in order point to communism as an inevitable result of that rejection and I don’t think we should have to find another word for it just because of this.

We see this type of idiocy on OLO from time-to-time and I even remember doing it as a theist myself too.

Dear AJ,

Atheist only deals with those religions which include a belief in god. There are religions such as Buddhism which do not include a belief in god but include a belief in a supernatural as exemplified by Nirvana and reincarnation.

Naturalism is a word that means a stance that all natural processes are due to natural means. However, a naturalist is also one who studies nature.

I am a naturalist in the sense that I do not accept any supernatural manifestation since I have no evidence that any such thing exists. I think that all physical processes can be described by the laws of physics and chemistry although I am open to Stuart Kauffman's work that maintains that life processes cannot be described solely by those laws. However, that does not imply a supernatural but merely the concept that there may be undiscovered laws such as a fourth law of thermodynamics.

Dear david f,

I too would regard myself as a naturalist and for exactly the same reasons you mention.

Thank you for your point in regards to Buddhism. That being said, by default, Buddhism doesn’t fare into the mix here - just as many other schools of thought wouldn’t.

I’ve said a couple of times, “in the context of religion”, whereas I now realise that I should have said, “in the context of a belief in God”, since we are talking about the words theism, atheism, etc.

But I’ve always had a problem with referring to Buddhism as a “religion”. I regard it as more of a philosophy and have always thought that referring to it as a religion is a recipe for confusion and only helps to feed the whole “atheism is a religion” and “AGW is a religion” nonsense.

But again, thanks again for pointing that out. I’ll be more careful with my wording there.

Dear AJ,

I have recently come back from Bangkok. In my hotel room was a copy of the New Testament and a copy of 'The Teaching of Buddha'. I took the 'The Teaching of Buddha' and am now reading it. I have found much the same flaws in it that I find in the Abrahamic religions. The unquestioning acceptance of dogma, the hierarchy of values that put belief in the enlightenment (Meaning the Buddhist dogma) on top and the denigration of women are all there. The western Buddhist propaganda that Buddhism incorporates doubt and questioning I did not find although I haven't read the whole book.

The book mentions seven kinds of wives. The ideal type is described on p. 448.

"...there is a wife who is like a maid-servant. She serves her husband well and with fidelity. She respects him, obeys his commands, has no wishes of her own, no ill-feeling, no resentment, and always tries to make him happy."

That is as male chauvinist as any western religion. It is not a philosophy compatible with any view of sexual equality.

Dear AJ,

Religions, I think all of them of any extent, have many sects and variations. Some of these sects may be presented as representing the entire religion. The Dalai Lama has made many public pronouncements. In none of them have I read anything conducive to conflict or violence. However, he only represents one Buddhist stream.

During WW2, the Japanese officer corps were almost entirely Buddhist. They were a most violent group of men who could employ the Buddhist idea that the phenomenal world we perceive through our senses is not reality. Thus they could dismiss atrocities. The Buddhist clergy in Sri Lanka have supported the suppression of the Tamils. Buddhism is not just a philosophy. It is a religion which incorporates sects that are as fundamentalist as any of those in western religions.

Ah, where to begin...
I apologise if my pedantry annoys you AJ, but I assure you dogma, imprecise statements and logical inconsistencies annoy me just as much. For instance, I did not claim your entire post endorsed my position, merely the question of “Disbelief” and “Deny”. I was also of course annoyed by your dogmatic statement “Your definition of agnosticism is incorrect...” when it was cut and pasted from a dictionary; and even more by your logically false dichotomy "Theism means to hold a theological belief; atheism is everything else".
Your most recent exchange with David f. points to the innaccuracy of this dichotomy, and a logical inconsistency. If Atheism is a 'blanket' belief, then so must logically be theism; yet you acknowledge there are many “isms”-naturalism, animism, pantheism, deism... On the other side of the equation there are many counterarguments including various levels of Agnosticism and to which you have now added 'explicit' and 'implicit' atheism.
While your Atheism is all encompassing, your concept of -and argument against- theism has always been tightly focussed; addressing only what Einstein described as a “personal God” and ignoring the other possibilities.
As Sagan (and recently, Brian Holden similarly) said :
“Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Others—for example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einstein—considered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws.”

I also don't agree that Sagan “was a victim of his times”. On the contrary, I regard Sagan has having been the epitome of a truly open minded scientist, and I think he would have rejected the ever dogmatic Dawkins (and his infamous chapter 4 in the 'God Delusion) on that basis.
I also reject the statement that I regard “Agnosticism” and Atheism as (necessarily) “mutually exclusive”. There are, as you have pointed out, definite overlaps. This does not, however, mean that no distinction exists. I insist “on cling[ing] so strongly to the idea that there is a third (and fourth and fifth...) exclusive category” because one can be an Agnostic without being an Atheist.
I also believe you misinterpret the term 'de facto'. One can act as if married, without actually being married. I could just as easily describe myself as a “de facto Christian” for instance, as I live pretty much by the same (highly theoretical) code as modern Christians even though I don't share their beliefs in Divinity.
I also “can't stand when people molester (sic) the English language”.

AJ, I have read every word you've had to say as well as the references you've offered.

There IS a difference between agnosticism and atheism. That they are unable to be both be applied, one for the other, in the schema is by design in order to point out the difference. The schema contains the dichotomies you embrace, separating knowledge from belief, theism from atheism, gnosticism from agnosticism, and it canvasses all possible answers to the questions asked.

On the question of "Do you believe God exists", What answers are possible other than:

"Yes, I believe God exists"
"No, I believe God does not exist"
"I believe God may exist"

The agnostic can, with integrity, give the third answer.

Your agnostic-atheistic position, which is not to believe any deity exists, but not to deny it as a possibility, requires you to sit on the fence between the second and third answers. An answer to the question can not be "I am not convinced that God exists". That is the answer to a different question.

AJ, you have dragged out every nuance from any source that allows any distinction between agnosticism and atheism to fall through the cracks.

You are full-time equivocator. It's fine to be skeptical but it's high time to weigh things up. With the all the modern information out there in the world before you, it is not just metaphysical anymore. Either accept that you are just a common old garden variety agnostic, or join we atheists.

Your fence-sitting blend of agnosticism and atheism shows a lack of courage. Come out of the closet and into the full light, AJ rather than repressing your intellectual urge.

There's a piece missing, Luciferase.

>>On the question of "Do you believe God exists", What answers are possible other than:
"Yes, I believe God exists"
"No, I believe God does not exist"
"I believe God may exist"<<

You have not explained what you mean by 'God', so it remains a unique concept that exists only in your imagination.

To exacerbate the problem, no-one else has been able to arrive at a consistent definition either. Even those who purport to believe in the same "God" - Catholics, Protestants, Moslems etc. - have different views on the form it takes.

There is no skerrick of evidence that we were created by a supreme being, so until there is agreement that God is a) a bearded white man in the sky or b) "the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe", or c) any variant thereof, the question is essentially unanswerable.

Just out of curiosity, which image of God did you have in your head when you asked the question?

davidf,

your description of Buddhism has all the accretions of two and a half millenia attached to a tradition that was passed down by word of mouth for the first 500 hundred years. The essence of Theravada Buddhism is parable and is much closer to modern philosophy and psychology that it is to the kind of theistic religion that dominates today. There are supernatural elements, as in the concept of rebirth, but for me this is more in the nature of rationale than metaphysics. The only really important goal in Buddhism is to end suffering (including ignorance--which is content rather than vacuity), but upon it has been built a system of ethics and renunciation of worldly things that would make for a wholesome change from the shallow materialism that now dominates. The sexism you cite in Thailand has nothing to do with the Buddha's teachings, but is part of the same cultural/traditional accretion of norms that has twisted and literally reversed the value-system that Jesus allegedly preached. And as offensive as that kind of chauvinism sounds to our "enlightened" ears, the day will come when our era of decadence, gross inequality and inhumanity will be looked back upon as far more barbarous.
Also, naturalism relies on the belief that physical reality is all there is; a rationalist dogma since we have no way of knowing. The highlight of the Lawrence Krauss talk for me is when he says near the end that cosmologists of the future will develop a wholly different cosmology due to their drastically different perspective.

Luciferase,
To be an assertive atheist is to insist on the fidelity of one tiny, narrow and limited perspective, what's more a perspective utterly distorted by the accretions and blind prejudices of the day. I take a more modest view of my powers to fathom the universe. I'm an atheist in that I have no evidence of a God and no need of a paternal one-- traditionally evoked so as to condition and control and maintain the benighted masses and the status quo.
I'm an agnostic in that I lack the temerity to do away with possibilities in a universe about which I "know" almost nothing.
To be doctrinaire about materialism/naturalism/atheism is to banish ignorance by fiat and see a theory of everything as achievable--ceteris paribus. But all things are not equal! We are not objective and laboratory conditions don't obtain. What's more, the idealistic side of our lives is as real and compelling as the materialistic, and to deny it is literally to deny a dimension of reality within the phenomenal universe; a dimension whose extent we know nothing of beyond our enthralment to it.
Finally, since we are in no position to dictate what's possible and what's not (arguably only what's relevant and what's not), I'm suspicious of the agenda of atheists who proselytise that "there is no God".
If I read AJ and Grim aright, they're not fence-sitting at all but looking to dispel illusion cautiously (respectively), rather than arbitrate hastily, which I think is wholly admirable.

Grim,

Why do you need to resort to emotive language like “dogma”? Like I said, if you don’t like this, then take it up with philosophers and linguists.

And you don’t get to accuse me of inconsistencies when you take the moral high-ground by saying that you would not be so patronising as to accuse me of being “confused” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13036#225981) then, in your very next post to me, claim that telling me I was confused is exactly what you did (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13036#226220)

In regards your definition of agnostic, I’ve already addressed that. If you still have a problem with it, why don’t you actually address my reply instead of bringing it up as though I hadn’t?

<<Your most recent exchange with David f. points to the innaccuracy of this dichotomy, and a logical inconsistency.>>

Um... no, it doesn’t. Read it again.

The point I made, that shows that it doesn’t, appears to be the fundamental aspect of this that you’re missing.

<<If Atheism is a 'blanket' belief, then so must logically be theism...>>

No, it doesn’t necessitate that that theism be a “blanket belief”, but it just so happens that theism is to the extent that you mention.

The difference, however, is that atheism encompasses both belief and absence-of-belief. And I have given you enough definitions of atheism to demonstrate this.

And how does this contradict what I’ve been saying anyway?

<<While your Atheism is all encompassing, your concept of -and argument against- theism has always been tightly focussed; addressing only what Einstein described as a “personal God” and ignoring the other possibilities.>>

Not necessarily. And even if it was, that still wouldn’t change anything I’ve said here.

As for your Sagan quote, I have no idea what the relevance is in it and nor do I see how it contradicts anything I’ve been saying.

<<This does not, however, mean that no distinction exists [between atheism and agnosticism].>>

I never said there was no distinction.

<<one can be an Agnostic without being an Atheist.>>

Okay, then explain to me where I am wrong and why. You've not yet successfully done that.

Luciferase,

There is nothing about the “atheist-agnostic” position that could warrant to accusation of “fence-sitting”. All I mean by that (and from what I can tell, you fit the category too) is that I don’t believe in any Gods, but I can’t actually KNOW that no Gods exist.

Note too that I did say “strictly speaking”. For all intents and purposes, I’m a gnostic-atheist.

I’d bet there’s a few reading this who’d be chuckling at your accusation of fence-sitting and being a “full-time equivocator” on where I stand. I would unequivocally hold the position of OLO’s staunchest, most strident atheist. So much so, that I have even been attacked by my fellow atheists on the odd occasion. But it’s a position I hold with pride.

<<There IS a difference between agnosticism and atheism. That they are unable to be both be applied, one for the other, in the schema is by design in order to point out the difference.>>

What part of “not mutually exclusive” do you not understand? I’m not going to go through it again. If you want to argue the point, then explain why anything I have said is wrong and we’ll go from there. So far, both you and Grim have failed to do that.

<<The schema contains the dichotomies you embrace, separating knowledge from belief, theism from atheism, gnosticism from agnosticism, and it canvasses all possible answers to the questions asked.>>

I’m not talking about verbal “answers”. I’m talking about where one may lay on the spectrum.

<<An answer to the question can not be "I am not convinced that God exists". That is the answer to a different question.>>

I know, which is why I didn’t give you that as an answer.

<<AJ, you have dragged out every nuance from any source that allows any distinction between agnosticism and atheism to fall through the cracks.>>

On the contrary, I have embraced the differences and tried to point them out to you. The main one being that they both answer different questions.

aj/quote..""The difference,however,..is
that atheism encompasses both belief and absence-of-belief.""

searching belief..in a diction airy
belief...:..
..''a feeling''
''that something egsists''
''or is true''[[especially oner held without proof''

2/..'a firmly held opinion''
3/''[belief in]..or trust..or confidence in''

so clearly belief...
is held by thiest or athiest[theoist or atheoist]

[agnostic or gnostic..naturally excluded
[these must hold proofs truths self evidential..!]
sources...naming names giving reasons..able to rationalise their KNOWING*

lucifer quote..."">>On the question of>>[trick question]..

"""Do you believe* God exists",""

no
i know
he doth egsist

""What answers..are possible..other than:""
"Yes,..I believe*..God exists"
"No,..I believe*..God does not exist"
"I believe*..God may exist"<<"""

gnostics..[a/gnostics]..have proofs
specific to their inheritaded creed
[or converts away..from SPECIFIC gnosis][rejecting or accepting CERTAIN truths as proofs..[specific not generalisations]

not all religeons are the same
like with christ it varies betwen he is the son of the father
to him BEING the fat-her..[the joke that a woman..let alone unworldly woman could be the father of god..[is insane]

bnot all gnosis is equal
but as its ALL ABOUT BELIEF*
belief as you will[whatever proofs ;..gnosis
you think you got..for or a-gainst..its all just what you believe]

wether you agree with them
opposing your thesis..[gbnosis]..or anti-thesis..or anti-gnosus\
calling your sure gnosis..for or against [or not]..its fruits are what you believe..

yet the spirits fruits are what we then did
with our belief..based on evolving gnosis

aj/""And I have given you enough
definitions of atheism..to demonstrate this.""

athiest defines the belief
not..the being

athiest-isms..belie
thiesisms...mostly based in gnostisms

be they via thiestic..or agnostic belial..
they are sans real values..beyond the frail mortal flesh delusions

AJ. You are not dealing with the challenge put to you by the schema other than to reassert an unclear distinction between knowledge and belief in relation to agnosticism. If you think perhaps construing a nuanced case for Q2A3 as being an atheistic position, it won't wash with true atheists.

Mitchell writes: "I'm suspicious of the agenda of atheists who proselytise that "there is no God"."

I am seduced by science in the direction of certainty, no agenda. Metaphysics is not the only game in town now and even if it were I'd still take issue with fence-sitters relying of empty nuances of language to define themselves as atheists. You're agnostic until you show the balls to be otherwise.

and "...they're not fence-sitting at all but looking to dispel illusion cautiously (respectively), rather than arbitrate hastily, which I think is wholly admirable."

So, only when science proves itself capable of producing a universe will agnostic-atheists stop believing God may exist?

As Pericles muses, God is possibly "the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe". Can they reproduce themselves, i.e can God reproduce Himself.

If that happens will we all become theists, atheists, or just believers?

Watch out for a hadron collider near you.

Dear Mitchell,

Although I picked the book in a Bangkok hotel it was not Siamese. The Society for the Promotion of Buddhism based in Tokyo supplied the book. The text was English on the left hand page and Japanese on the right hand. Religions like any other human institution change through time, and we deal with them according to what they have become. Toward the end of the book is a glossary which includes the various traditions in Buddhism.

Physical reality is all we can detect so it is all we have evidence for. It seems more reason than dogma to concern ourslves with what we have evidence for. Because other people believe there is a god or gods or other supernatural entities is no reason for me to believe there is. There is much we do not know or possibly will never know about physical reality. Naturalism seems to me the most reasonable position. If we have evidence for the existence of something other than the physical reality we know that new evidence extends our physical reality. We then have a more extensive naturalism, but it is still naturalism.

Luciferase:
<I am seduced by science in the direction of certainty, no agenda>

On what is this "certainty" based in our anti-foundational world? Surely you've read some Richard Rorty?
And it's naive to think science has no agenda. Science has no ethical or political motivation--all things being equal--rather it parasitises and passively adopts the politics and agenda of its host; whoever provides the funding. Science has no agenda but that doesn't alter the fact that it developed nuclear weapons, germ warfare and gas chambers.
"Metaphysics is not the only game in town now". No it's not; there's also realism and pragmatics, but these have no veridical base either. Empirical science is based on metaphysics.
How do you square your "no agenda", btw, with the war cry: "You're agnostic until you show the balls to be otherwise"?
Agnosticism is the empirical conviction that knowledge of God is unachievable. Does it take balls to make assertions arbitrarily?
"only when science proves itself capable of producing a universe will agnostic-atheists stop believing God may exist?"
Creating a singularity in the collider, a notion generally treated as risible by the scientific community, is hardly tantamount to creating a "universe", or disproving the possibility of a God. And I'll remind you again that idealism is a product of the "phenomenal" universe, and not merely, or not necessarily, the human imagination. Who knows what the evolutionary potential of idealism is? Or what it's already achieved somewhere in the universe? or in what we conceive to be the "future"? There is altogether far more uncertainty to be ballsy about than certainty, and even theoretical physicists are revising their ambitious TOE down.
For me, now is a time to take stock, for science to help secure a viable future, before pontificating on a universal scale--we've had centuries of that already!
Now what is science doing to secure that future? Nothing. It's helping to condemn it in its unholy alliance with the prevailing mindless agenda.

Mitchell, that was a throwaway line about the collider, but who knows. Might be interesting to see

http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#/search/motherboard
and click on "Black Holes Big Bangs"

See Prof Otto Rossler at 10.32 mark and read his Seven Reasons for Demanding an LHC Safety Conference at

http://www.science20.com/big_science_gambles/blog/interview_professor_otto_r%C3%B6ssler_takes_lhc

Perhaps the only way to settle the argument is by completely annihilating ourselves!

Am checking out Rorty but am having a struggle. So what's the ugly agenda behind the collider anyway?

Grim,

In regards to “...one can be an Agnostic without being an Atheist”, what I should have said was, yes, they’d be an agnostic-theist. Atheism and agnosticism address two different questions.

Incidentally, what does Sagan’s open-mindedness have to do with what I said?

Oh, and yes I know what “de facto” means.

Luciferase,

<<You are not dealing with the challenge put to you by the schema other than to reassert an unclear distinction between knowledge and belief in relation to agnosticism.>>

I haven’t asserted anything of the kind. I haven’t even covered the difference between knowledge and belief. I’ve just taken if for granted that we all agreed on what they were, and neither of them changes in light of agnosticism.

By the way, I have made no assertions thus far. I have provided evidence and reasoned argument for every point I’ve made.

<<If you think perhaps construing a nuanced case for Q2A3 as being an atheistic position,...>>

Nothing I’ve said has been ambiguous and I haven’t construed anything. I’m going by accepted definitions and knowledge...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism
http://tinyurl.com/829xv24
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

I dealt with your challenge by reminding you that I had already answered it throughout my posts and it appears to have been enough for you to understand.

And your only response..?

<<...it won't wash with true atheists.>>

If, by “true atheists”, you mean people who strongly believe that Gods don’t exist, then don’t worry, I have a lot of friends who fit that description and they already agree with me here. And those I speak with who are naive in this area usually respond with something along the lines of, “Oh, I didn’t know that.”

In my experience, there are only two kinds of people who have a problem with all this:

1. Those elitist “agnostics” I mentioned earlier (who funnily enough, direct most of their criticism towards their fellow atheists);
2. Theists.

You and Grim carry on like I’m some buffoon who’s got it arse-backwards. But you need only utilise Google to see that everything I’ve said is accurate...

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheist_vs._agnostic
http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/what.htm
http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/Atheist_vs_Agnostic
http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm
http://www.rationalresponders.com/am_i_agnostic_or_atheist

Would you like more?

Hi AJ,
I would have thought you and I have been discussing the nature of Atheism for too many years (remember Dan S. Merengue?) for you to accuse me of thinking of you as a buffoon. I simply don't bother to respond to (or in certain easily recognisable cases, read) people whose opinions I have no respect for.
And I would certainly never describe you as a “fence sitter”; indeed I agree with your self analysis.
Perhaps that is the essence of our disagreement, for I guess I could be considered a fence sitter, inasmuch as I can generally see value in both sides of most -well reasoned- arguments.
Hitchens, along with Dawkins, Harris, Dennet and others are advocates of “New Atheism”, and as scientists, their arguments are undeniably well reasoned. As I understand it, the essence of New Atheism -in comparison to the more laissez faire attitude of 'old' atheism- is that it's proponents do not accept that religions should be tolerated, or allowances made for.
Regarding formal religions, I'm inclined to agree. I certainly found Dawkins' arguments in the God Delusion quite compelling, and I'll concede the arguments are entirely applicable to Einsein's concept of a “personal god”.
I have yet to find however, any compelling arguments against the concept of an impersonal, pantheistic or “naturalistic” god (for want of a better word) such as described in the quote from Sagan. I also agree with Trevor's observation that we generally only argue about the gods which we conceive of, and pretty much ignore the inconceivable ones (as I interpreted his comment).
Considering our relative youth as a species (we could conceivably have millions of years ahead of us) this leaves us with virtually infinite possibilities.
BTW, thank you Mitchell, for -what I considered to be- an informative and well reasoned post.

Mitchell asks, "How do you square your "no agenda", btw, with the war cry: "You're agnostic until you show the balls to be otherwise"?"

I have the same respect for the intellectual position of the agnostic-atheist as I have for the agnostic-theist. Both are fence-sitters.

My agenda is, if you would call it one, to establish the primacy of "new atheism" referred to by Grim, and which is bound to science, over the old which is bound up in metaphysics. Huxley showed balls, saying "what possible objection can I have to these doctrines (God's existence etc)? Give me a scintilla of evidence, and I am ready to jump at them."

Huxley clearly did not expect any metaphysical "evidence" but expected it to come through science. The trouble with you guys (less so Grim) is you have a mountain of evidence, not just a scintilla, yet you prevaricate to the point where you say that
"Creating a singularity in the collider....... is hardly tantamount to creating a "universe", or disproving the possibility of a God."

I read this to mean that even if science can produce a universe, you will remain a fence-sitter, taking the position of david f that all it would do is extend the boundaries of a naturalistic world, with the question of whether there is a God still remaining on the table.

If what you mean is that you can never know that God does not exist, then you are a permanent prevaricator, aka fence-sitter, with no more intellectual courage than the agnostic-theist.

Your definition "Agnosticism is the empirical conviction that knowledge of God is unachievable" is a further statement of the above"

AJ, if I have implied anything that suggests I believe you to be any kind of buffoon, I absolutely withdraw it or accept such title on my own head. I have absolute respect.

Your proffered the link http://wiki.ironchariots.org which treats the topic based around two possible "claims" rather than two possible "questions" on belief, as I have put. The claims treatment allows you to maintain your position with judicious choices of definitions but you still have not addressed my challenge satisfactorily, as to how an atheist an take two positions in relation to the second question,.i.e. "I believe God does not exist" and "I believe God may exist".

My second point you refute on the basis of stringently defining agnosticism as the opposite of gnosticism, which is not entirely what Huxley did. Cognizant of "Agnosis" the unknown god, he said "..It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history". There is no "definition" as such by Huxley, but a lot more talk by him over both knowledge and belief that makes matters furry.

"suggestively antithetic" is not a definition and I do not retreat from what I have said, that the term "agnostic" straddles knowledge and belief, unless you apply some definition that came after Huxley's coining of the term. The Q2A3 position is agnostic in the broad sense that Huxley meant, and if you want something else then invent a new word and don't use Huxley's.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#Thomas_Henry_Huxley Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims is unknown "or" unknowable. The "or" is important, because Huxley was uncertain about what was unknowable but certain about what he did not know

davidf,
institutional religions are decadent parodies of their original inspiration. Jesus was a radical who defended the poor, abominated the rich and preached passive revolution, yet today and long since he's the patron saint of the complacent middle classes and the well-to-do, and his simple teachings are lost in ritual or swamped by a low-tide of evangelism. The aspects of Buddhism you cite similarly reflect the patriarchal values of the dominant culture; rules for the laity rather than monks. The actual philosophy reflected in the suttas and the Abhidhamma is more akin to psychology and philosophy than religion--which is no more than official morality.
I agree with your second paragraph and am not trying to defend dogma of any kind. Yes, our concern should be with the here and now.

Luciferase,
in as much the agenda of the new atheists is to engage critically with the doctrines of theism (that is to say its politics. Divinity is a side issue), I support you. But what are your politics? What is the new-atheist line? Rationalism certainly, admirable and all that; but a purge on theism suggests a better way--an agenda you might say.
Just supposing we all become good little unbelievers, what is our reward? What is your philosophy? What is to be our our purpose? As individuals? As a society? We can't all attain to the celebrity (priest-like) status of Dawkins and Dennett, so how should we adapt the new-atheist philosophy (to be announced) to the hear and now--on the streets so to speak? Having ditched(kins) God once and for all, and designated the universe ultimately transparent to the withering human gaze (withal its neuroses), how do we turn our collective arcana coelestia to good account?
Having solved the riddle of the universe way back in 1859 (according to Dawkins), this should be child's play. I'm asking how society should be organised under the New Atheism? A makeover? Or just a changing of the guard?
I realise these are difficult questions that require math, so let's start with something simple; who do the New Atheists vote for, left or right?

Grim,

Thanks for the conciliatory tone in that last response.

<<I have yet to find however, any compelling arguments against the concept of an impersonal, pantheistic or “naturalistic” god...>>

Why are you waiting for compelling arguments against them when there have so far been no compelling arguments for them? Sure, we may have millions of years of learning and discovery ahead of us, but if these impersonal Gods are so inconsequential, then why should we pay them any more than a than a fleeting moment’s thought?

We rarely ever get any sort of construct to actually respond to from people who believe in these versions of god either (in a similar sense, we get the “sophisticated” Christians who’ll claim that God transcends evidence and reason, because they don’t know what they’re talking about and they sure as hell don’t want you to know what they’re talking about either), and even when we do get something from them, it’s usually along the lines of God is “love” or “energy” or “everything”.

We can disregard these versions of God because the “God” label is a needless redundancy.

As for “New Atheism” (I abhor and reject that label), it’s not so much about not tolerating or allowing for religions, but recognizing that they can be harmful and dangerous and that if we’re going to make such generous allowances for them, then their adherents have an obligation to demonstrate at least SOME truth behind them.

But I don’t think it’s appropriate or useful to compare Sagan and Einstein (or Spinoza) with today’s “New Atheists” for the same reason that I don’t think it’s appropriate for creationists to point to Newton as a great scientist who shared their views on creation.

Newton was a victim of his times as well.

The prevalence of religion - and the resulting socialization - of Sagan's time (and particularly Einstein’s) wouldn't exactly have inspired one to take that final step of blowing-off unfounded claims as "nonsense until demonstrated otherwise". They made allowances that would make their open-mindedness seem more like intellectual cowardice in these more enlightened times.

Continued...

...Continued

It's absurd, in my mind, to assume that Sagan and Einstein would still be so wishy-washy had they been in their prime now. There is not a doubt in my mind that both would be "New Atheists" today.

What Sagan said in your quote has me speechless.

I can look at a carving, revered as a God by some primitive tribe, and agree that their God exists. But that doesn’t mean I agree that the carving is a God. There is a crucial distinction there and the fact that Sagan apparently didn’t understand this (particularly if this has something to do with why he referred to himself as agnostic) has me gobsmacked.

I didn't know about that quote, but as someone who admires Sagan, a part of me died when I read it.

Unbelievable!

.

Luciferase,

Thank you for your conciliatory words.

For you to quote what you did in your last paragraph, as if it contradicts anything I’ve said, only shows just how futile this is. That's precisely what I’m talking about! It all deals with knowledge, not belief, and therefore, does not apply to Q2A3.

Is it that you think “unknowable” means that one cannot even form a belief? If so, then we disagree on the difference between knowledge and belief and therein lays the problem.

Perhaps I was wrong to assume that we all agreed on the difference?

<<...you still have not addressed my challenge satisfactorily, as to how an atheist an take two positions in relation to the second question,.i.e. "I believe God does not exist" and "I believe God may exist".>>

That was your question?!

No, one cannot possibly take both positions and I’m baffled as to how you could think I’ve suggested otherwise. But both positions are atheistic since they are not a positive claim to a belief in God/Gods.

<<My second point you refute on the basis of stringently defining agnosticism as the opposite of gnosticism, which is not entirely what Huxley did. Cognizant of "Agnosis" the unknown god, he said ">>

Yes, and it sits perfectly with everything I’ve said... http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/agnosis

Dear Mitchell,

You wrote, “Institutional religions are decadent parodies of their original inspiration. Jesus was …”

In the above I think you are implicitly incorporating the Platonic myth of the ideal forms of which reality exists as imperfect copies.

We don’t know what Jesus was nor even whether he existed. To say institutional religion is a parody of the original inspiration we would have to know what the original inspiration was. We do know from the Dead Sea Scrolls that the Gospels incorporate many of The Essene myths. We also know that many of the pagan myths surrounding Apollo, Mithra and other pagan deities (eg impregnating by a god, a last Eucharistic supper, the deity taking on the sins of others and resurrection after execution) were taken up in the Gospels.

I think it just as possible that Jesus, if he existed, was an unbalanced person who might today be put in a mental institution for thinking he was Jesus. I think it just as possible that institutional Christianity is far superior to anything Jesus, if he wasn’t completely myth, ever envisaged.

Question: Do you believe God exists?

Answer: "I believe God does not exist and I believe God may exist" full stop

Who thinks this answer to the question shows intellectual courage? That it is the answer of an atheist just demeans atheists.

I'll just leave it at that.

Mitchell, I love the free-spiritedness with which you now embrace new atheism. May I at first suggest that:

1 St Christopher's birthday (Hitchens that is) replace Christmas Day.
2 That a bill of rights giving primacy to secular rights be drawn up.
3 That the sabbath day be every day of the year to keep the unions happy.

Hitch, hitch, hooray.

Please add your own. However, I do not wish the religious to be denied their rituals and would oppose any move to deny the masses their opium.

i must say it...[i think im a thinking being
over thinking perhaps..and most definitly a loner
[or at least rejected by all]

my family faith talks of a lost one
they even hold rituial to remind themselves of how much they miss me

but im lost...lol
so the ritualised love/missing[rememberance?]..of me
is better than their actual open rejection..of the real me i am being

i have met the collective love person to person
[yes it was via that still inner voice that angels and demons use]
but i knew it was 'him'[the only true living good god of love/light/mercy grace]..because this was clear true and pure in his own voice...[inner voice]

now no one not in my mind..could hear these graces
and i couldnt record the words..but if you listen closly..he will give you your own words..but it will yet be in the same way deliverd..

ok i demanded of the good grace living mercy..to reveal himself
so i looked into the hell fires[you call your sun]...and was rewarded not with blindness[for i looked at it with pupils dilated[with love]..and looked upon thy face

upon seeing you i realise why more holy than i
could not look upon thee of lord...but this
is clear..by how theee looked
thusly then..to me

like a cell..with a soft living loving 'center'
within a lumpy bumpy circle..[egsactly like the areola..surrounding your mark upon our chests]..[in plain speak lord thee looked like a generouse nipple..

engorged..fire...circluar soft
holding the most viole safely within you
while our cell centers...contain you within!

you that soft engourged nipple
[of a mother..teat treat..when mothering her child..

via her milk
her own life substance..[material light]..
sustaing the childs life..as much as light..sustains life

how did the holy not dare reveal thyface

own goodness of teat
the treat that so faithfully reveals..thee yet we ciouldnt read the sign[by de-sign]...that unspeakable of unspeakables..that resembles thy face..so truelly

that face we yearn for
revealed in our living mothers nurture
[or revealed to lovers...
when their two paired of opposing teats [4 nipples]..meet]

[that at which..the new born spirits..made flesh sup..[sukk]at with such gusto...and enthusiasm..

that light
the milk of life...that the new born..
soo greedly slurp at with fond rememberance..
of previously visitating upon your nature/nurture..face...
when as the unborn they were thus..in spirit

now note thy face..within each living cell[nuclious]
plus..thy image..wrote large on every chest

i have gnosis of thee oh lord
i detest thy theiests..who pervert your truth

who subvert their trust..
who chose 'just war''..[doctrain]
that does no honourum..to thee lord..

theee..the living good..
god of all life

they hate me cause i cant explain to them my gnosis
and because they know i love them...alone
because thee lord is wrote large..
within everycell..

over every heart
and rote largess..twice..upon their chests

but not like a dogs teat
who yet hast nipples applenty

all mine
of thyne envisioning
that wast missing
was a doubble ddd breast...and a matching pair
but ye lord are one

but you lord
are one

we..made egsactly..like thy image,
ye made us..for living loving life and fun

i s-mother your face
with my kisses

honourum
to the lord our nipple

from the biggest boob boo
briefly back on line..the thesis gnostic
who having seen cannot un see..regardless of how much i-gnored i be

Hi Luciferase,
“Answer: "I believe God does not exist and I believe God may exist" full stop”
That would be my answer to the question you pose, although I would phrase it somewhat differently:
I strongly believe God (as so far conceived by all religions I'm aware of) does not exist, but I freely admit I could be wrong.
What bothers me most about strident atheists is right there; their lack of doubt. People who bomb innocents and promote wars in the name of their God must I think have the same lack of doubt.

Ah AJ,
I offer you an olive branch, and you slap me in the face with it.
I'm sorry you're bothered by my use of the word 'dogma', AJ, because I have to use it again. I'm just as 'gobsmacked' by this quote of yours:
“There is a crucial distinction there and the fact that Sagan apparently didn’t understand this...”
Sagan was a world renowned cosmologist and exobiologist, highly regarded by all who knew hin as a towering intellect. Indeed, the unabashedly conceited Azimov described him as one of only two people he'd met whose intellect surpassed his own.
To suggest your 'understanding' surpasses his indicates not only an unshakeable belief in your own dogma, but unbelievable intellectual arrogance; based solely on the fact that his 'understanding' is not congruent with your understanding.
You may not be a buffoon, but you would need to work a lot harder than you have on these pages to convince me that your intellect and abilities in comprehension exceed those of Spinoza, Einstein or Sagan. Further, I don't accept they were victims of their times, as I am not aware of any scientific, philosophical or theological breakthroughs in the last few decades which have brought us any closer to proving the existence or non existence of God, much less define what qualities It (He, She) may have. Nor were the 50's to 70's times when intellectual blasphemers were burnt on any stakes, and there is no evidence to suggest either Sagan or Einstein ever lacked intellectual courage.

Continued:
I also find it incredibly arrogant for any thinker to imagine that any puny human intellect could ferret out positive proof in the existence of a god capable of creating universes if that god didn't want them to; ergo absolute human proof that that particular god does or does not exist is logically impossible.
Why should we care? I would suggest that all scientific endeavour could be described as attempting to achieve greater understanding of the “God” of Spinoza (nature, the cosmos, physical law, whatever), eg. What is of enormous interest to many scientists and enquiring minds is why our universe is so understandable. We may not have complete understanding yet, but the pattern appears to be one day we will, and there will be no room for a “God of the gaps”; which isn't the same as saying there will be no room for God.
As I understand it, there is nothing in the theories of Einstein or quantum mechanics that disallows the possibility of time travel. This not only opens the door for the 'Grandfather Paradox', but also the opposite possibility, that a sufficiently advanced culture might feel the need to go back in time to create themselves, thus becoming evolved Gods.
Our most brilliant scientists have already conceived the possibility of manufacturing baby or bubble Universes. If we admit that possibility, we must also admit the possibility that we live in a universe manufactured by someone else.
I would strongly suggest that it is at this time impossible to prove or disprove that we are currently living in a Cosmic petri dish, being studied by a Being who merely seeks to understand how He Himself came into being, and exactly how much He has to simplify the basic foundational laws so the experiment will run itself, with no further adjustments from Him.
Just like us.

Ah Grim,

I’m sorry if you felt like I was slapping you in the face with the olive branch. But I’m not going to ignore a glaring flaw in reasoning for the sake of reconciliation, sorry. Reason still matters.

Anyway, I thought you would have agreed with me. Instead you disagree with me, without actually showing why I’m wrong, and then fall back on to a fallacious appeal to authority.

I agree everything you said about Sagan, but obviously he either didn’t recognise the distinction I made, or he didn’t appreciate the redundancy in applying the “God” label. If you disagree, then tell please tell me why I am actually wrong.

You appear to make the very same mistake (or just assume that he’s right)…

<<Why should we care? I would suggest that all scientific endeavour could be described as attempting to achieve greater understanding of the “God” of Spinoza (nature, the cosmos, physical law, whatever), eg. What is of enormous interest to many scientists and enquiring minds is why our universe is so understandable.>>

How does applying the “God” label to all these things, that we already study, help with our enquires? And how is the “God” label useful when we don’t know what it is we’re looking for? We can’t just slap a label on something and expect that it’ll help us.

You have not addressed my point in regards to “their times” either. You’ve merely sidestepped it with an assortment of red herrings about intellectual blasphemy.

I have not suggested that my intellect surpasses that of Sagan and Einstein’s, but I’m also not going to just flippantly assume that they must have exclusive access to certain mental powers when I see a glaring error in reasoning. That is exactly what you’ve done and it’s fallacious.

You still have not shown how I am wrong in any way and you certainly haven’t justified your accusation of “dogma” as I have supported everything I’ve said with evidence and/or reasoned argument, and have not asserted anything as incontrovertibly true.

Your accusations are completely unfounded, totally unfair and just plain offensive.

Dear AJ and Grim,

You have both posted items that I have read and thought, "I wish I had posted that." It pains me that two such usually reasonable individuals are at odds.

Hi AJ,
I suggest you read Sagan (and Spinoza) again.
Neither gentleman suggested (as you inferred) that the Natural Laws were MADE by God, as someone carves an idol. Spinoza dared to differ in asserting that Nature, the Universe and all laws pertaining to and governing these things ARE God., hence Sagan's assertion that while an anthropomorphic god is clearly silly, to deny the existence of physical laws is madness.
Equally, when Einstein stated he did not believe “God plays dice with the Universe” he was not (as so many theists have gleefully claimed) admitting that he actually believed in an anthropomorphic god, or any god for that matter, merely that Heisenberg's uncertainty indicated a more chaotic view of the Universe than he himself was comfortable with.
The 3 letter word “god” is simply used in these instances as a kind of shorthand for that which is most wondrous. In Sagan's case (and probably the others) it was his sense of wonder, and his ability to convey that wonder to others that made him a great and likeable teacher.

Grim,

Yes, "doubt" is important and what separates the strident atheist from Huxley's agnosticism.

There is no "Strident Atheist" Bible or Qur'an by which I can justify murderous actions.

Atheists should exercise their democratic rights within a pluralistic society to argue for state funding of secular education only, references to God to be removed from all statutes, legal euthanasia, etc. They have the right to try to convince others down their path, but that's it.

My proposals were completely in jest, obviously, and not some thin edge of the wedge that would ultimately pit atheists against theists in warfare.

One thing is for sure, murderous martyrdom is not encouraged in the atheistic faith.

Thanks david f. This is paining (and surprising) me too.

I never got around to mentioning that I take your point about Buddhism.

Grim,

I’m not sure how you get the idea that I've inferred that Sagan and Einstein suggested natural laws were made by God. And despite Einstein’s views on this matter being highly complex and a little ambiguous at times, I agree that “the 3 letter word “god” is simply used in these instances as a kind of shorthand for that which is most wondrous”.

It turned out to be very counter-productive and a source of needless confusion too.

I’m also not sure how your response negates anything I've said in regards to your Sagan quote. At best, the quote was a statement that ended with a non sequitur pointing out the bleeding obvious.

better luck next time david
[the inner voice..doth only wisper..
to those paying attention]

spirit ensures
if it needs saying..it gets said

anyhow luci said..quote..""One thing is for sure,
murderous martyrdom..is not encouraged..in the atheistic faith.""

i will try to ignore..that others i-gnored
..'athiest faith'..lol

but neither too
does the general 'religeous lable..genericly..validate it true neither

there are insane
in athiest and not athiest alike

so let be fair..not lable as athiest/thiest..
those..who clearly are mad..[in-sane]

any reasond thin-king..would see..:
god made life...life dies..

but its an insult
to your own gift of life..to take other life

how is the life giving good..[god]
served by any death?

so much bad..in religeon..and so much good..in atiesm
they are generalisations...

and we arnt all generals

in fact we each are
specificly..the bit we be

i am..is in me..i am
is being you in you

together me is in we..
and we is in theee

not just me
nor thee

even if your not sure your believing rightly
its best to believe the belief..that brings you your peace

belief
if you got it

dissbelief
if dissing..others belief
is your relief belief

Science and Spirituality Agree:
The Entire Universe is One

YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pIJHJzDQcRM

Modern Science is now
beginning to confirm what Spirituality, Philosophy,
Sages, Ancient teachings and psychedelics have been saying for millennia,

that the entire Universe is One
and that what we think of as "reality"..is just an illusion..

And the only real thing..in the Universe is Consciousness.

"If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you,
you haven't understood it..yet." --Niels Boh

clearly missing the point
try again

happy rebirth chris
your honoured by the words
""To die without illusions..is to die a strong man.""

now if i deney the words
are the words awords

or is non belief in quantum physics
aquantum/physics..[sic*]

or non sic an asic*..[sic]
to die without delusions....presumed aillusionists
donr presume they cant die..[nor be an adie]..to die refutes adie

how about a believer in life..[a living]
as opposed to one who is alining...[anyhow chris]

all the best from an a-chriss delusionist
who died not realising the delusion of their illusion

but heck
you got your dissbelief's earned fruits
just as much as 'nelievers'..suffer their own delusion's

only good grace mercy charity
is knowably real./..

just like the ills
we cant tell illusion..from fact..
except via a life lived...consciously..shining light upon ignorances

if its not about gnosis
its about agnosis
in ignorance
by denial