<p>I don’t understand the relevance of wanting god to exist. I want Santa Claus to exist, but that has not helped any.</p>
<p>“Does nothing exist that is not physically perceivable? Germs then must not have existed before the microscope.”</p>
<p>Actually, that is one of the arguments Dawkins puts forward for atheism. For him (I’m not an atheist), God inhabits the world of the unperceivable. As the world of the unperceivable gets pushed back (becasue of technology, and new ways of seeing), God inhabits a smaller and smaller “thought space”, and there is no reason why She won’t continue to shrink. Dawkins sees no reason why this won’t continue to happen, and since there is no a priori reason to assume Her existence, the space even in the human mind that She inhabits is equivocal at best.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s ludicrous. The concept of “god” and “devil” certainly exist independently of whether either one actually exists. We can use both words without taking any position on their existence.</p>
<p>Does nothing exist that is not physically perceivable? Germs then must not have existed before the microscope</p>
<p>Again, before the conception of microscopes their existence was questionable. Any postulation conerning germs would be just that: a postulation. Today though, we indubitably know they exist becaue we have scientific proof to support their existence. More than I can say for your alleged “God” (and as Bertrand Russelll evinced; the burden of proof falls upon believers).</p>
<p>Bertrand Russell, in his anti-Christian, anti-American, anti-Western political phase, evinced nothing if not dementia. Chaining his body to the gates of nuclear power plants and referring to American soldiers as Nazis; or stating flatly that President Kennedy was “about 50 times as wicked as Hitler”.</p>
<p>A paragon of wisdom and a “true believer,” to say the least.</p>
<p>Mini,</p>
<p>Let’s just say that I am satisfied in thinking that very few lurkers here, outside of the ideologically committed few, would mistake the rise of atheism “as a cultural phenomenon” with any of the people or times you would wish atheism to have tripped the klieg lights of history. </p>
<p>The proof is, after all, in the pudding.</p>
<p>Atheism, as a Western trend, began in the Victorian era.
Your attempt at a secret history (a la, the Divinci code, disproves itself since cultural phenomenons are not, by their nature, secret…they occur in mass and are therefore culturally overwhelming cultural phenomenons, not discreet thoughts or philosophies no matter their quality or candor; thus the first population of atheists roamed the earth in the Victorian era).</p>
<p>
ah, yes, the great cultural phenomenon and flowering of atheism in the days of Erasmus, the 1400’s…the “age of faith” as it is otherwise known.</p>
<p>I see your point…like whiting a picture of Trotsky out of a candid shoot of Lenin and pasting Stalin into the hole (a technique, your comrades had for a time perfected).</p>
<p>Let’s extend this novel analysis:
Today, there are apparently those who believe in “The Spaghetti Monster” (I know, an over-played and sophomoric trope of the dull-witted atheist, but still…); so we should ask, will history remember our time as the great cultural flowering of “Spaghettism” due to the gullibility of a handful of wit-deprived (dim-witted) worshippers of Italian cuisine? </p>
<p>Perhaps so, it might have a fighting chance if the little revolutionaries of our time (“mininaries”…they’re just a bit shorter than the rest…) succeed in their struggle to re-write the venerable Age of Faith into the puddle-jumpin’ Age of Atheism as is your wont–and in your dreams, I suspect, it already is.</p>
<p>“Bertrand Russell, in his anti-Christian, anti-American, anti-Western political phase, evinced nothing if not dementia”</p>
<p>Typically when a religous fanatic cannot refute another’s points they resort to defamation in an attempt to undermine their credibity. How puerile of you.</p>
<p>“Let’s just say that I am satisfied in thinking that very few lurkers here, outside of the ideologically committed few”</p>
<p>Yes, you and evey other theist has been divinely afforded near omniscience. Obi wan teach me your sage ways.</p>
<p>“the first population of atheists roamed the earth in the Victorian era”</p>
<p>Theortetcially, we are all are and have been athesits. Unless, of course, you believe in all the gods: Baul, Zeus, Ngai, Bhagavan, Wotan, Allah, Yahweh, Ra, etc.</p>
<p>I have absolutely no problem with your faith-based beliefs.
Neither do I have a problem with your appeals to authority, i.e. Bertie Russel et al–logical fallacies notwithstanding.</p>
<p>I do, however, hope that if you are sincere in your devotion to Italian Cuisine and Spaghetti you avoid the canned spaghetti and canned sauce even if you have irresistible taste for canned philosophy (as above); because sadly, to those of us who prefer traditional cuisine and home-made cocking, it seems your theology, philosophy (?) and cultural cuisine come straight out of the can.</p>
<p>If FS cannot see the difference between people saying that the US was founded as a Christian nation and the writers of the constitution doing much to NOT create a Christian nation, then I too, throw up my hands.</p>
<p>screaming, really, we are screaming here? I don’t see screaming. I see someone who has decried others opinions by calling names, once again. By claiming knowledge that is lacking, and not taking what was happening over 200 years ago in context. I for one, am aware that often public figures would put on the “religious” front, because of fear of diests or atheists.<br>
One of our founding fathers took out most references to Jesus and God in his speeches, which were often written by others.</p>
<p>Before you claim to have superior knowledge, do a bit of research.</p>
<p>Often, people compromised their principles because of the bigger picture. And that was okay. </p>
<p>It is kind of amusing whn some posters resort to name calling when they get frustrated and feel they can’t really make their points. As for the Spaghetti Monster, some just miss the humor there. Can you prove there is no Spag Monster? How can you prove that?</p>
<p>
Charming…and honest…to the last. Not to mention a real life validation of the op’s thesis.</p>
<p>I am agog at your breath-taking research and intellectual shizzle, as always, CGM: You go-go-get-em girl (Mame…?!).</p>
<p>cgm said: “As for the Spaghetti Monster, some just miss the humor there. Can you prove there is no Spag Monster? How can you prove that?”</p>
<p>It may be that a spaghetti monster does exist, but in the final analysis what is more important, that monster exists or that god does?! Whether monster exists or not does nothing to affect your life or mine where it counts, but whether god exists or not most certainly DOES. That, children, is the lesson for the day.</p>
<p>mini said: “God inhabits the world of the unperceivable. As the world of the unperceivable gets pushed back (becasue of technology, and new ways of seeing), God inhabits a smaller and smaller “thought space”, and there is no reason why She won’t continue to shrink.”</p>
<p>Why give god such little credit? It may be that god can get smaller and smaller, but it may also be that god is so big that we could never hope to point to one thing and say, “Aha, here is god!” </p>
<p>To me, god is beyond our ability to comprehend – and always will be – but, hey, it’s fun to try! Is that not, after all, our drving force out here on this planet in the middle (or edge) of god knows where?!</p>
<p>If my memory remembers, The science textbook we used, had a brief, very brief statement, on the first page, that essentially said that there are many beliefs about the creation of the world as we know it. These belief systems included… but this text book was about scientific theory. </p>
<p>The teacher expanded this again briefly in that there is a difference between beliefs and scientific theory. If you wanted to have a discussion on beliefs, then consult your belief advisor, she was not qualified to discuss beliefs. She was to teach scientific theory. </p>
<p>Any questions?</p>
<p>FS & others: Why do we continue mixing a belief system with scientific facts/theory? We will argue science and facts but I will not argue your belief.</p>
<p>leanid, so if I BELIEVE the FSM does exist and affects my life, who are YOU to tell me otherwise? I could care less if anyone believes or doesn;t believe in God…the opinion piece was a slam at those that don’t believe in God…believe what you want, but YOUR god affects me nada…is that hard to understand? </p>
<p>And to those that wonder, being a deist is not being a Christian necessarily…often it is denying that Christ is God…otherwise you are a polytheisist if you believe God and Jesus both are Gods…interesting conundrum, that</p>
<p>I have read the bible, sacred texts, religious books, etc, and I have read the God Delusion, the Moral Minority, and other books…those that have believe so strongly, have you read other books that disagree with your beliefs? If you haven’ why not? My mom, the buddhist, has read the bible cover to cover…</p>
<p>“I do, however, hope that if you are sincere in your devotion to Italian Cuisine and Spaghetti you avoid the canned spaghetti and canned sauce even if you have irresistible taste for canned philosophy (as above); because sadly, to those of us who prefer traditional cuisine and home-made cocking, it seems your theology, philosophy (?) and cultural cuisine come straight out of the can.”</p>
<p>How could I dare subscribe to the Spaghetti Monster? It would be much more sensible and discerning to believe in an all-knowing, universe spanning entity, whom has created a billion galaxies and is yet still deeply concerned with mortal’s sexual, political, and social affairs. Furthermore, an entity that created humanity and its virtues to then pick and choose who rejoice in heaven and who perish in hell. A number of people which has already been predetermined and tallied: 144,000. Silly, poor old me.</p>
<p>Aristotle believed that the Sun rotated around the world. Are we accepting this as fact because it was written eons ago, as opposed to recently? That seems to be the sublime of your logic.</p>
<p>P.S. It’s actually quite amusing because I just made spaghetti Bolognese for my brother.</p>
<p>“To me, god is beyond our ability to comprehend – and always will be – but, hey, it’s fun to try!”</p>
<p>How convenient! </p>
<p>Bob: Why does the world spin?</p>
<p>Trev: Because it rests on an elephant’s back, which in turn stands on a turtle.</p>
<p>Bob: Huh?</p>
<p>Trev: Don’t try to understand it, it’s too complicated.</p>
<p>Bob: Oh, ok.</p>
<p>“often it is denying that Christ is God…otherwise you are a polytheisist if you believe God and Jesus both are Gods…interesting conundrum”</p>
<p>Yes, the three in the same conundrum thoroughly irritates me. They are three, but one. They are one, but three. Theologians need a lesson in quantum mechanics.</p>
<p>Edit:
“It may be that a spaghetti monster does exist, but in the final analysis what is more important, that monster exists or that god does?! Whether monster exists or not does nothing to affect your life or mine where it counts, but whether god exists or not most certainly DOES. That, children, is the lesson for the day.”</p>
<p>Your God holds no more plausibility than the Spaghetti Monster, so their possible existence is equally as consequential.</p>
<p>“To me, god is beyond our ability to comprehend – and always will be – but, hey, it’s fun to try! Is that not, after all, our drving force out here on this planet in the middle (or edge) of god knows where?!”</p>
<p>Fair enough (and note that the argument was that of Dawkins, and not mine.) The question really is the “always” - as the god-space becomes more and more circumscribed, it lends increased credence to Dawkins’ argument, which is why (in my experience) religion generally speaking is on the decline in western cultures. </p>
<p>“Whether monster exists or not does nothing to affect your life or mine where it counts, but whether god exists or not most certainly DOES.”</p>
<p>Actually, there is an entire school of religious thought, that first arose in Jewish thinking post-Holocaust, and then quickly spread to certain academic Christian circles, that suggests that it doesn’t, and that the Holocaust is proof of it. Namely, that God, if She exists, does not intervene in human affairs, and that individual appeals to Her Magnanimity are an affront to her very nature. (i.e., she doesn’t demand worship, and may even frown down upon it, but does demand righteousness.)</p>
<p>In a lucid moment:
And a consensus is reached. </p>
<p>Well said, except for the materialist presupposition that a ‘first cause’ ‘prime mover’ would span the universe like peanut-butter on toast.</p>
<p>Though, I would say this is better still:
</p>
<p>And lest it be forgotten, Dawkins and his ilk have suggested that religion is a form of child abuse warranting the state to radically intervene into the lives of religious families and the kids of joe-6-pack. Dawkins and ‘scientism’ in general kind of remind me of the eugenicists of the early 20th century, Charles Darwin’s collaborating cousin in particular. Sterization of the unfit and the like. Another fabulous social venture of science.</p>
<p>They are not so warm and fuzzy as here portrayed by mini and CGM. They are radical and want to re-engineer society as such.</p>
<p>I am not yet aware of any serious theist suggesting that atheism is a form of child abuse such that the state should be empowered to intervene in child rearing. </p>
<p>As to Itstoomuch’s query:
Science, in the guise of science-as-culture, has interjected itself where it does not belong. There is now an equal and corresponding pressure from zealous religionists to push harder into the mandatory education of students vis via the taxed public school system and school text books. It is too coy to suggest the issue is over “science,” it is over culture. And there are battling cultural sides…both very extreme in their demands: in school text books and social policy.</p>
<p>“And lest it be forgotten, Dawkins and his ilk have suggested that religion is a form of child abuse warranting the state to radically intervene into the lives of religious families and the kids of joe-6-pack. Dawkins and ‘scientism’ in general kind of remind me of the eugenicists of the early 20th century, Charles Darwin’s collaborating cousin in particular. Sterization of the unfit and the like. Another fabulous social venture of science.”</p>
<p>They are not attempting to “reform” society in the peverse way that you are suggesting. They are, however, advocating a discontinuation of “intellectual and moral treason”. If Nazism was imposed upon children, scrupulous people would form a lobbying opposition. Nazi and Religious indoctrination are no different, in that they teach children to adhere to their cause no matter what: to follow blindly. This peturbs me, as does the case study that I mentioned earlier.</p>
<p>“Well said,”
Apparently, you haven’t met my friend sarcasm. I’ll introduce him to you after you meet logic.</p>