But really, what else can it be? Something either exists or it doesn’t. Something cannot both exist and not exist at the same time in the same place. The various and sundry trappings of theism aside, the actual existence of God is a yes/no question. He/she/it either exists, or not.

You’re basically restating Dawkins’ own concern here. But other theists insist that God’ existence is really a minor issue, and other things are far more important. If you can’t accept this, then you are in the same boat as Dawkins in being one of those unsophisticates that doesn’t understand liberal theology. :)

But if God is merely “a poeticism or subject concept of contemplation”, isn’t that tantamount to saying he/she/it does not exist?

Honestly, I don’t know. I certainly think so in the strict sense, and the only sense in which I really care about the question. But other people think, if I read them correctly, that this poeticism is so grand and important that it dwarfs things that do physically exist. I dunno. I’m not trying to be hostile to that view, but I’m also pretty obviously not the right person to defend it.

But this assumes that the question is one with a true/false answer in regards to existence.

But really, what else can it be? Something either exists or it doesn’t. Something cannot both exist and not exist at the same time in the same place. The various and sundry trappings of theism aside, the actual existence of God is a yes/no question. He/she/it either exists, or not.

That’s what Dawkins is concerned about. If truth claims aren’t at issue then, and God is a poeticism or subject concept of contemplation, I’m not sure that falls under his defined scope.

But if God is merely “a poeticism or subject concept of contemplation”, isn’t that tantamount to saying he/she/it does not exist?

Sorry it took so long to get to this. The real world intruded.

-smith

What I did mean to say, however, is that I do not understand anyone’s motivation for “Atheist Evangelism” I guess I would call it. The message of Atheism is lacking of any real hope that what we do during our lives is going to have any real impact on anything. I understand that the previous sentence is loaded and some of you will say that it presumptuous that people wish or even should have a lasting impact of any kind on the world as we know it. I am think we’re born with that wish but I can’t say for certain whether or not we develop it out of selfish desire and/or insecurity. I guess I can’t really speak to that.

As for the comment from Mike, I wish there were more people in this world with your heart for people. What you do is important and I am sure those kids love you for it. Maybe sometimes they don’t right away but you know what you are doing is helping them so that is enough. What you do is a wonderful thing.

I wish humans would do good for the sake of doing good, and maybe some do, but I believe that what you call “animal nature” and what I call “human nature” will eventually win out in some area of our lives and we will do things that is not considered good. I fear for every 1 person dedicated to living “a good life” there are at least 2 or 3 who either don’t really think about the impact their life has on others too often or have chosen to do whatever they want as long it feels good, makes them happy, and doesn’t have immediate negative consequences. I believe the farther we get from a society that recognizes the existence a higher power the more trapped in the confusion of relativism we will become and the odds will only get worse. I have little no hope that humanity will ever save itself for its own sake. There will always be people who will take advantage of others for selfish gain. Their will always be “good” people scared or too comfortable to stop them. My hope lies in God and His love for those He has chosen.

To clear up confusion, I am not a pessimist but an optimist. I am a pessimist in people’s ability to live truly good lives. To do so, or even come close, we must set the bar of “good” on our own. I am optimist that God offers us forgiveness of our inevitable short-comings if we simply believe in His name.

I am sure most of you disagree but it is what it is. Also, me telling people this is not “hanging my needs” on anyone. If someone has done that you to in the past I am sorry that happened to you. People sometimes force Christian morale judegement on people who don’t share their convictions about God and that is wrong.

Atheism in itself has nothing to do with being correct and that is most certainly not my overriding motivation. My overriding motivation is humanity. I teach troubled teens on a daily basis to help them overcome their problems and lead their best life possible. Putting time and effort into teaching how to be a better person will trump any parable, saying or analogy. Time and effort fix problems, prayer doesn’t. No matter how much one believes in a deity, faith will not overcome the chemical and mental trouble that my students have lived with their whole lives.

I am a secular humanist, one who believes that we can be good and further humanity while we are here and do not need any supernatural sugar daddy waiting to party for eternity with us (thank you Bill Maher)… Life is what you make of it, if gaining some special salvation at the end is what YOU need to motivate you to do good, then go for it, but don’t hang your need for a eternal severance package for doing a good job on my shoulders or anyone elses. Humans should do good for the sake of good and the sake of humanity, not for some “deal”.

I hope humanity is moving towards a post-theological existence. Our need for the supernatural is inversely proportional to our universal knowledge. We’ve gone from many gods to one for the majority of humanity. As we learn to explain life and the universe’s processes better, we will become less reliant on our need to say “it’s God’s will”. The last vestiges of a primal need to use the supernatural to explain how things work can fall away, without ramification, if we let them.

My faith is in humanity and it’s potential to overcome it’s own animal nature. We are a product of nature. Our animalistic tendencies are exhibited on a daily basis, the battle for power, resources and procreation are visible at every level of life on this planet, including ours. We should use our ability to rise above those tendencies, with NO hope of reward. That should be the true goal of humanity.

he has dedicated his life to proving this their are two possible outcomes:

Precisely not the point. Insisting that “two possible outcomes” in the way you do is like insisting that there are only two ice cream flavors: earwax and then every other flavor. The whole point is that there are a nigh infinite number of possible scenarios when it comes to “ultimate” explanations for anything, and virtually any can override any other, all to the point where there can be no certainty whatsoever from that vantage point.

Meanwhile, here we are in this world, this common reality. Certain claims about it seem to hold true in practice, and others don’t. Isn’t it important that we try to understand what’s what, sensibly, particularly the stakes are people’s lives, feelings, and so forth?

Honestly, there was a time in my life when I shared his views and I was severely troubled by the notion that all our lives are meaningless and stupid until I found out that this is not the case.

You may think you did, but as I’ve argued, theism doesn’t do any better at answering those questions than the lack of it. That’s in part because most people’s concepts of what “meaningless” is don’t make any sense to begin with, and in part because the best theism can do is offer a really, really big and powerful and possibly wise dude. It can’t, however, turn meaninglessness in meaning, or wrong into right, any better than any other explanation of existence can that anyone has come across.

And since when does “there is no god” mean “no hope”, an “incredibly depressing” existence, that “our lives are meaningless and stupid”, and that it’s a waste of your life to try to live a morally excellent life and love your neighbor? This is the most naive caricature of atheism I’ve seen in a long time.

1) He is right. There is no God. People have made it up to help them cope with the fearful mystery of death and all the religions are complete fantasy. People all around the world will waste their lives worshiping a God that doesn’t exist, loving their neighbor, and attempting to live a morally excellent life. At the end, all the lights go out and we go back to the slug from which we came from. The sad part is, atheists lose the chance to boast about their life of godlessness, the 10% of their income they saved, and their blissful state of knowledge that they called it how it was. (Being “correct” seems to be the overriding motivation)

2) He is wrong. God exits. He made the universe and everything in it. The people who worship, praise, and follow God’s teachings are going to have eternal life in paradise and everyone else is not. Most major religions don’t teach that the people who dedicated their lives to disproving their God’s exist fair very well when their end comes. The Christian Bible is very clear on this point. This seems like a VERY large dice to roll.

I am fearful for people like Mr Dawkins because, instead of just sorting through his own thoughts of disbelief, he has purposefully lead others away from God. This means there are people out there who have accepted his gospel of “no hope, no heaven, no God” and that is an incredibly depressing and eternally threatening message. Honestly, there was a time in my life when I shared his views and I was severely troubled by the notion that all our lives are meaningless and stupid until I found out that this is not the case. Luckily for Mr. Dawkins, and those who share his beliefs, God will forgive him if he asks. That’s a message worth sharing.

The Dawkins who included a chapter entitled “Why there is almost certainly no god” in a book entitled “The God Delusion”, and who expressed his hope that anyone who is a theist when beginning the book will have become an atheist upon completing it seems quite hostile to the very notion of God.

But this assumes that the question is one with a true/false answer in regards to existence. That’s what Dawkins is concerned about. If truth claims aren’t at issue then, and God is a poeticism or subject concept of contemplation, I’m not sure that falls under his defined scope.

Unfortunately, those people get counted in the polls as Christians whether they really have a clue what they’re doing or not. If we actually had a poll where people had to demonstrate they knew what they supposedly believed, there would be many, many more non-believers than believers, I’m sure.

I’m not sure I agree that “liberal Christians” are a minority, but they’re certainly not a political force. Unlike the Creationists, the LC’s are not, almost by definition, going to try to force their beliefs down anyone’s throats by having it made part of the public school curriculum. It’s more like a “yeah, whatever” kind of Christianity.

I wonders whether churches full of such liberalized believers would leave people like Dawkins or Harris with anything left to object to.

Good question. I don’t want to rehash our Dawkins debate here, except to say it would probably depend on which side of bed Dawkins got up on that day.

The Dawkins who included a chapter entitled “Why there is almost certainly no god” in a book entitled “The God Delusion”, and who expressed his hope that anyone who is a theist when beginning the book will have become an atheist upon completing it seems quite hostile to the very notion of God.

On the other hand, the Dawkins who willingly admits to being a “cultural Christian” and wrote (in the same book) that one of his teachers “was ordained an Anglican priest and became a chaplain in my school, a teacher of whom I was fond. It is thanks to decent liberal clergymen like him that nobody could ever claim that I had religion forced down my throat” seems perfectly okay with the cultural aspects of Christianity.

More pointedly, he writes, “The deist God of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment is an altogether grander being: worthy of his cosmic creation, loftily unconcerned with human affairs, … The deist God is a physicist to end all physics, …. a hyper-engineer”. Even if Dawkins himself does not believe in this God, he seems to have no problem with those who do.

-smith

I would ask Eljay. And of course, there’s the work of John Toland and his legacy. I’m not really sure how common a view it is, but Eljay convinced me that it was a legitimate one, and enough to fall under the term “theist” and thus make the life of anyone trying to come up with a taxonomy of belief and non-belief even more interesting. :)

On a more serious note, I’ve not come across “Tolland-esque panatheists” as a category before, and would welcome some recommendations for further reading reflecting that viewpoint.