Why Are Atheists Cowards?

[Bonam]

Many people have a strong inclination to believe in a purpose-driven universe, and I don't see any problem with this way of understanding, as long as it doesn't demand denying scientific discovery.

The problem arises when the people think an old book tells them specifically what the purpose of their supposed "purpose-driven" universe is. For example, if they think that converting everyone to their religion or otherwise spreading the salvation/glory/goodness of their religion is their purpose, then that can quickly become problematic, especially if they view the use of force as acceptable in the accomplishment of their purpose.

That is the problem of religious dogma. If you really believe what the bible or the koran say about the afterlife, all kinds of horrible acts in this one may well seem justified.

[JB Globe]

My guess is it's because they're cowards.

Wrong.

It's because they're not assholes, and they know that being an asshole doesn't exactly translate into people running and joining your club.

Maybe you're just mad that they don't hate specific religions as much as you do?

If they specifically targeted certain religions and ridiculing they'd just end up looking like bitter bigots - which I know you could care less about, but then again you're not trying to grow a membership.

[WIP]

The problem arises when the people think an old book tells them specifically what the purpose of their supposed "purpose-driven" universe is. For example, if they think that converting everyone to their religion or otherwise spreading the salvation/glory/goodness of their religion is their purpose, then that can quickly become problematic, especially if they view the use of force as acceptable in the accomplishment of their purpose.

That is the problem of religious dogma. If you really believe what the bible or the koran say about the afterlife, all kinds of horrible acts in this one may well seem justified.

I bolded that first sentence, because that's the intersection where all of these problems between religion and science, and religion and secularism get hung up. According to many progressive theologians, the religious experience is not supposed to be treated as an equivalent to objective reasoning, and they allegorized scripture.....and treating bible stories like historical facts makes it next to impossible to personalize these stories. I don't know whether this is line of thinking that's promoted by people like Karen Armstrong has any basis in fact, but if it was the general way of understanding religions, we wouldn't be having religious wars, fights over evolution, or having problems with religious leaders trying to stop any and every movement for social reform.

I grew up with fundamentalist Christianity; and when I was in high school, I was told that I had to accept 6 day biblical creation as an historical event.....so, for me, that meant heading for the door and abandoning religion. This sort of stark choice only offers two options: either believers accept everything that's handed to them, and shut themselves off from any learning that could conflict with a tight, fundamentalist understanding of everything.

According to some interpretations of the science/religion conflict, the problems really took off when some very early religious scientists like Isaac Newton and Blaise Pascal, decided to use their new method of inquiry to prove the existence of God, and how God created the Universe. But, every time since then, a mystery has been explained without appealing to some mysterious supernatural force, it provides one more reason why God isn't necessary, and proof to the religious that science is openly hostile to their beliefs and trying to explain God out of existence. There were some theologians of the time who did not appreciate efforts to scientifically prove God, since there is no room for faith if it could all be proven objectively.

When it comes to new atheist writers, the reason I have turned against them is because they would rather see the religious believers hold onto a literal, materialistic interpretation of their dogmas and resist change until they finally crack and abandon religion entirely. That would be fine if there is nothing of value in religion, but what if there is something of value...at least for some people? For every criticism that Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Hitchens and others have about fundamentalism, they heap more scorn on progressives and moderates who are trying to adapt their beliefs. They will even speak admiringly of fundamentalists, when they compare them with modern theologians that refuse to present a God that they can analyze as a scientific problem. This makes sense only because both fundamentalists and new atheists have adopted the same rules about how to find meaning and make sense of the world.

[dre]

I bolded that first sentence, because that's the intersection where all of these problems between religion and science, and religion and secularism get hung up. According to many progressive theologians, the religious experience is not supposed to be treated as an equivalent to objective reasoning, and they allegorized scripture.....and treating bible stories like historical facts makes it next to impossible to personalize these stories. I don't know whether this is line of thinking that's promoted by people like Karen Armstrong has any basis in fact, but if it was the general way of understanding religions, we wouldn't be having religious wars, fights over evolution, or having problems with religious leaders trying to stop any and every movement for social reform.

I grew up with fundamentalist Christianity; and when I was in high school, I was told that I had to accept 6 day biblical creation as an historical event.....so, for me, that meant heading for the door and abandoning religion. This sort of stark choice only offers two options: either believers accept everything that's handed to them, and shut themselves off from any learning that could conflict with a tight, fundamentalist understanding of everything.

According to some interpretations of the science/religion conflict, the problems really took off when some very early religious scientists like Isaac Newton and Blaise Pascal, decided to use their new method of inquiry to prove the existence of God, and how God created the Universe. But, every time since then, a mystery has been explained without appealing to some mysterious supernatural force, it provides one more reason why God isn't necessary, and proof to the religious that science is openly hostile to their beliefs and trying to explain God out of existence. There were some theologians of the time who did not appreciate efforts to scientifically prove God, since there is no room for faith if it could all be proven objectively.

When it comes to new atheist writers, the reason I have turned against them is because they would rather see the religious believers hold onto a literal, materialistic interpretation of their dogmas and resist change until they finally crack and abandon religion entirely. That would be fine if there is nothing of value in religion, but what if there is something of value...at least for some people? For every criticism that Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Hitchens and others have about fundamentalism, they heap more scorn on progressives and moderates who are trying to adapt their beliefs. They will even speak admiringly of fundamentalists, when they compare them with modern theologians that refuse to present a God that they can analyze as a scientific problem. This makes sense only because both fundamentalists and new atheists have adopted the same rules about how to find meaning and make sense of the world.

When it comes to new atheist writers, the reason I have turned against them is because they would rather see the religious believers hold onto a literal, materialistic interpretation of their dogmas and resist change until they finally crack and abandon religion entirely.

Curious if youve ready many of their books? You lump some guys together there that have completely different approaches. Hitchens for example is just a loudmouth blowhard (although I kinda enjoy him), where Dawkins is a lot more calm and has actually written a fair bit on the things religion offers.

[dre]

I think that every set of rules and ethics is from human origins. The difference between secular humanism and Christian humanism for example, is that Christian humanist claims his principles are from a divine source. But Christian ethics (even among fundamentalists) has been shaped and molded over the eons by political and economic conditions. The secular humanist system may have borrowed from Christian philosophy as much as from the Ancient Greeks, but it is no more arbitrary than Christian ethics....which has also changed over the centuries.

Slavery for example, was a universally approved social institution before the concepts of human rights and freedoms were considered. Over time, a consensus of opinion developed that slavery was an immoral institution, and the church leaders who led the fight for abolition could dress their arguments in religious language, but they did not have scripture or Christian tradition to support the change in attitude on slavery.

The issue is more about applying ethics than developing lofty sounding principles. Some atheists will be ethical, while others will be selfish hedonists. But almost the same thing will go among the believers who think that the rules they learned at church are divine and unchangeable. If people feel that they need the security of believing in an underlying intelligence and purpose, that's fine; but not everyone sees a reason for having these beliefs, nor that they are essential for having a good life.

What I find though is the doctrines (while they do change) are a lot more resistant to change that empyrical bodies of knowledge which in fact have changing the body of knowledge as the central goal.

[Bonam]

When it comes to new atheist writers, the reason I have turned against them is because they would rather see the religious believers hold onto a literal, materialistic interpretation of their dogmas and resist change until they finally crack and abandon religion entirely. That would be fine if there is nothing of value in religion, but what if there is something of value...at least for some people? For every criticism that Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Hitchens and others have about fundamentalism, they heap more scorn on progressives and moderates who are trying to adapt their beliefs. They will even speak admiringly of fundamentalists, when they compare them with modern theologians that refuse to present a God that they can analyze as a scientific problem. This makes sense only because both fundamentalists and new atheists have adopted the same rules about how to find meaning and make sense of the world.

Adapting beliefs is fine. If they honestly try to adapt their beliefs so as to not be in direct contradiction with what we know about the universe, then their beliefs will eventually be adapted into non-existence anyway, which is fine. As for value in religion, what value does religion have outside of that which can equally well be provided by a combination of non-religious spirituality and secular community organizations? On the other hand, religion poses many dangers that do not arise from the above.

[WIP]

Curious if youve ready many of their books?

The God Delusion

The Devil's Chaplain

God is Not Great

The End of Faith

Letter To a Christian Nation

Breaking The Spell

You lump some guys together there that have completely different approaches. Hitchens for example is just a loudmouth blowhard (although I kinda enjoy him), where Dawkins is a lot more calm and has actually written a fair bit on the things religion offers.

My complaint is not with different approaches, and it should be pointed out that Richard Dawkins was a lot more strident in his opinions 15 years ago, when he wrote essays like "Viruses Of The Mind," and believed that all of our beliefs have come to us through good and bad meme ideas. Religious beliefs did not have any foundation in the way some people make sense of the world, but were instead the result of getting too many bad memes (religion) early in life. So, maybe he's moderated a bit in recent years, but Dawkins and the rest of the crew think that everybody should be able to find fulfillment and satisfaction going through life as a naturalist -- and I believe people use two different and competing modes of thinking (intuition and reasoning) to find answers. How much a person depends on one or the other methods of finding answers, will play a large role in determining whether or not they need to believe in supernatural causes, or in a designed universe. The new atheists should be taking a look at some of the stuff that is being learned about how children develop ideas, along with studies on older subjects in developmental psychology. A good place to start would be here: Supersense, by Bruce Hood An interview discussing the subjects of the book can be found here at the Brain Science Podcast.

[WIP]

What I find though is the doctrines (while they do change) are a lot more resistant to change that empyrical bodies of knowledge which in fact have changing the body of knowledge as the central goal.

I never said there aren't going to be problems with trying advance rules applied by religions. But, theologians and religious leaders that are open to the results of empirical knowledge, are going to be a lot more pragmatic about applying their rules, than the rigid fundamentalists, who have tied themselves to a stake, and driven it into the ground. Many times the religious leaders are aware that their reasoning can cause unneeded harms, and they still insist on following their "higher principles." A good recent example would be the Catholic-affiliated hospital in Arizona, where the Catholic Church broke with because they had to perform an abortion to save a woman's life. A Church official told a reporter that he was fully aware that both the mother and the fetus would die, but still insisted that they had to follow their rules.

[WIP]

Adapting beliefs is fine. If they honestly try to adapt their beliefs so as to not be in direct contradiction with what we know about the universe, then their beliefs will eventually be adapted into non-existence anyway, which is fine.

No they won't! As long as there are people who believe that our world had to be created, and 'someone's watching over them' there will be some form of religious organization to channel those beliefs.

As for value in religion, what value does religion have outside of that which can equally well be provided by a combination of non-religious spirituality and secular community organizations?

I don't believe that we have to create specifically non-religious organizations. The ones I've attended don't seem to have much of a sense of community; it's not much more than listening to a lecture or hanging out a pub....which is fine in itself, but where do atheists go for weddings and funerals? I don't see any specifically atheist groups trying to create a real community. Atheists who want something more than a place to hang out, can find a more satisfying alternative at a Unitarian church (if there's one nearby).

On the other hand, religion poses many dangers that do not arise from the above.

As mentioned before, we use two different methods of understanding to make sense of everything; and no one is completely rational...not even Richard Dawkins! The difference is that, where there is a conflict, naturalists are going to discount their intuitions for what seems like a logical answer, whereas the believers are going to stick by how they feel....so, regardless of the dangers of religion, it's not going to go away, especially now at a time when things are getting worse for a lot of people.

[dre]

No they won't! As long as there are people who believe that our world had to be created, and 'someone's watching over them' there will be some form of religious organization to channel those beliefs.

I don't believe that we have to create specifically non-religious organizations. The ones I've attended don't seem to have much of a sense of community; it's not much more than listening to a lecture or hanging out a pub....which is fine in itself, but where do atheists go for weddings and funerals? I don't see any specifically atheist groups trying to create a real community. Atheists who want something more than a place to hang out, can find a more satisfying alternative at a Unitarian church (if there's one nearby).

As mentioned before, we use two different methods of understanding to make sense of everything; and no one is completely rational...not even Richard Dawkins! The difference is that, where there is a conflict, naturalists are going to discount their intuitions for what seems like a logical answer, whereas the believers are going to stick by how they feel....so, regardless of the dangers of religion, it's not going to go away, especially now at a time when things are getting worse for a lot of people.

No they won't! As long as there are people who believe that our world had to be created, and 'someone's watching over them' there will be some form of religious organization to channel those beliefs.

Religions wont go away. We are never going to know "everything" and religion will evolve to trowel "god must have done it" cement into whatever cracks and holes we have in our understanding. But the days of religion being relevant to the "creation" question which has been the mainstay for a few thousand years now are definately numbered. Within the next few hundred years well get to the point where we understand very well how we were created. Its entire likely we will be able to replicate creation in a laboratory in that time frame, and the theory of evolution will have been worked on and strenthened to the point where denying it will be like a person today claiming the earth is flat.

So that component of religion is on its way out. But no question about it youre right that religion will still be around.

[bloodyminded]

Atheists who want something more than a place to hang out, can find a more satisfying alternative at a Unitarian church (if there's one nearby).

The Quakers boast a lot of atheists as members as well.

I've responded to a few posts from before Christmas, but rather than getting into the back-and-forth that's gone on since then, I'd like to make a general statement that the problem seems to be that fundamentalists have defined religion and their religious dogma as empirical scientific theory. So, every new scientific discovery that conflicts with a literal reading, from evolution to modern neuroscience is fought against as an attack on religious faith......if you're wondering why most atheists have arrived at where they are now, this is the precise reason!

Yes, dogmatic fundamentalism is often the primary impetus for atheism. In fact, I once had a discussion about atheism with a Christian, and he remarked that he though I might be mixing up very different Christianities in my criticisms. I think he was right.

Edited January 9, 2011 by bloodyminded

[WIP]

I guess I lost track of this thread! Oh well, better late than never.

Religions wont go away. We are never going to know "everything" and religion will evolve to trowel "god must have done it" cement into whatever cracks and holes we have in our understanding.

But, it would be a mistake to assume that people with a religious outlook are trying to answer the same questions as someone looking for scientific answers as to how things work, or how they are made. I'm not into spirituality myself, and I don't know what people are talking about when they say they "feel the presence of God in their lives" or something else that's described as experiencing the divine. These aren't experiences that I've felt or understand, except that it's something that some people say they would be lost without.

But the days of religion being relevant to the "creation" question which has been the mainstay for a few thousand years now are definately numbered. Within the next few hundred years well get to the point where we understand very well how we were created. Its entire likely we will be able to replicate creation in a laboratory in that time frame, and the theory of evolution will have been worked on and strenthened to the point where denying it will be like a person today claiming the earth is flat.

So that component of religion is on its way out. But no question about it youre right that religion will still be around.

There's another issue besides evolution that will fuel the next war between science and religion...if enough people are paying attention to it: the growing understanding of brain function from neuroscientific research -- which is explaining more and more facets of the mind and mental experiences as the products of brain function. It not only is eliminating any room for immaterial souls to exist as disembodied minds; but it is also taking away the notion that there is any capacity for free will that is not pre-determined by the physical processes of the brain.

[WIP]

The Quakers boast a lot of atheists as members as well.

Thanks for the tip. I'll have to check them out also. I didn't even realize before searching, that there was a Quaker congregation in my hometown. I've gone to a number of Sunday services at the Unitarian Church, whenever I feel like getting up on Sunday morning. I thought about joining, and I've donated some money and even taken part in some of their volunteer work; but I was hoping my wife would take an interest, since she's complained all these years that she has to go to her church by herself most of the time.

Yes, dogmatic fundamentalism is often the primary impetus for atheism. In fact, I once had a discussion about atheism with a Christian, and he remarked that he though I might be mixing up very different Christianities in my criticisms. I think he was right.

Yeah, I'm not sure myself if I would have completely abandoned Christianity if I hadn't become so sick of being forced to go along with dogma that I knew was BS. After I left though, I didn't see a point to going back later in life to one of the more moderate versions of the same beliefs.

[wyly]

There's another issue besides evolution that will fuel the next war between science and religion...if enough people are paying attention to it: the growing understanding of brain function from neuroscientific research -- which is explaining more and more facets of the mind and mental experiences as the products of brain function. It not only is eliminating any room for immaterial souls to exist as disembodied minds; but it is also taking away the notion that there is any capacity for free will that is not pre-determined by the physical processes of the brain.

then there's the scientific advances where man will create life, biological and possibly self aware, self replicating AI...does that make us gods or just end the god delusion...

[Bonam]

There's another issue besides evolution that will fuel the next war between science and religion...if enough people are paying attention to it: the growing understanding of brain function from neuroscientific research -- which is explaining more and more facets of the mind and mental experiences as the products of brain function. It not only is eliminating any room for immaterial souls to exist as disembodied minds; but it is also taking away the notion that there is any capacity for free will that is not pre-determined by the physical processes of the brain.

Indeed, that's a huge field of rapid scientific discovery right now. One thing though, our understanding of the brain does not destroy free will. Free will arises specifically from those physical processes of the brain. A sufficiently complex system is chaotic, not deterministic, and the human brain is more than complex enough to exhibit such properties. What exactly is meant by free will is of course a matter of definition, but knowing how the brain works no more eliminates free will than does Newtonian mechanics (which says that in principle if you know the position and velocity of every particle in the universe at one instant, you can predict their positions and velocities for all future time).

[WIP]

then there's the scientific advances where man will create life, biological and possibly self aware, self replicating AI...does that make us gods or just end the god delusion...

Many years ago, Arthur C. Clarke pointed out that a sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial life form would be indistinguishable from gods. Even when it comes to creating universes (if multiverse theories are right) it could be possible for sufficiently advanced creatures to create universes through manipulating false vacuum fluctuations in spacetime. This far out concept is proposed by James Gardner, who put together a Biocosm Hypothesis to explain how universes could become increasingly fine-tuned for the development of organic life. It would make the God does/does not exist debate irrelevant if universes could be created by highly advanced creatures.

[WIP]

Indeed, that's a huge field of rapid scientific discovery right now. One thing though, our understanding of the brain does not destroy free will. Free will arises specifically from those physical processes of the brain. A sufficiently complex system is chaotic, not deterministic, and the human brain is more than complex enough to exhibit such properties. What exactly is meant by free will is of course a matter of definition, but knowing how the brain works no more eliminates free will than does Newtonian mechanics (which says that in principle if you know the position and velocity of every particle in the universe at one instant, you can predict their positions and velocities for all future time).

I was referring to the concept of libertarian or contra-causal free will, that has been the core of JudeoChristian tradition for thousands of years. Contra-causal literally means to be free from a chain of causation; as if the soul of the free individual is itself a prime mover, just like the creator of the Universe. But, that certainly isn't how theologians or church leaders would like their understanding of free will described.

Determinism does not mean the same thing as predestination. Our free will cannot be predetermined, but it is dependent on brain function interacting with the body and the environment. The source of confusion comes from the fact that we have a sensation of having a mind that's free to direct the body, when in fact, subjects who are wired up to brain scanning machines demonstrate repeatedly that an identifiable activity in the cortex, referred to as a readiness response, preceeds the subject's awareness of having made a simple decision.

[betsy]

We've all seen or heard about their ads.

Well, why don't we ever seen any of these ads from them....?

"There Is No Allah."

"Ramadan Is A Myth."

"There Is No Yahweh."

"Hanukkah Is A Myth, Oil Can't Burn That Long."

My guess is it's because they're cowards. Looking for the path of least resistence. Or, they're worried about offending people. But apparently offending Christians isn't much of an issue for them. Only offending Jews and Muslims. Which makes them cowards and hypocrites.

Why do they even need to spend money to advertise at all? All they have to do is just ignore all religions. To fund-raise and to advertise as a collective group clearly indicate that an atheist is now no longer just a description of someone who don't believe in the existence of God.....but clearlyt is a group believing in the non-existence of God. It is another "religion."

Edited January 12, 2011 by betsy

[Oleg Bach]

Complete and utter nonsense.

I love complete and utter nonsense....to some God is nonsense - to others God makes good sense...and to those who actually believe they are smarter than eternity...well -------------------------complete and utter non-sense. Atheists are cute and everyone should have one as a pet.

[kimmy]

Many years ago, Arthur C. Clarke pointed out that a sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial life form would be indistinguishable from gods.

The best-known Clarke postulate is that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Is that what you're referencing?

Either statement is kind of dependent on the definitions (of god or magic, respectively).

A hammer is a technology that could be used for smashing rocks. A sufficiently powerful beam of subatomic particles could likewise smash rocks. The hammer is obviously not indistinguishable from magic. Our particle beam? The rock gets smashed by means imperceptible to an observer without the means to detect the beam of particles. To that observer, it happened without any apparent explanation. To that observer, it may as well have happened by magic.

(The perception of the observer is a key point. It ceases to be magic if the observer has the means to detect the beam and sufficient understanding. Gandalf's magic stick might likewise be considered technology to some observers.)

Gods? Imagining a hypothetical being with the power to do things that are unexplainable by our understanding of science (wasn't that like every 3rd episode of the original Star Trek series?) one observer might decide that that being could only be a god of some sort. But that might not be sufficient for a different observer whose definition of a god is not met by "can do unexplanable things".

-that being is not god because he's not riding around on a cow.

-that being may be Satan, or may be able to do unexplainable things through power granted by Satan. (my mom's peeps believed this about radios, televisions, and computers...)

-that being is not god because I haven't received my 72 virgins.

So lacking a sufficiently universal definition of "god", extraterrestrial super-beings wouldn't cut it for everybody.

It would make the God does/does not exist debate irrelevant if universes could be created by highly advanced creatures.

Except that such creatures, in their own universe, surely did not materialize from nothingness, so we're back to square one.

Atheists are cute and everyone should have one as a pet.

I bet your daughters are thrilled to have a senile old man as a pet...

-k

[WIP]

The best-known Clarke postulate is that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Is that what you're referencing?

Either statement is kind of dependent on the definitions (of god or magic, respectively).

Is there a real difference between gods and magic, or are you just splitting hairs? Magic tricks are stock and trade of psychics, psychic healers, faith healers, clairvoyants etc. In primitive societies, someone wielding magic is the same as having godlike powers. And I think that is the kind of magic that Clarke was referring to. Since you're fond of A.C. Clarke quotes, this one seems to indicate that he sees our future as taking on the godlike role of creators:

It may be that our role on this planet is not to worship God - but to create him.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/arthur_c_clarke.html

Apparently, it was Michael Schermer who gave us: "Any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from God."

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/11/the-weekend-debate-any-sufficiently-advanced-extraterrestrial-intelligence-is-indistinguishable-from.html

A hammer is a technology that could be used for smashing rocks. A sufficiently powerful beam of subatomic particles could likewise smash rocks. The hammer is obviously not indistinguishable from magic. Our particle beam? The rock gets smashed by means imperceptible to an observer without the means to detect the beam of particles. To that observer, it happened without any apparent explanation. To that observer, it may as well have happened by magic.

(The perception of the observer is a key point. It ceases to be magic if the observer has the means to detect the beam and sufficient understanding. Gandalf's magic stick might likewise be considered technology to some observers.)

Gods? Imagining a hypothetical being with the power to do things that are unexplainable by our understanding of science (wasn't that like every 3rd episode of the original Star Trek series?) one observer might decide that that being could only be a god of some sort. But that might not be sufficient for a different observer whose definition of a god is not met by "can do unexplanable things".

-that being is not god because he's not riding around on a cow.

-that being may be Satan, or may be able to do unexplainable things through power granted by Satan. (my mom's peeps believed this about radios, televisions, and computers...)

-that being is not god because I haven't received my 72 virgins.

So lacking a sufficiently universal definition of "god", extraterrestrial super-beings wouldn't cut it for everybody.

You seem to have missed the point that I'm not trying to apply definitions of how believers think of the creator, nor am I making a case that believers need to abandon their beliefs in God.

Except that such creatures, in their own universe, surely did not materialize from nothingness, so we're back to square one.

Gardner is using the rules of Supersymmetry String Theory to postulate his vision of intelligent creators of new universes. Using this framework, the creators are attached to the 3-brane dimensions of the universe they live in, and have no physical connection to the new universe they have seeded. They do not have any way of contacting or gaining any information from the new universe they have created. Any intelligent life that evolves in the newly created universe is left to ponder its origins, and create mythologies about the identity and the nature of their creator.

Edited January 12, 2011 by WIP

[LonJowett]

Why do they even need to spend money to advertise at all? All they have to do is just ignore all religions. To fund-raise and to advertise as a collective group clearly indicate that an atheist is now no longer just a description of someone who don't believe in the existence of God.....but clearlyt is a group believing in the non-existence of God. It is another "religion."

Atheists always believed god doesn't exist. That's why they call them atheists.

And they promote their cause because they believe religion is the source of a cancerous irrational mindset that has led to bloodshed and exploitation more than it has led to good works and civility.

[WIP]

Atheists always believed god doesn't exist. That's why they call them atheists.

And they promote their cause because they believe religion is the source of a cancerous irrational mindset that has led to bloodshed and exploitation more than it has led to good works and civility.

No, atheists aren't necessarily antitheists -- which is the actual belief position you are describing. And atheists are not necessarily anti-religious; it just happens that most people who join an organization based on disbelief in God and religion, are more likely to see religion as overwhelmingly harmful, than atheists who don't belong to atheist organizations.

[Oleg Bach]

The best-known Clarke postulate is that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Is that what you're referencing?

Either statement is kind of dependent on the definitions (of god or magic, respectively).

A hammer is a technology that could be used for smashing rocks. A sufficiently powerful beam of subatomic particles could likewise smash rocks. The hammer is obviously not indistinguishable from magic. Our particle beam? The rock gets smashed by means imperceptible to an observer without the means to detect the beam of particles. To that observer, it happened without any apparent explanation. To that observer, it may as well have happened by magic.

(The perception of the observer is a key point. It ceases to be magic if the observer has the means to detect the beam and sufficient understanding. Gandalf's magic stick might likewise be considered technology to some observers.)

Gods? Imagining a hypothetical being with the power to do things that are unexplainable by our understanding of science (wasn't that like every 3rd episode of the original Star Trek series?) one observer might decide that that being could only be a god of some sort. But that might not be sufficient for a different observer whose definition of a god is not met by "can do unexplanable things".

-that being is not god because he's not riding around on a cow.

-that being may be Satan, or may be able to do unexplainable things through power granted by Satan. (my mom's peeps believed this about radios, televisions, and computers...)

-that being is not god because I haven't received my 72 virgins.

So lacking a sufficiently universal definition of "god", extraterrestrial super-beings wouldn't cut it for everybody.

Except that such creatures, in their own universe, surely did not materialize from nothingness, so we're back to square one.

I bet your daughters are thrilled to have a senile old man as a pet...

-k

I have two daughters and two sons..they are thrilled to have me as a father...I am an interesting man - who at sixty can still out perform your boy friend or husband...who at 60 can still out think most - who at sixty...sometimes has to wipe twice and have a shower..it is not the top of my body that concerns me - not the head but that messy butt if I do not eat properly...so I will need you to change my diaper soon...are you willing? I will sing and do hot rock guitar solos as you go for the wet ones.....don't call me senile again....I do have cosmic moments...as for atheists...They are like gays...I do not have a problem with homosexual love as long as they do not MIMIC hetro sexuals...just as I do not have a problem with atheists as long as they do not MIMIC high priests or GOD...

Now I am going to go home and cook lunch...and If I forget why I walked into the kitchen - I will be heartened by the fact I never forget why I walked into the bathroom.....oooooooo -k you pissed me off - I don't like this old thing..so when you are 45 give me a call..

[kimmy]

..so when you are 45 give me a call..

You're just not my type, sweetheart.

-k