NoGodBlog.com

I would focus foremost on what you have in common with Martin--that Christmas has become a time of overspending and overeating when it could be a wonderful opportunity to focus on the needs of others less fortunate than ourselves. This is something we can all stand behind, Christian and atheist alike.

Heres an idea. Start a new holiday about this time of year. Call it national Altruism Day. Encourage everyone to give 1/365th (i.e. 1 day's worth) of their yearly pay to a charity of their choice.

Make it completely secular and just wait for the X-tian Reich to start making noise about it.

Jesus died so you could get presents. It's from the "Sin destroyers" video.

Unfortunately the premise in the show's title assumes that contemporary conceptions of Jesus are compatible with each other. I think is fairly clear that this is not the case and until it is the question of what would Jesus really do will differ depending on who you ask.

Then, of course, there's the little matter of did Jesus ever really exist?

I'm going to miss the show, because I'll be at a Solstice party.

Dave if you can get it in, you might try to mention the co-opting of xmas from the pagans and the fact that if Christ really lived, he probably wasn't born in December.

Good luck tonight, Dave! And Happy Solstice to you too.

At our house we call it Seasonal Holiday Gift Man Day.

What would jesus really do? How about this:

If jesus were alive today, he would probably be leading a small group of followers to live in a cave to await the apocolypse. Or he'd be convincing a small group of followers to castrate themselves to await the arrival of the spaceship that will take them to the promised land, which will follow in the tail of a comet. Or he'll be amassing weapons, holed up with a small group of followers on a compound in TX. Or perhaps he'd gather his small group of followers and move to the seclusion of a tiny South American country. Or he'd have his small group of followers (his "family") move to an abandoned movie set and live communally while plying them with psychodelic drugs and convincing them to rob and murder on his behalf. In other words, he'd just be another cult leader.

From the article

America might be the king of capitalism, but secularism must never become so prevalent that our religious traditions are discarded.

Our tradition to remain completely unaware that December 25th is about Sol Invictus and that it was never about Jesus until xians plagiarized the idea of a sun/son god.

Jesus is just a rehashing of the story of the Egyptian god, Horus.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2057,The-Pagan-Christ,CBC-TV

How about WWJB? (Who Would Jesus Bomb)

http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Jesus_20Policy_20Forum#1123612498

the Bible can be used to teach anything you want it to, you've just got to use your imagination a little

....just as long as the script that Jesus says is written by people of intelligence whom know what they are talking about....

....you pretty much can't trust politicians who seriously believe these things anymore. I think the Jesus script should be written by atheists who are rational rather than by christians who are emotional.

//Good idea, nontheless, just as long as the script that Jesus says is written by people of intelligence whom know what they are talking about.... i.e. nobody who thinks the earth is flat, or that it's only 6000 years old, or that the sun revolves around the earth, or that the initial state of the universe is that it was already 13 billion years old upon creation, or that humans have a soul while chimps don't, or that the world is going to end soon.... because you pretty much can't trust politicians who seriously believe these things anymore. I think the Jesus script should be written by atheists who are rational rather than by christians who are emotional.//

When the christians are counting themselves they tend to include Every Body, however, when it comes time to take responsibility for the actions of the Every Body, suddenly there are no real christians. That apparently is a teaching of christianity because it is so common. However, I'm not sure, is that teaching based in christian morals or is it more of a christian ethic?

Why don't christians stop with the end of the world thing already? It may be good for scaring people but as all the christians think the end is coming soon, the consequences, to the children that the christians claim to love, are devastating for the children and their children.

If you actually love your grandchildren you had better stop it because they have every right not to love you back!

Dave

How about this question.

If you knew that someone was a non-xian would you wish them merry christmas anyhow?

After reading your article, I'd say that the holiday season should be about friends and family. Um, Christmas 2.0, aka the second coming of christ, aka the "Armagedon" that christians are so happily waiting for is merely an empty threat to atheists and an ignorant one at that. They believe that they are going to be raptured up and that somehow the rest of the world is going to shambles without them!?

Well, if that is the case, I welcome the rapture, that way we (atheists) don't have to celebrate christmas anymore because there will be no christians around. Then we would be left with a lot of intellectuals who are fully capable of taking responsibility in the world and the world would be a much better place.

Actually, the holiday season family tradition/celebration has its origins in chimpanzees cuddling together during the winter season in order to stay warm.

Feel free to suggest some good sound bytes for me to sneak in during the show!

Ok, so if Christmas really isn’t about Jesus (because He never existed—or even if He did, He certainly wasn’t the Son of God) then how ‘bout explaining (in one or two sentences) why you’re so afraid of dying?

jcc
Ok, so if Christmas really isn’t about Jesus (because He never existed—or even if He did, He certainly wasn’t the Son of God) then how ‘bout explaining (in one or two sentences) why you’re so afraid of dying?

What complete and utter drivel.

Not only is this not a suggestion for a sound bite (not sure what a sound byte would be), but it's also a loaded question (not that I expect anything more reasonable from jcc).

First, it assumes a premise (fear of death for the individual) that is not in evidence.

Second, the fear of death, as an general animal condition, is not something that can be adequately covered in a few chapters let alone a couple of sentences.

Third, the question, were it valid, would be more aptly presented to theists as it is they that should welcome death as it ushers in their long desired reunification with their respective god(s).

jcc regarding his Jesus:

because He never existed—or even if He did, He certainly wasn’t the Son of God

That's good jcc! I'm glad our little talk permitted you to accept some Truth.

how ‘bout explaining (in one or two sentences) why you’re so afraid of dying?

Not. Maybe not wishing for death as the christian does but, not afraid in any way of being dead.

Why are you so afraid and full of sorrow about death?

Everyone is afraid of death because our human ego just can't accept that death is the end. Why do you think people grasp at religion so readily? It allows a comforting, yet false, solution to annhilation.

America might be the king of capitalism, but secularism must never become so prevalent that our religious traditions are discarded.

Funny, all of the things the article mentions before this quote--forgoing gifts to give the money to those less fortunate, showing your children love--are NOT the exclusive domain of Jesus or religion; in fact, the author doesn't even mention what Jesus has to do with these things. They are not exclusively "religious traditions." Religion exists to EXCLUDE all the people who don't hold a specfic set of (ridiculous) beliefs or participate in a specifc set of (equally ridiculous) rituals. Religion doesn't care that atheists actually take the time to think about what this "season" means to us as individuals, as members of religiously diverse families, and as members of a diverse global culture. My Catholic friends celebrate Christmas by sitting around a dying tree, giving gifts to each other, eating until they explode, and going to church. Never have they given up their gifts to help others; never have they spent the day helping someone else in any way. If "Jesus" truly is the reason for the seaon, and IF "Jesus" was all about charity, then why don't I see more xians acting charitably? I'm pretty sure the woman who triumphantly snatched the last Conair Infiniti out of my hands (for her daughter), slicing my finger open in the middle of Target, calls herself a xian. Thanks, lady. Don't know what I would do if you xians weren't so giving at this time of the year.

Ok, so if Christmas really isn’t about Jesus (because He never existed—or even if He did, He certainly wasn’t the Son of God) then how ‘bout explaining (in one or two sentences) why you’re so afraid of dying?

See, this is what I'm talking about. The best answer is simply not to answer at all.

JCC

Ok, so if Easter really isn’t about the Easter Bunny then how ‘bout explaining why you’re so afraid of snakes?

HeatheNZ. I wonder how long JCC will mull that over?

HeatheNZ:

it's also a loaded question

What’s “loaded” about it? I really want to know why Silverman is afraid of dying.

First, it assumes a premise (fear of death for the individual) that is not in evidence.

I beg to differ. I distinctly remember Silverman referring in no uncertain terms to this fear of his. (If I can, I’ll try to find it in the archives).

Second, the fear of death, as an general animal condition, is not something that can be adequately covered in a few chapters let alone a couple of sentences.

Why is that? All I asked for were a couple of sentences (i.e. say, just the top 2 reasons…what would be so hard about saying, “I’m afraid of dying because of…X & Y”?).

Third, the question, were it valid, would be more aptly presented to theists as it is they that should welcome death as it ushers in their long desired reunification with their respective god

Why isn’t it valid? It seems to me that if Silverman really is afraid of dying then that more than validates the question.

Tell Roland Martin not to get all bent out of shape about the "X" in Xmas. It does not come from any "unknown" factor. It is, in this case, the Greek letter chi, which is shown by "X." This represents the first letter of "Christ." So it does stand for Christmas.

OK JCC. Since you're so incredibly dense I guess we will have to spell it out in crayon. What does the connection between Xmas and Jeebus have to do with the connection between Dave and death? Huh? Huh? Duuuuuh.

There's a picture of Anne Coulter to the right. I think I just threw-up in my mouth.

Dave is just following his evolved instincts. If we were NOT afraid of death, we would not live long enough to perpetuate our bloodline. It's how we evolved. Those groups of humans who were not afraid of death, died earlier and could not compete
with others who were more cautious.
I have found it was those who were most religious were the most afraid
of dying.

What:

What does the connection between Xmas and Jeebus have to do with the connection between Dave and death?

Hmmm. Let’s see… Death; the fear of nonexistence; despair; confronting the ultimate meaninglessness of one’s life. Versus Jesus; birth of the Savior; hope; eternal joy. I don’t know... what possible connection could there be?

JCC

You were implying that there IS a connection not that there COULD BE a connection via 100 degrees of separation. Get back on the meds girl.

Get back on the meds girl.

Hey! I resent that! ;-)

KIP

Sorry, I don't get it.

I have taken mood stabilizers. I was objecting to your use of a figure of speech that stigmatizes those with mental disabilities seeing as I am bi-polar.

KIP. My apologies. I think JCC would be better served if she were to stay on hers.

Accepted, but an apology is unnecessary. I'm not offended unless someone deliberately sites my disorder as their reason for disassociation. Very few actually know I'm bi-polar. I tend to keep to myself when I'm not feeling well.

Dave, you can ask them why the ads for this show have a criminal getting into a car in handcuffs, just when the voice over and text say and read "and those with too little faith". Prhaps you could mention how we hold the lowest population in prisons, and how the most atheistic countries put our religon soaked country to shame.

Or, maybe I'm just a little too sensitive. Yeah, as if it wasn't intentional.

Just saw the segment. What's up with that attorney getting so hot under the collar? Guess we now know who's REALLY behind the war on xmas--law*yers!

I caught the show.

You did good, Dave.

Thanks.

8PM you say!?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzOpSRiVzIs

Excellent job

JCC,
Are you implying that all atheists are afraid of death? Not so...some of us are more afraid of a conventional, Docker-clad existence with Sunday preachin', missionary-position sex, reruns of "Knight-Rider", boxed wine and a Lexus-full of Christian kidbots/bellyfruit...Some of us push the margins just to see how far we can go...it all depends on the individual. Your religious snake-oil elixir is death-in-life.

Dave,

I tivo'd you on the show tonight. I thought you came across very well.

I think the show sucked, but out of the various people to speak, your group was, IMO, the most eloquent.

Thanks all -- had a great time, FWIW. Also, the people I shared the panel with were great -- Michael DID get hot, and I let him be the bad guy, and I took the cheery side.

Glad you liked it! Please send a quick email to CNN to praise my appearance if you are so inclined.

http://www.cnn.com/feedback/cnntv/

Happy Solstice to you too Dave!

I built a campfire and the neighbor that knows there are no gods or God but, thinks Atheist is a bad word came over and chatted. Not totally exiting but it was fun.

Oh, I should have mentioned the "Happy Solstice" was in reference to your final comment on the show. That was good!

Happy Solstice to all, I very much appreciate all of you!

A super solstice to everyone. I'm planning on exchanging a gift at 1:08am Saturday (actual time of the solstice) instead of xmas.

Dave doesn't seem to age.

What's his secret?

Isn't it scary how secularism has become a boogey word now? It's not enough to make outrageous accusations against atheists anymore, now it's secularism. I love how Roland Martin's solution to the lack of morality and selfishness associated with the season is solved by blaming people who aren't religious. Sorry Roland, hating us isn't going to change anything. And, how about studying up on atheists for your master's degree? It seems like he lacks even basic knowledge about the subject. What a joke.

happy solstice to everyone i hope all have many more.

Barbiebrains (to Jessus Crists Cousin):

Are you implying that all atheists are afraid of death?

I'm afraid some christian will sneak into my death bed room and commence preaching, when I'm too weak to belt it in the mouth.

Crists should be Christ

Almighty, I hate those spelling mistakes. (re: What)

I didn't know you were a celebrity, an artist for the Simpsons, Dave. Cool!

For those of you that need a laugh:

Priest found jogging naked pleads not guilty

http://www.9news.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=83033

Comment from: David Silverman

10 years of activism. Zero Pay. I volunteer for this job because I believe in it. I am a self-employed business broker, and I pay every penny I owe.

Quantum. Tried it. No.

Hmmm...a guest appearance on CNN and no compensation from either CNN or AA...

Yeah...right. Only a fool would believe that...

Barbiebrains said:

Your religious snake-oil elixir is death-in-life.

elixir was my fav in that sentence

and great job Master of the NoGodBlog.com...."the changing of seasons...something that happens for us all".....even phreedummy ;)

I wrote an email to that loser Roland Martin. What a dumb fuck, and what a stupid article.

Comment from: Charlie

the changing of seasons...something that happens for us all"...

So very true...and just when you thought it was safe...bummer

***Side Note***

For K.I.P...seems the "..." is contagious...better update your virus software... :)

Israel is in the throes of a major religious awakening, reaching deep into all parts of society, but no one has been told about it yet.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/936847.html

phreedm,
I'm in SW VA near you now visiting my family. Hope you and everyone else has a safe holiday and heres hoping that you embrace reason in the New Year.

tony blair is now a catholic. first he plays the role of poodle to bush now he embraces the boy lovers.is this to atone for letting third world riffraff populate Britain.he should be taken to the tower of london and beheaded for treason.Britains only hope is for the BNP to come to power

Jeez, what is it with religionists and the money? Other peoples' sex lives and now other people's finances.

I take it none of the religionists coming here have followed that part about renouncing all worldly wealth, since they can afford computers and Internet connections.

Not that I would judge anybody, lest I be judged in the afterlife as some believe.

Alex...likewise. I'm hoping you stay safe and have a wonderful visit with your family...

Life is way to short...

And the offer stands...we've had alot of water go under the bridge...please feel free to contact me and I'll take you out to dinner...

phreedm@yahoo.com

alexatheist
same to you an everyone else even blair have a safe and happy holiday season.

phreedm
you just asked out a gay man to dinner are you trying to tell us something.

Is that a date phreedum? :-)
I appreciate the offer but I really don't think it would accomplish anything.

alex an phreedm
no joking now you have some beautiful rural mountain scenery out there.i get a magazine called country and the photos from around america an canada take your breathe away.

Well it's been about two years since I've posted in here last. I have to say when I first came in here I thought all atheist were ignorant people. Turns out I was just an Ignorant 14 years old kid. Now I haven't had any College biology classes or anything however evolution has been covered in my schooling experience now. So I'm back up for debate, you won't get anything stupid ignorant young earth BS from me just adding a Theist to a flock of Atheist...Anyone remember me it was around the summer of 06 I came in here first. Anyway since then I've been more Agnostic than anything. However more recently leaning toward Theism.

yourxianfriend: Would you say you have had doubts about your religion or all religions? Why have you decided to lean back toward belief again? That can't be easy, can it?

I would say that Evidence of Evolution on earth says theres no God. However the Universe and where it came from tells me there is a God. Because the Universe did have a start. The two theories are It is one of many universes or God created it. Both theories are religions in the sense that you must have faith for both of them. There is no way science will ever be able to prove there are other universes. So both are based on faith. Ockham's razor says the simplest soltuion is the best. So a God creating the universe fits. However you look on Earth and evidence for Evolution is everywhere which is where I find myself now. Leaning toward an Old earth creation model. However I would still have to say I'm agnostic.

I appreciate your thinking and your answer. There are some very bright people here and in other atheist literature that have addressed the issue you raise in believing there must be a "creator" of our universe. I hope you keep looking for other answers. An open mind is a good thing. Hopefully, someone will help here, as I am not quite up on the science involved.

I know first hand how comforting belief can be and it has to be a powerful human need that helps when we struggle to cope and/or make sense of the world. Wanting meaning, doesn't always mean there is any, however. Some things just happen.

I have only been to this blog for a couple weeks and I'm learning too. Welcome back.

Hello [yourchristianfriend], I recommend reading a book called "God's Debris" by Scott Adams if you get the chance.

http://www.andrewsmcmeel.com/godsdebris/

yourchristianfriend

The question "Is there a gawd?" is meaningless. Start there.

I love it when jesus freaks come here. It must be pretty discouraging for them to see so many different skeptic voices.

As to yourchristianfriend, "However the Universe and where it came from tells me there is a God."

How does it tell you that?

The basic fallacy of the idea of "gawd" is that it doesn't explain anything, exactly because it is used to explain everything. It is just an admission of ignorance.

Scientific theories don't explain everything at once, they explain parts of the picture. The unexplained parts are researched to find more partial explanations.

Someone who says "gawd did it" has given up trying to find out what really happened.

YCF

However the Universe and where it came from tells me there is a God. Because the Universe did have a start.

You might want to think about what it means to "have a start". A "start" is highly reliant on a common concept of time. Unfortunately this is something we need to be prepared to discard when thinking about the start of the universe. Time is intricately linked with space and as we conceptually regress the universe back toward a singularity time effectively ceases to exist.

What this likely means is that the universe if fact does not have a "start". At least not a start as we understand the concept.

The two theories [concerning the start of the universe] are It is one of many universes or God created it.

This summary is an example of the fallacy of bifurcation. There are many hypotheses concerning the "origins" of the universe (not two).

Will we ever know exactly what happened? Well science has a pretty good description back to 10^-43 seconds after the big bang at which point everything basically breaks down.

Your alternative of the "God solution" is particularly useless as it's equivalent to saying "it's magic". It has no explanatory power. It also has the uncomfortable problem of posing the question of where did this God come from? If you allow God to be eternal, then why not allow the universe to be eternal? Special pleading doesn't tend to fly too well.

If you allow God to be eternal, then why not allow the universe to be eternal?

Now there's a question I've got to ask my brother. Thank you, Heathen, for putting it so eloquently!

C4T,

The thanks is not due to me (but thanks anyway). It's merely the result of reading articles like the following:

http://www.thejesusmyth.com/essays/the-first-cause-argument

This pretty much explains in more depth what I was trying to convey.

yourchristianfriend,

I would say that Evidence of Evolution on earth says theres no God.

Evolution doesn't address the existence of deities. The fact that evolution happens, puts a very large hole in the christian model (there are many holes in the christian model).

However the Universe and where it came from tells me there is a God. Because the Universe did have a start.

Where did the god thing come from? Are you positive the Universe had a start? Science encourages you to question and research.

The start of the Universe is a tough question because our tools (math, physics, observation, experience) aren't complete enough (yet?) to produce a completely known and testable answer. That doesn't really lead to 'GodDoneIt', it only leads to a state of not knowing (if you think about it, not knowing what happened around 20 billion years ago doesn't change much regarding how our solar system was formed and what will happen to it over the next billion years.) The 'wanting' to know is good but it really doesn't change what has happened and will happen on Earth, except that finding out could give us some new and useful math, phsyics, experience and, observational tools.

The two theories are It is one of many universes or God created it. Both theories are religions in the sense that you must have faith for both of them.

There are a couple of science based ideas about the early Universe and what it means regarding past and future. There are tens if not hundreds of god ideas (all have in common - no evidence, nothing testable, nothing predictable, nothing that can be relied on). Science is not a religion it is a tool. Science specifically deals with eliminating guessing. Faith is closely related to guessing and generally tries hard to hang on to keeping as much as possible unknown, for the unknown is the only place for a god-idea to hide. Scientists have a good history of being tough on their peers that practice intellectual dishonesty - if they are shown to have falsified evidence they loose all credibility. If theists are shown to have falsified evidence it is fine, if some god-idea is sprinkled on their actions. But the sprinkling of god-idea leads to all manner of twisting and turning, without finding any certainty or honesty.

There is no way science will ever be able to prove there are other universes.

Careful there! The scientific method has had an incredible record of finding answers. Other universes are not a requirement, only a possibility.

So both are based on faith.

I hope you are getting some sense of how that statement really isn't accurate. Science has a keen interest in minimizing any guessing and is always open to well researched thoughts and ideas. Religious faith specifically discourages questioning its foundations. Science doesn't require faith, religion does.

Ockham's razor says the simplest soltuion is the best. So a God creating the universe fits.

Only if you allow yourself to stop at GodDoneIt.

However you look on Earth and evidence for Evolution is everywhere which is where I find myself now. Leaning toward an Old earth creation model.

If you study astronomy you can see how planets, solar systems and, galaxies are formed - not created. Evolution deals with the formation of organic life on Earth but, it also ties in nicely to the formation of elements in the Universe - stuff builds up from simplicity to complexity but even the complexity retains the foundation of simplicity.

However I would still have to say I'm agnostic.

Don't let that stop you from thinking :)

First of all someone said I'm a Jesus freak which is not true. If you learned to read I said agnostic. Now the universe isn't eternal. The question where did God come from can't be asked because time started with the Big Bang. Before that time didn't exist, therefore it isn't logical to say what came before God because there was no before. It's human nature to ask such a question because we live in the realm of time. Outside of time there is no before, and after. Also everything has a cause correct? What is the cause of Big Bang? Science doesn't know and never will because it isn't something that is observable or testable. So they can say things caused it however they BELIEVE it was the cause. They do not KNOW. Therefore it's a religion in the sense that they must believe something. As a reminder I'm agnostic not a "Jesus Freak"

YCF

The question where did God come from can't be asked because time started with the Big Bang.

Excellent - I agree

Also everything has a cause correct? What is the cause of Big Bang?

Think about this in relation to your previous statement. Causality is dependent on time. If time does not exist causality will not exist either. Therefore questioning the cause of the Big Bang is analogous to questioning from whence came God.

You can't have it both ways and retain a logical argument.

yourchristianfriend

First of all someone said I'm a Jesus freak which is not true. If you learned to read I said agnostic.

If I remember your previous visits correctly, it is reasonable to term them as coming from a Jesus Freak (not that I would choose that term personally). You claim to now be agnostic. In a very real sense we can all claim to be agnostic as none of us possesses certain knowledge of matters metaphysical. In other words agnosticism does not preclude one from being either a religious zealot, nor a strident anti-theist.

You arguments will tend to determine your position more than your self description. In other words you're entitled to the benefit of the doubt, and the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.

Very true. I'll quote someone on this.
"

Atheists believe that all cause and effect in the universe has a naturalistic origin. Observational data lead us to the conclusion that the universe first began to exist 13.7 billion years ago. Since all things that begin to exist must have a cause, this means that the universe has a cause. However, a naturalistic cause for the origin of the universe cannot be confirmed observationally. Therefore, atheists believe the tenet that all phenomena have a naturalistic cause based solely upon faith in naturalism."
-Rich Deem

I guess it depends on when you believe time began.

Well to Atheist I give my theist arguments. To Theist I give my Atheist arguments. Why argue atheism with an atheist? lol

YCF

Atheists believe that all cause and effect in the universe has a naturalistic origin.

Assuming Mr. Deem is correct in his assignment of belief I will point out the error of this argument (in bold). The universe is not in the universe, and therefore is not included in the belief as stated. It's a very important distinction that invalidates the rest of the argument.

Incidentally atheists simply do not believe in gods. Whether they believe anything else, including Rich Deem's assertion is irrelevant to the fact that they are atheists.

YCF,

I just did a quick search on Rich Deem. Surprise surprise he's an xian apologist. You'll forgive me if I recoil at the idea of trusting him to accurately convey anything about an atheistic position.

I could of told you he was a Christian. However if you check out his website it makes many great points. It makes you realize atheism isn't based only on logic. It's probably his website that has kept from becoming an atheist.

yourfreaktianfriend,

bernarda was right you are a jebus freak.

I on the other hand thought you might want to become a thinking person. Please accept my apologies for thinking you were an honest person.

What makes me a Jesus Freak? Because I don't have a preconceived thought that won't change that there is no god. I'm am truly the free thinker here because I look at both sides of the argument. Unlike you guys.

YCF

However if you check out his website it makes many great points.

You have a link for this source of great points? I'll bet a pound to a penny that we've seen them all before.

Incidentally, your agnosic sheen is starting to wear thin.

And your martyr complex is starting to bleed through.

HeatheNZ:

You'll forgive me if I recoil at the idea of trusting him to accurately convey anything about an atheistic position.

Why is that? Correct me if I’m wrong, but if anti-theism is as you say, simply non-belief, and if all humans are “born atheists” then why couldn’t a Christian “accurately convey anything about an atheistic position” since non-belief must be a default state of mind and if he was once an atheist himself?

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheiststest.html

Take that and just follow the links from that you realize just how little we humans know about our universe. If you won't consider it you have a preconceived notion that wouldn't change no matter what.

Once again why would I come in here and agree with Atheism and everything. Then I wouldn't learn anything new. I come in here sharing my Theist ideas seeing how they stack up. Not to be a "martyr"

I'll be off for the day and probably the next few days. I have to go to my Dad's house where we have dial up internet. So I probably won't be back for the next few days. So any arguments you have will fall upon deaf ears.

jcc

Why is that? Correct me if I’m wrong, but if anti-theism is as you say, simply non-belief, and if all humans are “born atheists” then why couldn’t a Christian “accurately convey anything about an atheistic position” since non-belief must be a default state of mind and if he was once an atheist himself?
You often call people coy. What are you doing with this?
And please explain how atheism is a defualt position.

jcc,

Correct me if I’m wrong, but if anti-theism is as you say, simply non-belief, and if all humans are “born atheists” then why couldn’t a Christian “accurately convey anything about an atheistic position

I certainly would not describe anti-theism as "simple non-belief". My apologies, if I conveyed that impression. In my comment concerning agnosticism, I was actually trying to convey that the most radical extremes of theistic opinion can be literally described as agnostic.

Regarding Beem's accuracy. You are totally correct that he or any other theist can accurately convey an atheistic position. My point was that I personally would not trust an xian apologist to do so. In my experience apologists are seldom purveyors of truth, accuracy, honesty and openness. Hence my lack of trust.

It's a genuine pleasure when I come across one who proves my distrust to be unfounded.

Obeah:

What are you doing with this?

Trying to learn from HeatheNZ why he thinks someone who claims to be a Christian can’t be trusted to accurately convey an atheistic position.

And please explain how atheism is a defualt position.

I can’t. I tried to phrase that as what I understand HeatheNZ’s position to be.

Obeah,

Oh, you should write a book for the circular xtian. jjc still wouldn't understand though.

HeatheNZ:

In my experience apologists are seldom purveyors of truth, accuracy, honesty and openness.

I can partially see you point given that relating to truth is heavily dependant on one’s perspective and accuracy can be subject to incomplete knowledge, but why do you think Christian Apologists (including me) could have anything to gain here by being purposefully dishonest and intentionally lacking in openness?

And please explain how atheism is a defualt position.

I didn't make this claim, so I feel no responsibility to justify it. I think I understand the concept jcc is referring to and it goes something like this:

If atheism is defined as a absence of belief in gods, and if all people are born tabla rasa (blank slate), then it follows that at birth all people do not possess a belief in gods (or any other beliefs for that matter).

Dislaimer: I am not testifying to the accuracy of the two premises, just the validity of the argument. If either premise is incorrect then the conclusion is not reliable.

Is that what you were driving at jcc?

jcc

do you think Christian Apologists (including me) could have anything to gain here by being purposefully dishonest and intentionally lacking in openness?

Yes they usually do have something to gain (or rather something they don't want to lose). And often (although certainly not in your case) it's their livelihood, social standing, and/or their reputation.

But the crux of your question rests on the "intentionally" aspect. On this, I confess that I vacillate. I like to think that people are essentially honest, but I see the same obfuscation repeated so often by the same authors that I am compelled to think think that at least some of the time it is willful.

Having argued the atheistic perspective for some time against many theists I am very familiar with the temptation to slightly (or not so slightly) misrepresent an opponent's position in order to score points in a debate. So much easier and tempting is this to do when you have a friendly or naive audience (as most apologists usually do).

I will point out that misrepresentation is a hollow victory, and if I succumb to the temptation, it does not leave a good feeling.

I try to be as accurate as I can about the theistic position, and where circumstances allow will invite the theist to either state their position or at least determine whether my depiction is accurate.

I am seldom accorded the same courtesy. In fact theists are often dismissive and incredulous when I attempt why their conception of atheism is less than complete, and at times highly inaccurate.

I suspect you and i might have been down that very road once or twice.

Comment from: HeatheNZ

The question where did God come from can't be asked because time started with the Big Bang.
Excellent - I agree

So as I've said...we're all "creationists"...

jcc

phreedm,
So as I've said...we're all "creationists"...

And almost on cue we have a classic example of misrepresentation (well perhaps not a classic example).

Is it intentional? I guess we have to decide that for ourselves. Perhaps phreedm meant it as a joke?

This kind of nonsense is what you get when you don't nip the irrationality in-the-bud. The question "Is there a gawd?" is just plainly and simply a nonsensical question.

Is there a hagshk?

Misrepresentation...?

I'm just following your own claim...

The two theories [concerning the start of the universe] are It is one of many universes or God created it.
This summary is an example of the fallacy of bifurcation. There are many hypotheses concerning the "origins" of the universe (not two).

Origin- the first stage of existence; beginning.

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

You yourself admit that there was a beginning...you can parse words all you want, but it's still the moment at which the universe was created...

Or do you believe the universe is eternal?

Likewise...please list more then 2 theories to the "beginning" of the universe...?

HeatheNZ:

Is that what you were driving at jcc?

Yes, with respect to me remembering (which I admit, my recall may be faulty) that you once replied to one of my posts that “we are all born atheists,” and no with respect to me being able to acknowledge that infants are capable of comprehending little more than responses to stimuli, much less (a)theological musings.

I try to be as accurate as I can about the theistic position, and where circumstances allow will invite the theist to either state their position or at least determine whether my depiction is accurate.

And in all honesty, that is pretty much the same approach I try to take here with respect to atheists, but your other recent responses to my posts reflect more of your previous attitude (“apologists are seldom purveyors of truth, accuracy, honesty and openness”) toward me—that’s what prompted me to ask (of me specifically—and especially since I have no monetary interest) what I have to gain by being anything less than honest and open here?

phreedm,

The reason I place origins in quotes is because we do not possess adequate language to address the question without relating it to a common concept of time.

In other words "origin" does not adequately describe an event that has no relation to time. It's simply an inadequacy of language (or at least my grasp of language).

And your previous comment about creationism was a misrepresentation of a comment discussing the temporal invalidation of the following question.

The question where did God come from can't be asked because time started with the Big Bang.

jcc,

Since you ask, I have found your comments to be overly defensive and often disingenuous of late. I will hasten to add that this is certainly not been the case with this conversation. This conversation has been very positive thus far.

I would also add that I have deliberately skipped most of your posts recently, so I am in a very poor position to judge your recent contributions. I apologize if I have unjustly maligned you, however for what they might be worth, such are my impressions.

Note that this is merely my impression and others may well disagree with me. I have no intention of justifying my impressions, and would not have brought it up had you not inquired. I mention it here as a point of information, not as something intended to spark a defense.

As for yours (and other theists) motivations for posting here, I would hope you would be in a better position to answer that question.

I have no doubt that many of the drive-bys and infrequent theistic posters (assuming their theistic claims are genuine) do so merely to get a rise out of us (kind of like prodding a caged animal with a stick).

You regulars, quite honestly are more of a mystery to me. Personally I think you have a lot of offer this forum, and it would be a poorer place were you not here (which doesn't mean that you don't greatly annoy me at times) , but I don't profess to know why you persist on coming. Maybe you could enlighten me?

Maybe you just enjoy the cut and thrust?

HNZ,

In other words "origin" does not adequately describe an event that has no relation to time. It's simply an inadequacy of language (or at least my grasp of language).

Of course there is...it's "creation".

phreedm

You yourself admit that there was a beginning...

The point I'm trying to make is that there is a point (a singularity) at which time is not. (again our language is a very poor tool to describe this concept). If you want to call that a beginning then fine, but it's not the same concept of beginning as a beginning that happens within a temporal realm, and it's something that we find hard to conceptualize.

you can parse words all you want, but it's still the moment at which the universe was created...

No, you're not understanding my point as intended. That's exactly what I am not saying. The implication of your statement (which it seems you are trying to foist upon me) is that time is not contained within the universe, but also exists as a measuring stick to distinguish Before Universe (BU) and After Universe Initiation (AU). (I'm deliberately avoiding the term created due to the supernatural connotations often associated with it). My point is that time most likely does not exist without a universe within which it is contained. Therefore using a term like "moment" to describe the initiation of the universe (and time) is basically meaningless. It's like discussing square triangles. You can string the words together, but they don't necessarily mean anything.

Or do you believe the universe is eternal?

This sounds suspiciously like a bifurcation fallacy. Are there only two mutually exclusive possibilities?

Actually i think by definition the universe is eternal. I will argue this with the following line of reasoning:

1. Time is an aspect of spacetime contained within our universe.

2. Eternal means the full extent of possible time.

3. Initiation of the universe also signifies the initiation of time.

4. The demise of the universe will also signify the demise of time.

5. Eternity must (and this is where it gets tricky) exist either from any point in time back to the temporal initiation or forward to the temporal demise - or both.

6. Therefore in a very real sense (our temporal conception) the universe has eternally been here and will eternally be here as it pertains to time, despite the fact that it likely had an initiation and will likely have a demise.

Anyone care to comment on that logic? I hope I managed to explain it adequately.

Phreedm, I may be arguing semantics, I'd be prepared to concede that, but I think the semantics mask some deep and probative concepts that are fundamental to the argument.

Likewise...please list more then 2 theories to the "beginning" of the universe...?

I certainly do not claim to be an expert on this topic but a little research shows the following as a starting point:

Newtonian cosmology
Lorentzian universes
Early general relativity based cosmologies
Machian universe
Gödel's universe
MOND
TeVeS
Steady state theories
Tired light
Dirac large numbers hypothesis
Redshift periodicity and intrinsic redshifts
Plasma cosmology and ambiplasma

I'm sure there are more - and if you are interested you should be able to google these. Of course these do not include a myriad of mystical explanations - but then again you did ask for theories - and I assume you meant scientifically based theories.

Incidentally, do you consider the Christian explanation of God creating the universe as a theory?

And if you do does that mean that every supernatural explanation is also a theory?

phreedm

Of course there is...it's "creation".

"Creation" has it's own bugaboo, which is arguably worse. It implies that the thing created was created from from something else (and by something else). So creation is also terminally intertwined with the temporal realm.

And of course it's a loaded term in such discussions as it's the term of choice used to represent the theistic position. But then, of course, I suspect that's precisely why you proposed it.

Certainly no-one can accuse you of excessive subtlety.