"Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote in message
news:11f6p89i0ossl51@corp.supernews.com...

We atheists are in a bit of a bind. We go around declaring, "There is no
God," or, "God is dead," and the like, without even being sure ourselves
what "God" we're talking about. (There *is* distinction between the two
perceptions of "God" that exist.) The religious right just has a
field-day denunciating us for making such bold, self-assured, and
insulting (at least to them) remarks about their "God." In the process,
we hurt good, well-meaning, well-intentioned Christians who simply want
to go about leading a good, moral life, and who have no interest in what
right-wing fanatics have to say about their own *personal* God, (of whom
the right-wingers know absolutely nothing - and I think we all know of
what "moral" breed of Christians I am referring to. They are, what one
might call the, "true" Christians.) So what do we do about it?

I propose we confine our definition of "God," to the "God of the Bible."
That way, we have something clearly (or almost clearly) defined with
which we can sink our teeth into. And in our attacks on the "God of the
Bible," we can even further narrow down the distinction between those who
rely on the bible for moral guidance and such, and those who believe in
the unquestionable inerrancy of the Bible, i.e., the religious-right. We
would then be able to avoid wasting time attacking a strawman "God" and
cut the fundies down at the knees. They are trying to take over this
country. Make no mistake about that. The Neo-con agenda is well
documented. So if we are going to help prevent this country from becoming
a Theocracy in "Democratic" attire , we ought to get on the stick and
hurt the religious-right right where it hurts the most. Let's "hang" em'
with their own bible, and give "Christianity" back to the Christians they
stole it from. (We can always respectfully disagree with them later.)

Greywolf

I understand your concern, but I am more concerned
about the religious right forcing me to change
my language to accommodate them, when they're
the ones causing the problems (IMO).

My personal belief as an atheist is that there are
no gods/god period end of discussion. That said,
if other people care to believe in a god or gods,
that's their business and I'll respect them for it as
long as they respect my beliefs. If they ask (as my
mom did many years ago), I'll simply state I don't
believe in a god/gods. That *should not* have any
effect on their beliefs. (Those who don't understand
that I ignore.)

To me, that's totally separate from the issue of
church-state, religion in the schools, teaching
religion in science classes, tax breaks for
religious amusement parks, religious tests for
politics, etc. ad nauseum. There are plenty of
strongly religious people who feel the same way
I do about those issues. I don't need to change
my language for them and IMO they're in the
majority in the USA.

Gail
Warrior Gardener aa list #2247 ["Shiny...]

*snip*

I propose we confine our definition of "God," to the "God of the Bible."

*snip*

Nah. Sorry. After examining the evidence, I conclude that all gods are
hallucinations. I find I can substitute the word "nature" for a few
people's idea of god, but that seems like an unnecessary complication and
I have to do all the work to make their ideas fit my experience. I want
them to take the next step, eliminate the god, and observe bare boned
reality.

Cometh the hour, cometh "Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com>
who, with imperceptibly subtle footwork in alt.atheism, gave us this:

We go around declaring, "There is no
God," or, "God is dead," and the like, without even being sure ourselves
what "God" we're talking about.

I don't. There is a general god and a specific God. A general god is
any being that can be defined as a deity. The specific God is Yaweh
AKA Allah, etc. the alleged creator of the universe according to the
Death Cult. I define my atheism as an assertion that no such entities
can possibly exist, not merely that there is no evidence for them.

David Silverman F.L.A.H.N. aa #2208

Either religion goes or civilisation does. It's that simple.

Greywolf wrote:

I propose we confine our definition of "God," to the "God of the
Bible."

Trying your hand at catherding, I see? Good luck.

Rather than say, ``There is no God,'' it's best to say, ``There
are no gods.'' After all, what makes any one particular god any
more significant than any other?

Or, you could simply take a reactionary position. Don't bring up
the subject, yourself. When somebody asks you if you believe in
God, ask, ``Which god?'' Let them define it, if they can. If they
do, then you're free to judge that particular claim on its merit.

You'll find that all god claims that actually get defined break
down in one of two ways. First are the idols, including people
like Gaius Julius Caesar. Not many people believe in human idols
anymore, but some believe in gods that reduce to powerful space
aliens (though they certainly won't refer to them as such
themselves) with just as much moral authority. Oh--and there's no
evidence for them, unlike for Caesar.

Next are the ``real'' gods, with some sort of supernatural
powers. Here again are two possibilities: either that power
is /not/ supernatural, but simply something we don't (yet)
understand, in which case said god (if it exists) is just another
idol; or the power /is/ supernatural, in which case the power is
simply impossible.

With modern theology you get four particular supernatural
powers, each of which is a self-contained oxymoron: omnipotence,
omniscience, omnibenevolence, and primal causality. See my .sig
for a simple proof against omnipotence. Turing's Incompleteness
Theorem is proof against omniscience; if you haven't yet been able
to wrap your brain around that one, try this ditty: ``Tell me God,
yes or no, will you answer no?'' Epicurus's famous riddle did
away with omnibenevolence a few centuries before Jesus never
existed: is God willing and able to end evil? If so, whence comes
evil? If not, why call him ``God''? And the First Cause argument
dies as soon as you ask, ``Who created God?''

There are lots of other proofs against each of those properties,
just as you'd expect. Can an omnipotent being commit suicide? If
existence is the set of everything that exists, and if God exists
(and therefore there is existence), how can God create existence
since it already exists? And so on.

Oh--and, since disproving each of those four properties
establishes various truly unbreakable natural laws, it
therefore follows that all natural laws that exist really are
unbreakable. Therefore, there is no supernatural.

Now do you see why theists try to insist that it's impossible to
disprove their favorite god? They don't want you to exhale in the
vicinity of their house of cards.

Cheers,

b&

--
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
All but God can prove this sentence true.

I sometimes define gods as "other peoples' imaginary friend"

needless to say this doesn't go over too well with the believers....

--
Jim

Visit the Selectric Typewriter Museum!
http://www.selectric.org

In article <11f6p89i0ossl51@corp.supernews.com>, Greywolf
<greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote:

I propose we confine our definition of "God," to the "God of the Bible."

Well. See. Right there we have a problem. Which "God of the Bible" are
we talking about? The Ur-God that created everything? The ancient
Hebrew war Gods, El and his brothers Elohim? The unspeakable holy of
holies YHWH? Or the several gods of the New Testament, including the
Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, or the retributive exterminator in
Revelation?

-chib

--
Member of SMASH
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
(email: change out to in)

On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 08:09:21 -0500, "Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com>
wrote:

We atheists are in a bit of a bind. We go around declaring, "There is no
God," or, "God is dead," and the like, without even being sure ourselves

Do we? We would never give it a thought if believers kept it to
themselves.