hi everyone! i was struck with an idea last week. i started writing and writing and ended up penning an open letter to atheists that's also a petition to richard dawkins. i put it up yesterday, and a friend stopped by to sign it. aside from that, i'm not sure how to let people know it's there. i decided to "go spread the word" and that's when google lead me here. if you would like to read my letter, and (i hope) sign the petition, I would appreciate it. http://thegodconclusion.wordpress.com/
if you could pass it along to anyone you know, id appreciate that too. i'd like to contact richard dawkins with thousands of signatures of support on or before jan 1, 2009. thanks!
i wish i had known about this forum as soon as it went online. i have a lot of catching up to do on reading. i look forward to many great conversations, and thanks to whomever hosts and manages this site!
Welcome to the forum.
Although it is nice to think that god simply means love, mystery and hope...that is not what people commonly meant by the term. I do not believe that a deity created the world or that a deity exists...therefore I am an atheist. I don't think we should try to change the meaning of terms just to make theists feel more comfortable with those that don't believe in a deity.
I don't mean to be harsh, I just don't see this as something I can honestly sign.
Welcome to the board. Thanks for welcoming me as another new member.
I read your petition, and it is well thought out and well written, but your logic is flawed. God was created by religious people, he is a magic man in the clouds. No amount of claiming that God is "love, mystery, and hope" can change that. I don't feel the need to define my beliefs in love, mystery, and hope as "God," nor do I feel the need to claim I am a believer in order to have a valid conversation with a religious person. I don't think stealing the term "God" and changing its meaning will really accomplish anything outside of establishing a new religion.
I am quite happy being called atheist, and if somebody refuses to hear my arguments because of that label, that is simply bigotry. I don't like to associate with bigots, so I have no desire to change the way I present myself in order to keep their company.
I do not mean to insult you, and I hope I have not, but I will not be signing your petition.
laetusatheos and tornado, thanks for reading and replying.
laetusatheos, you said --> that is not what people commonly mean by the term. part of what im hoping to point out is that people don't usually know what they mean by the term. they've never given it much thought, which is a moot point when they enter a discussion with an atheist. defining god yourself moves the conversation forward. if the conversation could move ahead, we could hold people accountable for the claims of the religions they support.
and tornado, you said --> I don't think stealing the term "God" and changing its meaning will really accomplish anything outside of establishing a new religion. if someone said that God is just a word for love, period. there would not be a new religion. it'd just be a simple explanation, mystery solved, end of story. (same harris said in that lecture i linked to --> we need to show religious that love and curiosity are enough.) any attempts to build a religion on love could be shot down the same way i'd hope we could shoot down religious ideas now. but we never get that far. (and eventually people could drop 'god' and just say love.)
also tornado, i'm with you, i have no interest in keeping company with anti-atheists either, but they have a stranglehold on my country and i'm forced to keep company with 'em. they're worsening our lives in fact.
i thought i got another signature, was excited, but then read it... "you are so close minded and clueless. You don’t understand us at all. We REALLY dont believe in god. Honestly. For real. No kidding. There is no god. None. Zip. Zero. Nada. Mkay?"
ouch! all i was trying to say is that the best trained, best equipped, never get a chance to fight b/c time is spent focused on an absurd idea that cannot be defined. we can get back to that absurd idea in the future, but religion needs to be argued against right now.
thanks for reading guys! to my anonymous poster who called me clueless, please know, there is no atheist position that i disagree with, other than the idea that arguing against a vague god is more effective than arguing specific religions. otherwise, i'm with you bro. (or sis.)
As long as you continue to support the existence of gods people will take it to mean something else. Religious people have told me I MUST believe in god because I wrote a piece of erotica wherein a character uses the word "god" as in "oh, god, yes" in a sex scene.
If you say you believe in god as a deception it won't serve any purpose. It will just confuse the issue and give more fuel to the "atheism as a religion" camp. A bunch of atheists proclaiming that they believe in god won't solve anything. It just paints atheists as people who believe in but hate god as opposed to a bunch of folks who just don't think god is real.
Oh, bugger! I didn't see the "comments are considered signatures of support" bit. I commented as follows but did not intend it as a signature of support.
But what about the god not being real part?
Mystery is just confusion about things yet unknown - the trunk of the elephant held by the blind man. Hope is a kind of wishful thinking - believing something can happen because we want it to. Love is a complex, biochemical, electrical, psychological phenomenon - a marvelous, addictive, and completely natural adaptation.
Atheism may become scarcely intelligible as a concept once believing in gods is the exception rather than the norm. One day our descendants might be taught in history class that normal people were once called atheists.
Please remove my comment if possible.
hi kylyssa, i'll remove it. thanks for reading.
i dont think it matters what religious people think of your 'g-d' (what it is that you dedicate your life to, what you're pursuing, call it reason, or love, or enjoyment, or yourself - what state you strive toward or strive to maintain, what purpose you find for living even if it's 'just to live').
they dont really care b/c it's too unorthodox for them. but what we all *need* to care about is the danger of *their* religious beliefs. if we stand on our side and say, 'stay on your side crazies,' we might feel better knowing that we're right, but they'll bring us down with them. they're going to keep crossing that line, through government legislation or violent attacks. i live in new york and i know we're not out of the woods on this yet. i also know that all believers in religion are complicit in actions performed in the name of religion. we need to engage all religious people.
i wasnt at all suggesting people claim to believe in god as deception. im asking us to take the first step simply to engage the religious in debate about their beliefs using "god's" silliest property -- it's inability to be defined.
the fact that the term god cannot be defined has been used by religious to their advantage for all of human history, and it could be of ultimate use to atheists. atheists believe in something. for most religious god is defined as a being, for others an ultimate reality, for some, like einstein, god is simply a synonym for the mystery of the universe.
you said 'Mystery is just confusion about things yet unknown,' don't you think there will always be something unknown to us? i think most scientists would agree that scientific mystery could very well be eternal.
you might not agree, but i don't think einstein's belief in 'god' (the universe and its great mystery) was wrong.
i think god debates waste time while religion is eroding our lives. when religion is much less influential in the world then we can return to the god debate, but notice that we will have killed two birds with one stone -- weakening religion weakens god. i'm hoping we all find ways to engage in religion debates with religious people every day.
God is an anthropomorphic metaphor that requires faith. The majority of believers will not define God as simply being love, mystery or hope alone. I take my notions of God from the Bible as it uses the term God most often. There is also faith, obedience and the requirement to not question the supremacy and ability of this super-being. Additionally, for me the God metaphor includes the traditional religious and political powers-that-be who require blind obedience.
For me love is love, hope is hope and mystery is mystery. I don't need a God metaphor to explain or understand them.
I am not going to sign your petition, but I do hope you will hang out here for awhile. There are some really bright, rational people who will talk with you, although I do think most here have only a certain level of tolerance for unsubstantiated claims, prostelyzation and creationism.
hi lara, thanks for checking out my petition. i'm definitely sticking around, i'm psyched to have found this board. i couldn't tell if you were suggesting that i'm presenting creationism or proselytizing here, i'm definitely not doing either. maybe you were just giving me an fyi with that last sentence?
You said that "For me love is love, hope is hope and mystery is mystery. I don't need a God metaphor to explain or understand them." You aren't the kind of person atheists need to start a dialogue with. You are already without religion. I was just trying to suggest a way to meet the religious halfway. The sense I'm getting from everyone is "screw 'em. they're wrong, we're right." while i agree with the second part (that religious are wrong and atheists are right) i think the first part (srew 'em) is a huge mistake we can't afford.
i would hope that atheists would respect that i am speaking entirely, 100% from experience. my entire life has been spent butting heads with family and friends over religion. we never got more than 2 minutes into a debate without someone pulling the conversation ripcord and saying - 'well you dont believe in god,' or 'don't listen to him, he's an atheist.' i'm far beyond caring about their condescending views. all i care about is getting them to analyze their beliefs for the sake of our future. once i told them that i believed in god, then they reengaged. then we proceeded to discuss the absurdities of catholicism. even i was astounded to hear true feelings about catholicism. some asked me to define my god, after i explained what the word meant to me, then they were suddenly caught trying to disprove my take on god and were finally being forced to define their god. until i said i believed in god, they wouldn't proceed. even though my god is simply one word that describes three common themes i've found buried very deep in all religions, it still got conversations going again. my desire to proceed with family and friends was greater than my desire to fixate on the absurdity of their needing to hear me say that i believe in 'god'. there is nothing anthropomorphic at all about the god i tell them about to get our conversations moving.
as you point out, most people do get their idea of god from the bible. but randomly grab any two believers in god and ask them to describe god, they will have totally different details. there is no definition for god. you'd be hard pressed to even find two priests who define god the same once down in the details, i know this through experience.
thegod, I see where you are coming from with this alternative view of god being used as a means to communicate freely with theists.
What I have found to work is along the same lines but does not require stating you have a belief in god. If you choose your words carefully, you can discuss religion in depth without the other person assuming you are an atheist. Now, it's not going work on a forum where everyone already knows your position from being able to read your other posts. But, it does work pretty well in real life. Basically what you do is touch on parts of the belief that do not make any internal sense in a very straightforward rational and calm manner. Yet, you do have to be aware of what might lead to more difficult topics for the theist and steer the conversation towards a more productive path.
I'm not saying this approach would work for everyone or with everyone...but I've managed to pull it off when the topic of religion comes up with someone whom I don't really want to know I'm an atheist since it is a loaded word for many theists.
I'm mainly against the idea of defining god as love, hope etc because that's simply not what the word was ever meant to define. If I thought god could mean simple loves, ideals or Einstein's view....I'd consider myself a pantheist instead of an atheist; making the need to relabel god to avoid the term atheist unnecessary anyway.
Welcome to the forum. Glad to have you.
I read the basic points of your piece, and I basically agree with what everyone has said... I think we can still have meaningful discussion with theists without necessarily espousing any belief God, whether it be love, mystery, or whatever. I'm uncomfortable saying I believe in God in any way, shape or form. I think we can have open discussion with theists as long as both parties are willing to listen and respond thoughtfully. Just my two cents. Anyway, welcome to the forum. See ya 'round.
"You win favor. You, in a way, are admitting you were wrong. It stings, I know. Suck it up!"
I disagree with this statement. I don't feel that I'm wrong in being an atheist. If I thought I was wrong, I would never have become one. If being "right" means I have to join your relatively new religious idea, I would rather stay in the wrong. And telling people I believe in the God of Mystery and Hope in a religious debate would only spark more debates. The Christians I know would disagree with believing in essentially a different God or different idea of God, causing them to say such things as:
"What about Jesus, do you believe in Jesus? Let me tell you why Jesus is real..."
"Well how would the God of Mystery make the world? Hmm?"
etc.
There is no real way of getting around religious debates, unless you share the exact same views as the person. Putting a different face on things won't help.
It's a nice idea, but it won't accomplish what you say it will.
hi gang, thanks for the latest comments. this is exactly why im so excited to have found this forum.
laetusatheos, that's encouraging to hear that you've made progress discussing ideas that are critical of religion with the religious. i haven't been so lucky. i always try and stay 1000 ft above the 'god vs no god' debate with people, but they always immediately ask 'what are you an atheist or something?' which to them is the same as asking 'what are you insane or something?' 9 times out of 10 the question comes as a result of a conversation about evolution. they jump right to the god thing and the evolution conversation is sunk.
myleviathan, do people ever bring up the 'Einstein believed in God' point with you? I get it all the time. if you get it too, how do you answer? part of my idea was to promote einstein's 'belief' in god simply to set aside god so we could focus on religion.
Happysmiley, i see what you mean, i should edit that part. (i think i'll be making many edits so will incorporate that...)
The most baffling thing about religion (to me) is that no religious people define God the same way. Even down to Jesus, depending on what the congregants look like, that's what the Jesus statues will look like. There is no definition of God to pin down and argue against. Once you take the debate out to the list of things that also can't be argued against, well by then most religious have written you off as atheist (which = 'insane' to them). i dont care that they think I'm insane, or evil, i know i'm neither, but i'm searching for a way to be allowed to remain inside the religion conversation.
there was a show on pbs called the question of god. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/n ... ering.html (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/nineconv/suffering.html)
michael shermer did an amazing job and by far made the most sense. yet the entire table ignored him. it was comical after a while. they got to the point where he would speak, then the rest of the panel would continue as if he had said nothing. i'm trying to figure out a way to not be ignored and have the religious respond.
i should have made my petition's goal 1 signature instead of 1,000. doh!
God is definable objectively based on religion and semantics. You can look up god in the dictionary and get a pretty clear indication of who/what god is. Pantheists in their various forms try to change the definition of god, but in doing so are only really playing a semantic game.
What if I call toast "god"? Then I believe in god (as I believe in the existence of toast) and as such I am not an atheist. What if I call unicorns "god"? Then everyone is an atheist. See how that essentially makes "god" meaningless? God being undefinable, in my experience, is a method of bartering with reason in an attempt to hold onto the idea of god. The problem, though, is either you can have pure faith or you cannot. Middle ground means compromising reason/objectivity AND faith.
hi will, i'll comment on the least debatable point first.
you asked, "What if I call toast 'god'?"
you absolutely could. that's the absurdity of 'god'. in my incredibly successful petition i wrote about this. i'll add 'or toast' now. i wrote that if you call the spaghetti monster or toast your god you're sending the conversation with religious people off the rails again. my assumption was that we all want immediate dialogue with the religious due to the dangers inherent in religious belief. i'm gathering that others don't sense the urgency i do. this is actually comforting to me. but my point was for everyone to essentially concede a point now, knowing that in the long run it will be won back. that is, define god in a way that the religious person will accept, in a way that allows the conversation to proceed. in the long run, if the battle against religious ideas is won, the god point will be moot. i've had tremendous success (for me, compared to my pre-'god' discussions') by defining god in a positive, not seemingly mocking way, which is how toast would come across.
Next you said, "God is definable objectively based on religion and semantics. You can look up god in the dictionary and get a pretty clear indication of who/what god is." this is the part i disagree with. others have said that there is a consensus about what god is. that i buy, there is a popular idea of god as an older gentlemen who is much like a dad. but i haven't found a clear definition of god. merriam webster gives me these varying explanations (boiled down).
- the ultimate reality
- the perfect Being worshipped as creator
- the divine Principle
- a being or object requiring human worship
- a person or thing of supreme value
- a powerful ruler
similar to the first one, for the sake of engaging the religious, i'm suggesting we adopt god as 'the ultimate truths of love, mystery, hope'. it sounds good, and religious people have a hard time arguing it without either A) using arguments borrowed from atheists, or B) citing specific religious claims that most of the world disagrees with.
also, i came across this good collection of quotes on craigslist of all places!
"It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public; and freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds which follows from the advance of science." [Darwin]
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." [Voltaire]
"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism." [Einstein]
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." [Nietzsche]
"I cannot believe in the immortality of the soul.... No, all this talk of an existence for us, as individuals, beyond the grave is wrong. It is born of our tenacity of life â€" our desire to go on living … our dread of coming to an end." [Edison]
"The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma." [Lincoln]
"Religion is a byproduct of fear. For much of human history, it may have been a necessary evil, but why was it more evil than necessary? Isn't killing people in the name of God a pretty good definition of insanity?" [Arthur C. Clarke]
"Religions are all alike â€" founded upon fables and mythologies." [Thomas Jefferson]
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile." [Kurt Vonnegut]
"Religion is based . . . mainly on fear . . . fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. . . . My own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race." [Bertrand Russell]
http://losangeles.craigslist.org/forums/?forumID=78 (http://losangeles.craigslist.org/forums/?forumID=78)