Happy Atheist Forum

Hey gang.  I hope you all consider theoretical physicists to be scientists, otherwise I've posted in the wrong area.

Some background very briefly, then I'll get to the question I have for this thread.

I think religion is a ticking bomb being recklessly juggled around by the religious.  I think every atheist is trapped in a room with an oblivious, reckless, bomb-juggling religious person, and that it is up to the atheist to talk sense to the juggler, calm him, convince him to put down the bomb.  Unfortunately, I think few atheists believe this is their pressing duty.  Most have the attitude -- "screw him, he's crazy, he's wrong, he'll come around eventually."  The crazy and wrong parts might be true, but the come around eventually part can't be guaranteed and we might not have that long.  He's juggling a bomb after all.  

People might disagree with me that religion is such a danger, and I hope these people are right.  But I've been trying to argue that it's up to us to do whatever is possible to engage the religious in a discussion that slowly chips away at the foundations of religion.  We should forget the god argument and only focus on religion. If we win the religion argument the god argument becomes mostly moot.  I wrote a (probably too) long open letter to atheists suggesting we find common ground with religious, define god as love, mystery, and hope so that we could put god aside and focus on religion, then I discovered this forum, and have been debating my 'we all believe in love, mystery, hope' idea since.  it probably won't surprise you... my open letter hasn't been well received.  

That's the background.  

Here's my question -- Is Kaku selling out atheism?  

I was just discovered Michio Kaku.  I had never heard of him before.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michio_Kaku (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michio_Kaku).  He has a new book out that I'm excited to read.  I found an article about him and the final paragraph jumped out at me because he too used a three-part definition for god.  This quote is what I'd like to discuss in this thread.  

"Kaku described his belief eloquently: 'I would say that I lean toward the God of Einstein and Spinoza; that is, a God of harmony, simplicity and elegance, rather than a personal God who interferes in human affairs,' Kaku muses. 'The universe is gorgeous, and it did not have to be that way. It could have been random, lifeless, ugly; but instead, is full of rich complexity and diversity.'
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/ ... page=0%2C0 (http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/print/99/fish-out-water?page=0%2C0)

Is Kaku selling out atheism?   He is clear about a crucial idea that I didn't cover enough in my open letter, "rather than a personal God who interferes in human affairs."  If we moved beyond that concept of god, don't you think our human society would flourish?  When politicians and preachers can no longer claim that we're pissing off the big man?  When we all accept that whether or not there is a god, he surely doesn't care about our day to day lives, so please, politicians and preachers, stop justifying things through him.  

Thanks for reading, look forward to hearing your thoughts.  

There is in every village a torch: The schoolteacher.
And an extinguisher: The priest.  
-Victor Hugo

Pantheism is the belief that all which exists is an abstract god. It's a semantic game of bargaining. It's atheism or apatheism hiding behind an invisible cloak of cowardice.

I get what you're trying to do with your open letter, and I can appreciate it, but the reality is that most theists would not be able to maintain their dependence on religion if they became pantheistic. It's like a candy cigarette for someone who's a pack-a-day smoker. What they need is the cold reality of verifiable, factual evidence. Cold turkey is the best method of shaking the foundations of religion and eventually theism. Sugar coating it may let them listen to you longer, but it emboldens them to think you're compromising. Which you are.

Those out there that can be persuaded with a simple and sugar coated argument are not likely the fundamentalists, or the dangerous theists. I'm really less concerned about them. My concern lies with those willing to impose their belief system on someone else or who put their belief system above the value of human life. Those should be the targets of our best arguments. Those are the persecutors. Those are the suicide bombers. Those are the extremists.

hey will, thanks once again the post.  

I completely agree with you about who the scariest religious are.  I don't think any type of person on that list you finished with would ever be convinced by any rational idea, whether surgar coated or force fed, or whatever.  they're brainwashed.  

but i think it's a huge mistake to overlook the moderates, the cafeteria religious, the non-extremists.  they're the millions of people who empower our politicians, preachers, whatever other kind of leaders who get put in charge and then cause so much harm around the world.  

the crazies -- the bombers, or polygamists, or whatever -- get all the headlines.  but the non-violent, non-crazy religious are the people who elect officials who do crazy things like block stem cell research, prevent evolution's teaching in public schools, ignore the world's endangered future because they believe Jesus is coming back soon anyhow.  real progress can be made by starting with the religious people we know who aren't violent or crazy.  there's really no progress to be made with the violent fanatics.

I pretty much agree with what Will said, if someone, anyone wants to venerate the universe and call it god, well, OK, I won't hold it against them. If there is any harm it is several magnitudes less than the most mealy mouthed Christian.

I think the universe is pretty damn cool, I just don't call it god.

Quote from: "thegodconclusion"hey will, thanks once again the post.  

I completely agree with you about who the scariest religious are.  I don't think any type of person on that list you finished with would ever be convinced by any rational idea, whether surgar coated or force fed, or whatever.  they're brainwashed.  

but i think it's a huge mistake to overlook the moderates, the cafeteria religious, the non-extremists.  they're the millions of people who empower our politicians, preachers, whatever other kind of leaders who get put in charge and then cause so much harm around the world.  

the crazies -- the bombers, or polygamists, or whatever -- get all the headlines.  but the non-violent, non-crazy religious are the people who elect officials who do crazy things like block stem cell research, prevent evolution's teaching in public schools, ignore the world's endangered future because they believe Jesus is coming back soon anyhow.  real progress can be made by starting with the religious people we know who aren't violent or crazy.  there's really no progress to be made with the violent fanatics.

Hey, Godconclusion - I agree with you. I do feel some vague sort of duty just to make Christians aware that atheists are out there, and that we're armed with common sense and then some. I am a regular contributor on a Christian forum. There are only a few people that confront me, and thousands that view the posts. I know that if I had come across reason, I would have listened. So it is a labor of love.

Are theoretical physicists considered scientists? Well....theoretically. Sorry. I had to. hahahaha.

Yes, they are.

Do you consider Einstein a scientist?

How about Hawking?

they are theoretical sciectists. ALL sciences start out as theoretical, then become they laws if they are later proven, which god cant be