Letters to the Editor
-
There's a reason why you should follow the instructions on the prescription bottle
and not consume alcohol with your meds.
"Do atheists have a church where they can not worship what they don't believe? They have a magazine! They could attend Saint Goliath and print bulletins and everything. Oh, sorry, I think I've confused atheism with nihilism, and we know that ain't right."
-- AJCalhoun
Oh, it's having a house of worship with bulletins and everything that makes all the stories legit. Or was this an attempt at humor? Sleep it off, AJ, and try again when you have your wits about you and can write cogently. See you in a decade or so.
-
Jesus is gay now?
I rest my case.
-
AJCalhoun
Like most fundamentalists, it seems most atheists (at least the ones who show up here) are so shakey in their "faith" that they have no alternative but to go on the offensive when presented with a reasonable discourse.
Strong atheism can be thought of as a "faith" but weak atheism is specifically a lack of faith.
Strong atheists say: I believe there is no God.
Weak atheists say: I do not believe in God.
One is a statement of belief the other is simply a lack of belief.
Strong atheists are never agnostics but theists and weak atheists both can be agnostic.
Dawkins has a little different take on this subject but I happen to disagree with him. Dawkins says that the strong atheist position is: I *know* there is no God. Dawkins describes himself as a "de facto" atheist but not a strong atheist as he defines it. I'm not sure what Dawkins means by de facto atheist so I can't really comment on that.
I'll be happy to have a reasonable discourse with you AJ, what would you like to talk about?
-
Ooops.. I got that wrong.
Strong atheists can indeed be agnostic.
Don't know what I was thinking when I wrote that.
-
Not Garbage
"Since there is absolutely not one shred of evidence that a God (let alone a God of the Bible) exists- "
What would you consider to be acceptable "proof" when it comes to the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, transcendental, supernatural force of creation?
"Oh and it's nice to know that the physicist Stephen Weinberg can be dismissed because the author's husband thought 'he didn't make any sense'."
That's not what she said and that's not the response she quoted from her husband.
You seem pretty upset about a topic that is supposedly no more important to you than "the rehabilitation of the Joker in a Batman comic".
Methinks thou doth protest too mucho. I bet you were on your knees praying fervently for supplication and forgiveness the minute after you hit that "Publish My Letter" button.
-
Jonathan
Thank you. As a skeptical Christian (is that a paradox?) I haven't really kept close track of the natural divisions between atheists, but have only noted that there are a lot of pretty insecure ones who lash out here every time anything remotely resembling a spiritual issue is discussed. You've actually educated me, in a thoughtful way, with a few carefully chosen words. Greatly appreciated, too.
As for a reasonable discourse, I'd love it. The subject? Wow...so much stuff, so little time! I think the health of the planet has been pretty high on my list of ponders recently, tied in with wondering where the line exists between what is excessive materialism and what is reasonable (given that we do live in a material world). Like, how do we persuade people to live sanely in an America where "he who dies with the most toys wins"? That's just the first thing that popped into my head. I enjoy a reasonable discourse on just about anything, really. Especially with thoughtful people.
-
Cosmo
What would I consider proof of a God?
How about he does Letterman? Or how about he gives us a stone tablet with a proof of the Riemann hypothesis engraved on it?
You said:
"Methinks thou doth protest too mucho. I bet you were on your knees praying fervently for supplication and forgiveness the minute after you hit that "Publish My Letter" button."
So in your world there's no such thing as an atheist, just suppressed closet Christians who pray when no-one is looking? Why don't you try giving logical thought a go once in a while? What do you have to lose?
-
christianjb
Since my Spidey sense is telling me you love Star Trek just as much as Batman, I know you'll recognize this quote: "What would God need with a starship?"
By the same token, why would God need to prove the Rhyming Hypothesis to the likes of me and you? His ways are too mysterious for that sort of showiness. He knows when to hold 'em, and He knows when to fold 'em, grasshopper.
-
Cosmo
You disagreed with me and you couldn't come up with much of a good counter-argument so you decided instead to think up some pathetic Star-Trek insult?
Well, I guess it's not too long before someone on these pages calls me a Republican, a racist, a warmonger or a fascist. Oh and let's not forget 'misogynist' (copyright Anne Walsh).
A.J. already wins a prize for rationalizing anyone who doesn't share his absurd beliefs in a superman father figure as a hater.
-
Cosmo Guzzardi
"Since there is absolutely not one shred of evidence that a God (let alone a God of the Bible) exists- "
What would you consider to be acceptable "proof" when it comes to the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, transcendental, supernatural force of creation?
If you note, the post you are replying to mentioned *evidence* not *proof*.
Can you point to any evidence of Intelligent Design?
My personal opinion is that an omniscient and omnipotent God makes free will impossible.
An omniscient and omnipotent God already knows everything about you and everything that you will ever do. This implies that the course of your life is already set in stone so to speak.
-
You have no idea, Daniel Dvorkin
Like many theologians, Pagels lacks the courage
I know Elaine and she has more courage in her little pinky than you probably have in your whole body.
-
Props to Salon for gettin its Gospel on. However, there's an issue left unsaid here.
Why should we believe anything that's written in a Gospel written by Judas?
Another issue this article raises is the custom of laying all the violence of the world on religion's doorstep. After all, Africa's genocide is getting along just fine without Christ.
In other words, it would be nice to have a fuller interpretation of redemption than just saying per Religion, it's bound to lead to violence in ways that wars need.
Religion always comes into play during significant human interactions. That's our nature. To say that it causes the worst of those, though, without giving due credit to positive potentiality is unbalanced.
Great article though.
Thanks!