A Rejection of A Widespread Idolatry

The recent Pew study dealing with religion has been interpreted to say that "21% of Atheists
believe in God"

I was already confounded by the semantics applied
to the designation of Atheist, ie., Hard Atheist & soft Atheist for example. Now with an indicated
Atheistic belief in a God I feel more than justified in giving up on Atheism to express my
belief concerning any 'God Concept'.

As Karen Armstrong has touched on in her approach to the topic of God Belief I have simply rinsed my mind and daily life of any God Concept.

The God Concept not only plays no part in my daily living but also no part in my eventual death other than being one of the many topics of my idle interests.

What a relief to get that God Monkey off my back.

True, I have replaced it with the burdon of taking personal responsibility for my thoughts &
actions which includes not being cought up in the
bickering involved with does he/she or It exist or not.

i agree with your analizise, this all happened caused by power of religions whose makes the human is unhuminity in his thaught...
but i want you explain to me that more of or all of religions never give the saving world

i agree with your analizise, this all happened caused by power of religions whose makes the human is unhuminity in his thaught...
but i want you explain to me that more of or all of religions never give the saving world

righter eremophyte ecotone gater bakuninism palliopedal sylloge perca
http://www.hamiltonsnowber.com/ >Hamilton Snowber Architects
http://www.ultrastyledesigns.com/

blif xkuahze ocmkfl bcmqhoki dptafnegv jykqzf paowid

she has some interesting theories. however Armstrong's ideas are only theoretical, she tends to jump from one point to another point without any clear focus or strong argument. interestingly her thesis was rejected at the london university by the external examiner for the same reason.

I suppose it's way too late to post anything here, but I think this is important. Ms. Armstrong sees atheism as a revolt against certain ways of looking at God, which we atheists are a little offended at. Revolt! No way! It's just lack of evidence! It's all really rational!

Yeah, yeah, yeah. How about a little honesty here?

Most of us started out in religious families, and had to leave religion to arrive at atheism. It's doubtless true in some cases that the religious indoctrination was not pursued, and a graduation to atheism was easy. But I doubt that's the most common case. In most cases, I imagine it really was a revolt. In my case, I had to revolt against the terror of eternal damnation to save my sanity. But again, let's be honest. It was also a drawing away from the dumb, guy-in-the-sky theology I was taught in the Catholic Church. It really was an inadequate concept of God to hold anyone of any intelligence.

At this late date, I doubt there is any concept of God that could pull me back, but I can't help believing that if I had come up in a truly spiritual tradition, something along the lines of Sufiism, say, I might still be happily theistic.

Would I hold with bringing up children in a highly spiritualist belief? Well, not from where I stand now. Armstrong seems to think it's a pity that religion has gotten so weak that it can't hold the thinkers, or else that it's good, because the increase of atheism hails a change in religion. But... But but but. It depends so much on point of view. I'm going to get some sleep and think about it tomorrow.

A very interesting article. I wonder what Armstrong's opinions would be on the likes of Don Cupitt (non-realism) and Thomas Altizer (Christian atheism).

Why are so many people intent on re-defining the word "atheist"?

If you want "atheist" to mean something other than someone who does not believe in gods, then what word do you propose to mean just that?

kuaspmie akju rgvw fnjq otxvb natbroj poca http://www.vpiz.fkbswmiyp.com

anrj fydoxkp pbteixlw zraglmut mird qtly tsgafz

Candide:
"Karen Armstrong doesn't really believe in God. She has written a number of books which are pap for the semi-educated. But she pretends she is not an atheist when she clearly is no believer."

Candide, do you know Armstrong or have you heard her say that she doesn't really beleive in God? How have you come to know this with such confidence?

"I have advanced degrees, taught at a major university, and know all this crap about religion. Armstrong has made a lot of money pandering to the semi-illiterates in our midst, distinctly lower brow: people who went to college but spent their time boozing and whoring and now want some knowledge."
Candide, who are refering to, people you know here (in our midst). How do you know these things about these readers? Oh and are you now looking for work (I guess you lost your teaching position? Can't imagine why)

"Ashley, you must know that Karen wrote a history of a being you insist does not exist. Isn't the fact that God has a history enough?"

I disagree. Karen did not write about the history of a being (God). She wrote the history of the use of the word "God" in the West. Let's not mistake the word for the thing. This is especially important when the thing is an imagined thing being mistaken for a real thing.

Ms Armstrong wrote:

"Monotheists have always warned against idolatry. It may be that the atheism that is taking hold is a rejection of a widespread idolatry which has forgotten that any conception of the divine is bound to be inadequate"

Hindu's may have thousands of "Gods" while monotheists have one "God".

Monotheists feel no problem in disbeliving the existance of thousands of Hindu "Gods" and yet cannot seem to accept that atheists are doing the same thing...just going one tiny step further.

Atheists are consequent as opposed to monotheists who look confused, biased and flawed by comparison..."THEIR gods don't exist but MY God DOES!"

The absolute arrogance of people who point the finger of disbelief at polythiests, perhaps even calling some of them "idolators" while telling atheists that they are wrong for not believing in just "their own God", be it Christian or Muslim...it never fails to amaze!

Words like "idolatry" and "blasphemy" belong in the dim and distant past!

Karen,

Your sympathies towards the mohammedans is well known, here's an invitation to a debate, you can select any topic from the list.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/challenge.htm

Perhaps you'll put on a better show than the muslims !

You (and everyone here) can join our forum here:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/index.php

Ashley,
I'm reminded of the quote “A man has to believe in something. I believe I’ll have another beer.” In fact we believe in all sorts of things besides religious things. Belief and faith are important because they in fact affect behavior. Of course that does not mean that belief in a god is important - it may be a more accurate reflection of reality to believe that there is no god.

I do not need to believe in god to be moral, faithful to my wife, a good father to my kids, laugh, obey the law, or be inspired and marvel at things such as the Grand Canyon.

I believe that Karen's original points may actually obscure rather than clarify the issue of athiesm. One can enjoy the myth of Santa Clause and enjoy Christmas without believing in Santa, his raindeer or even in Christ. Marveling at and wondering about the world and life need not be a religious activity or require god. Sam Harris is probablly right, there is no special name for those of us who don't believe that Elvis is still alive - perhaps there shouldn't be a special name for those that don't believe in a living god.

That was a fascinating article followed up with lots of bile. I am amazed at how quickly every Christian is lumped togther into one evil stupid inane group. And yet we're supposed to just say... "How silly of me to believe!"
You are trying to attract flys with vinegar instead of honey. And I'm not sure which bible people keep referring to that has such an evil god in it either. I have three different translations and none of them have an evil god.

Arthur comments on what he calls the "controversial rulings of the Supreme Court against the 'Under God' part of the Pledge of Allegiance."

Arthur, there have been no such supreme court rulings.

Atheism Is not a belief system in an of itself.

Many different people have come to the conclusion of atheism and from many different philosophies and religious experiences.

Atheism is not Marxist, it is not Objectivist, it is not always a conclusion reached from Logic. It can be also reached using emotion.

You can be a Liberal or a Conservative or an Anarchist or any point therein.

Atheism can be a formal statement of non-belief but it can also be the fact that you have no knowledge or awareness of some theistic belief that others hold.

We are, it has been correctly stated, born atheistic. We can gain a knowledge about Gods or any theistic view only from parents and community that we are born into. Or by inventing our own Gods or God.

In fact we can say that we are all atheists in respects to other peoples Gods.

Most Atheists really just don't believe because it did not make sense to them. Some do not believe for an emotional reason like the death of a loved one that made them question their beliefs. Some actually have a religion that does not require the belief in the supernatural. Some do not see a difference in "God" or the Universe, two words for the same thing so to speak. But they are considered Atheist all the same by those who see the concept of "God" as outside of the Universe.

Often we have a problem in that "God" has no working definition that is consistent even sometimes among the same religion and denomination. Einstein is said in the Time magazine "Man of the Century" article to at least have believed in God. The truth of the matter is he probably was using God as a metaphor for the Universe. He did not in his own words "Believe in personal God". Shame on the author of that article for not reading anything Einstein actually wrote except "God does not play Dice with the Universe."

Some pretend to believe because in times past, and in the current state in the more radical muslim controlled countries you can actually be killed for expressing a belief against the status quo. Ever heard of the Inquisition, or the Stoning of Infidels and unbelievers?

Why are there now "Militant Atheists"? Maybe they are not so militant as they are tired of being told that unless they believe in the same fairy tales as their neighbor they will be censured, or excluded from even secular activities.

The United States of American is the first Nation to not have any particular religious doctrine being the foundation of it's Government. We even have an article in the constitution that forbids any religious test be given to any holder of office elected or appointed. There is no requirement to say "So Help me God" in the President's Oath. That is a personal choice to do so.

The farther back in time you go the more closely linked religion seems to be to the Ruling Bodies. We once had God-Kings, representatives of heaven on Earth, Some like Egypt claimed that the first Kings or Pharaohs were the Gods them selves. Later we had Kings and Rulers that said they Ruled by Divine Right and the Pope backed them up on it.

Was the United states influenced by Christianity? Yes, undoubtedly. Is it the singular influence that Christians of the far right would have you believe? No far from it. Much of the influence comes from individuals who began to think for themselves, the merchants of venice, The Greeks and the Romans for example.

They also questioned the great experiments of Europe, and did not want the disasters as they saw them of the Papists, and Church of England. That to me is the biggest influence that the Church or Faiths of man had on the founding Fathers. They seemed to have wanted each man to make up his own mind and not be bullied by a government or other group. They actually thought that it was a matter or personal choice, but they also thought that open discussion was healthy so long as no one was excluded because of a Majority Ruling.

We do seem to have the odd and contrary notion that the "Majority Rules" in this country. John Adams gave warnings about the evils of a true democracy, that it lead to only anarchy.

The controversial rulings of the Supreme Court against the "Under God" part of the Pledge of Allegiance are not an attack on Christianity. The reality is it is a support of it, or rather each individuals right to choose. If you take that choice away and enforce it, you now take a road that the Founders feared.

They thought that picking and saying "We are a Christian Nation" was a prelude to saying that we are a Baptist Nation or a Catholic Nation, or a Lutheran Nation, or a Unitarian Nation, or a Deist Nation. First we exclude those who are not Christians, then we exclude those who are not our particular denomination. Remember, they were all well aware that we did not live in harmony as a freely choosing Christians.

Believe it or not, while many came to this country to practice their religion as they saw fit, when they got here they found that even here there were others who would not let them and in fact would kill them for being a Quaker, or Anabaptist, or Catholic or Jew, or Muslim, or Hindu. So much for Freedom of Religion as the basis of our Founding Pilgrims. The Puritans were a violent lot, so to were many others.

I say this:

"It is a weak Religion that requires the Government to Sanction or support it. It should stand on its own merits or fall for a lack of them."

Arthur

Timmay,

I found your account of your Catholic school exerience riveting. I wonder if you can share where (country or state) and when (decade) this supposedly took place?

As a skeptic, I don't mind saying that your story flunks the smell test.

Timmay wrote:
--- I also agree that Jesus taught the golden rule (as do many religions). What is unfortunate is how few followers of Christ seem to follow the golden rule. The pervasive attitude is 'my way or the highway', as is evident here from all the vitriol aimed at atheists. If you really are a follow of Christ, won't you love aethists even though you might not understand their point of view?---

As an athiest who was raised a catholic I completely agree with this statement. Much of what the catholic elementary school taught me I agreed with. A lot of that was the golden rule. When a kid forgot his lunch we all chipped in a little of our own lunches so he could eat. When we heard an ambulance pass by we all prayed for the hurt person to be well. We were taught to pray for those people in the world who did not believe in God or were not taught of God, not to hate them. As children I think we all accept these loving teachings. I believe all humans accept them which is why the golden rule is universally accepted.

But then the reality began to creep in around the 4th grade. The beatings when something Christ said was questioned. The fires of hell threatened for doubt in God's existence. Then the prejudices crept in. When I asked why our school only had white students I was sent to the principle's office where I was asked why I thought anyone other than whites deserved to go to such a good school. When I responded that in God's eyes we were all his children I was told that god descriminates sending those who are bad to hell and those who are good to heaven, so why shouldn't people discriminate. When I protested I was hit. After a few years of that I began to wonder just what this whole belief system was for. Not my soul certainly.

In college I found the catholics, some I grew up with, secluding themselves. One friend said I should join the Newman Center, a catholic center on campus, so we could do more together. When I asked him why I should surround myself with only likeminded people instead of living in the real world he was taken aback and asked whether I considered myself catholic. At the time I did but he concluded I was not a catholic and was not for catholics if I did not join the center. I asked what he meant by "for catholics". Were catholics under attack? Did we need to meet in secret to maintain our faith like christians in the 1st century? Yes he said. I was amazed at his with-us-or-against-us point of view. He bagan asking whether I'd marry someone not catholic. Sure I said, if I was in love. He gruffed. Would you raise your children in some other religion? Maybe I said, it depended on its teachings and whether I agreed with them. "Ah ha!" he screamed, "you might agree with other religions! That means you would turn your back on the catholic church." The logic was really being lost to me. I asked whether other christians were less likely to go to heaven. Only catholics go to heaven was his answer. When I asked whether this was God's word he abruptly left, not answering the question.

Today I've pretty much concluded that most religions have it wrong, the idolitry Moses warned against has been adopted by christians, making Christ an idol. The golden rule we were taught as children and eagerly accepted morphed into reasons for an us/them attitude, discrimination and hatred in some cases. One only need look at the Klan, al-Qaida, Pat Robertson or George W. Bush to see how religious belief can be twisted to accomodate actions in opposition to the belief with the simple golden rule a long forgotten underpinning of christianity and most other religions.

Martiniano,

How many Americans? I don’t know actually, but my impression is that it is more common than one might expect. There is such a variety religions available to choose from here and they are certainly not shy about marketing themselves so we have more flux among our religious groups than most nations might. This is a product of our freedom of religion. More to the point, critical thought or soul searching are not required to change religions or variants. A goodly portion of the changing reflects social factors more than religious beliefs, especially when the change is between denominations within the Christian or Muslim families.

As far as “so fiercely” is concerned, I’m not persuaded that it is a consequence of the fear of thinking for themselves. I was raised with Latin people, many of whom were the product of Jesuit schools. Trust me, Jesuits were quite capable of thinking for themselves, and more than willing to think for everyone else as well. They were also true believers. I’m more inclined to suspect that it is related to the fear of losing the security and comfort felt by the believer as a consequence of his beliefs. But I don’t know because I’ve just never been able to get that far myself. I miss those Jesuits who did not shy away from engaging such questions way back when I was a lad.

is it not amazing how atheists' supposed unshakeable commitment to facts, evidence and rigorous analysis fly out the window when it comes to attacking someone on their list of favorite enemies?

then they give themselves a free pass to fantasize, hyperbolize, leap to conclusions, rumor-monger, make stuff up out of thin air, eschew logic, and generally take leave of their senses.

for example, what proportion of the statements made in these discussions about President Bush (excluding pure opinion) are factually accurate? not a lot.

Cayambe wrote"

"I do find it extraordinarily difficult to understand the basis upon which individuals select a religion to believe and then believe it with such certainty."

That's thought provoking.

How many Americans have really chosen their religion? Don't most just accept the religion handed to them without any critical thought or soul searching. In this passive sense any religion must be as good as another or else Muslims wouldn't raise Muslims and Christians wouldn't raise Christians.

And they believe it so fiercely, I believe, because to act otherwise would be to open themselves to having to actually think for themselves.

Ahhhh SMAFDY………marshal a little self-discipline here and dedicate yourself to your idea for a few days at least. The pattern revealed is the basis for a few observational points. One point is that human societies always seem to have a religion, often unique. One way of looking at this is that it lends credence and substance to the existence of God, in one form or another. Perhaps the differences among the Gods simply reflects the inadequacies of our individual perceptions of the same God. In that respect there is but one God, seen differently from group to group. Another way of looking at it is that we are hardwired for religion and if one is not provided, we will invent it; indeed we occasionally invent a new one despite having already many to choose from. The plethora of choices reflects the richness of our imaginations that are compelled to minimize our awful fears of death and dying, and to support our side whenever we need it ala the good fortune of (Jenju(pbuh)).

I’m partial to the second way of looking at it since it fits my self perception of the fear of death and the desire for an “advantage” in any contest I might find myself. Now I’ve never actually been able to persuade myself that God exists and will give me eternal life in heaven or that he gives a crap whether I win or lose, but there is no doubt about it; I sure wish he did exist, indeed I would even go so far as to hope he does exist and has just chosen not to reveal himself to me. As for the first way, I have yet to have even an internal sense of God. much less an external physical one.

I do find it extraordinarily difficult to understand the basis upon which individuals select a religion to believe and then believe it with such certainty. Is Christianity more certain than Islam? Seriously, each has a book, written by men, with the “Word of God” supporting it, Each has its prophet. Both claim to worship the same God. Upon what basis would one choose one over the other, lend one more credence than the other. Why is Aveta not as credible as either one. At least I would be free in that case to imagine a beautiful woman with a radiant smile with no holes in it and beautiful smiling Irish eyes. I don’t see why God cannot be a sexy attractive female; if your going to worship God, she may as well be worthy of it.

I second your opinion of Dan S. post. It was good.

Timmay, sorry for the friendly fire.

Karen Armstrong, thank you and God Bless you.

Ms. Coulter, after careful consideration I can only come to the conclusion that you have programmed yourself to hold certain truths to be self-evident. Very fast, but that is extremely dangerous I caution you. You lose the ability to self-correct errors. Might I respectfully suggest a reflash of your BIOS with the aid of one or more professionals. It would then be a matter of cleaning out the trash on your hard drive. In no time flat you will be as fine as you look. Girl, friend. Regards.

QUOTE God died in Auschwitz UNQUOTE Ah, I thought so, or at least this thought had occurred to me. To the children of Israel I pose this question, "Why do you think Hitler felt justified in pursuit of his final solution?" Look how pseudo-cons have perverted my beloved Country to suit their own ends. This Country, who in no small way, snatched sons and daughters of Israel from oblivion. This Country who has stood by the Israel state AFTER forcing a settlement there. This Country who has supplied arms and training, and everything needed by Israel to defend herself against any aggressor. This Country, who honors Colin Wolf as a child of the United States. Look children of Israel. Look how you have preverted my country for your own needs. DO NOT QUESTION THE EXISTENCE OF MY GOD!!!!!!! YOU SELFISH, SPOILED, SELF-ABSORBED LITTLE BRATS. YOU THINK YOU ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO HAVE SUFFERED AT THE HANDS OF OTHERS? YOU TALK OF HOLOCAUST DENIAL, YET YOU PAY LITTLE RESPECT TO THE SUFFERING OF AFRICAN AMERICANS ON THIS CONTINENT. I SUPPOSE THAT 1=100 YEARS OF OPPRESSION IS ABOUT RIGHT IN YOUR BOOK OF VALUES. OH MY GOD, PLEASE TAKE THIS ANGER FROM ME.....get out of yourself children of Israel. You pervert the meaning of Holocaust. You make me sick.

Martiniano: I agree with your definition of the golden rule: Do unto others as you would have done unto you.

I also agree that Jesus taught the golden rule (as do many religions).

What is unfortunate is how few followers of Christ seem to follow the golden rule. The pervasive attitude is 'my way or the highway', as is evident here from all the vitriol aimed at atheists. If you really are a follow of Christ, won't you love aethists even though you might not understand their point of view? You seem to understand this, but you sadly seem to be the exception.

My previous post may not have made it clear, but I have absolute respect for all religious beliefs, even if they are not my own. I wonder why so many conservative 'Christians' are not able to exhibit the same behavior.

Brambleton, at least since the Bush administration came into office we non-Christians have been beaten about the head and neck with a brand of "Christianity" that seems barbaric and idiotic.

So called "conservative" Christians want to praise our Constitution and change it as woefully out of date at the same time.

Christians want to declare the US is a Christian nation. Rediculous. Christ taught us to turn the other cheek. If we were a Christian nation instead of attacking Afghanistan and Iraq we would have given them planes and offered them the Sears Tower.

Christians want to change the Constitution to outlaw gay marriage. Some of the most moral and compassionate people I know are gay at a time when Eric Rudolph and his Christian ilk bomb abortion clinics and kill doctors who perform abortions.

Christians want to change our Constitution to outlaw abortions when, as Justice Roberts has stated, it is settled law in this land supported by the majority of people.

Christians think it is OK for the ten commandments to be statued upon our court house steps.

These are just a very few of the ways that Christians have been attacking America from within for the last 6 years.

So don't crap on my porch and then call my house dirty. Christians are now reaping the very hatred they have sown.

BTW, I KNOW there are many good Christians in America - good hearted compassionate people who don't want to change the very document that has founded our great nation. My rant here is not against all Christians, only those who, say, have voted for Bush.

Thanks for making my point Jeff.

Response to Richard Darise :

>
>
>To Anonymous who says:
>========
>Jeff claims that Buddhists have a "...history of >*not* running around murdering people..."

>What a nonsensical statement. Just two >all-too-recent examples: (a) the Khmer Rouge >killing fields; and (b) brutal WWII-era Japanese >militarism abetted by Zen leaders.
>========
>(a) This is a completely fallacious example. The >Khmer Rouge were Communists, not Buddhists. >Buddhist monks, nuns, temples, etc. were their >first targets. (b) Japanese militarism was >mainly, though perhaps not exclusively, >encouraged and abetted by Shintoism, the native >Japanese faith. There were possibly some Zen >priests who supported Japanese military >adventures _in general_, but I've never heard of >any who supported brutality or oppression of >civilians.

Thank you for pointing out the (absurd, obvious) flaws in the response by ANONYMOUS. As you stated, the Khmer Rouge were motivated to their horrible acts by the ideology of Communism. The Japanese in WW-II were motivated primarily by nationalism. I would ask ANONYMOUS (or any of the other goofy christian sheeple who believe that a creator god is an absolute neccesary for moral behavior) to find an actual instance in the past 25 centuries where masses of people were incited by Buddhist ideology to commit murder.

The fallacy of attributing the vioelnce of a particular regime to the traditional religion of that culture would "prove" that Hitler's murders were the fault of christians. Come to think of it, though, by killing Jews he was just carying out what Martin Luther considered to be the noblest act a christian could perform...

After reading these threads, I've come to the conclusion that this has all been set up by the Post to facilitate anti-Christian sentiment. You would think that Christians around the country are smashing heads until people convert. God forbid someone speaks of Christian love and compassion. Crusaders! Nazi! Hitler!

Let's get a grip people and dial down the rhetoric. Then maybe, MAYBE, we can have a healthy dialogue. If you don't want to believe in Christianity, fine. My job is to make you aware of Jesus' love for you - and that's it. I can't and won't force you into anything (We'll leave that to other religions). You want to spend eternity in Hell, it's your choice. (And going to Hell shouldn't matter to you if you don't believe in the first place).

Rich blessings.

Timmay,

I think you have made a mistake.

The Golden Rule goes like this:

Do unto others as you would have done unto you.

But your post seems to have this definition:

Do unto others as they have done unto you.

If the golden rule holds sway at the end of the day then you treat others with respect even if they disrespect you. We recently saw the Golden Rule at it's finest when Quakers attended the funeral of the man who broke into their school and murdered their children.

By your definition the Quakers would have armed themselves and stormed the town.

Which of these definitions do you think Christ had in mind when he told us to Love the Lord your God and Love your neighbor as yourself?

At the end of the day, all religions aside, it is the golden rule that holds sway with me. If you choose to disrespect my beliefs, and to vilify me for having beliefs different than yours, then you should completely understand why I choose to disrespect your beliefs and to vilify you for your beliefs. It's that simple, and religion has nothing to do with it.

At the same time, if you expect me to respect your beliefs and customs, then PLEASE have the common courtesy and maturity to respect mine. Any religion that can't meet that simple criteria is unworthy of my time.

Hey Toldyaso,

Did you write your post telepathically or did you use a "possession" to write it? Do you live in your own house or do you room with friends in whatever town you are in? Do you have a coat or did you give it to one who needs it? Do you happily pay your taxes regardless of how it is spent or how much is asked from you?

Don't assume that what you know is all that must be known.

The only hatred that I see is spewing from you.

We should not be surprised by the anti-religion hatred that spews forth on these blogs. Christ told us that those who loved the world and its possessions would hate us as they hated Him.

As a Christian, I agree that we should not attack or demean people of other faiths. Nor should we force our beliefs on others.

If God is real (and He is), then He is more than able to reveal Himself to those who want to know Him. I believe this is consistent with the teachings of Christ, who taught us to chiefly obey the Law of Love.

I admire, for example, the way that Paul the Apostle presented the Gospel to philosophers in Athens (Acts 17:22-31).

Paul himself was a very intelligent and educated man and a great thinker in his own right. He was also very humble and had a sincere love and reverence for God. He wasn't a Bible-basher or a crusader.

It is true that, at one time in his life, he persecuted Christians. But he became a very different man after a personal encounter with Christ.

While in Athens, Paul so intrigued some of the philosophers there, that he was invited to make a special appearance at a place called Mars Hill, where people gathered for philosophical discussions. As Paul began to share, he talked about an alter that he had noticed in Athens with the inscription: "To the Unknown God."

Paul went on to say: "Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you."

The word "ignorant" here is not meant to be taken in a derogatory fashion. The original Greek word is agnoeo, which means to not know or understand.

Paul was saying: "You're worshiping the Unknown God. Well, allow me to introduce you to Him."

This was in no way intended to be arrogant. The people in Athens did not claim to know God. However, as a Christian, Paul's faith was all about having a personal intimacy with God.

It's great to have theoretical discussions about the Unknown God. But it's even better to get to know Him for yourself.

Ms Armstrong, thank you for this post and for every one of your books - they're all in my library. You helped me grow through the shroud of evangelical Christianity in which I was raised. You helped me understand that questioning my beliefs was OK and that I would not be turned to a pillar of salt if I wondered if the Bible was truly God's Word.

In this post you said something that everyone needs to hear over and over - we need to come to these conversations with a willingness to be changed. With a desire to listen to differing views.

Isn't the Christian who wondered and returned, who honestly questioned their faith and found it to be good at a higher level of personal growth than the one who believed "give me that old time religion, it's good enough for me"?

Martin - the Omnitheist.

As a Christian, I agree that we should not attack or demean people of other faiths. Nor should we force our beliefs on others.

If God is real (and He is), then He is more than able to reveal Himself to those who want to know Him. I believe this is consistent with the teachings of Christ, who taught us to chiefly obey the Law of Love.

I admire, for example, the way that Paul the Apostle presented the Gospel to philosophers in Athens (Acts 17:22-31).

Paul himself was a very intelligent and educated man and a great thinker in his own right. He was also very humble and had a sincere love and reverence for God. He wasn't a Bible-basher or a crusader.

It is true that, at one time in his life, he persecuted Christians. But he became a very different man after a personal encounter with Christ.

While in Athens, Paul so intrigued some of the philosophers there, that he was invited to make a special appearance at a place called Mars Hill, where people gathered for philosophical discussions. As Paul began to share, he talked about an alter that he had noticed in Athens with the inscription: "To the Unknown God."

Paul went on to say: "Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you."

The word "ignorant" here is not meant to be taken in a derogatory fashion. The original Greek word is agnoeo, which means to not know or understand.

Paul was saying: "You're worshiping the Unknown God. Well, allow me to introduce you to Him."

This was in no way intended to be arrogant. The people in Athens did not claim to know God. However, as a Christian, Paul's faith was all about having a personal intimacy with God.

It's great to have theoretical discussions about the Unknown God. But it's even better to get to know Him for yourself.

No, Anthony. Nice try, though.

To Anonymous who says:
========
Jeff claims that Buddhists have a "...history of *not* running around murdering people..."

What a nonsensical statement. Just two all-too-recent examples: (a) the Khmer Rouge killing fields; and (b) brutal WWII-era Japanese militarism abetted by Zen leaders.
========
(a) This is a completely fallacious example. The Khmer Rouge were Communists, not Buddhists. Buddhist monks, nuns, temples, etc. were their first targets. (b) Japanese militarism was mainly, though perhaps not exclusively, encouraged and abetted by Shintoism, the native Japanese faith. There were possibly some Zen priests who supported Japanese military adventures _in general_, but I've never heard of any who supported brutality or oppression of civilians.

It takes a lot of faith to believe there is no God...

Karen Armstrong, my apologies. I do hope to contribute on point to your forum, just one more off topic warning here: Ms. Coulter, if one considers how incredible it is for one of your gifts to be so fundamentally wrong, that person should be able to more fully understand my concern and search for extraordinary explanations. Keeping it simple just doesn't add up. This is of great concern in my constructs of the realities of God's experiment. Something is wrong with the reality based reboot of cognition safeguards. Perhaps a baseline breed....I have already apologized for my intended trespasses, please forgive any that were completely unintentional as well? Best regards, Bruce P.S. Ms. Armstrong, perhaps these points are not that far off? Thank you.

PETE:

What?

Your post needs a complete re-write for clarity.

After reading it several times, I think I get your point, and offer these responses:

1. Paragraph 1: I don't think this is accurate. You attribute beliefs to us that we don't espouse.

2. When the six year old is laying in a pile of rubble whith their hands or feet blown off, I am absolutely certain that they are wondering why this happened to them. Oh yeah - they chose their own actions, and are now paying god's price. And you, of all people, refer to us as losers.

3. Yes - we have a grudge against social tradition as responsible for our suffering. That tradition is called Religion.

4. As atheists, we typically don't hold services, agree to a creedo, or associate based on our atheism, so it's kind of dumb to accuse us of having a collective concious or of being anything less than individual in our "class-struggle" to liberate ourselves from our "childhood issues".

5. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em? Nothing beats the truth. Truth is above the game.

It appears that atheists have a belief after all but what on is unknown. They have subtly embraced such concepts as Nature and Nirvana as opposed to the Western concept of a 'conscious collective'. But their rejection is not of God but rather of the Western conscious collective, which is a natural organisation of a struggle against the rulers, a Marxist concept. Also, Nature is a social phenomenon while Nirvana, is a state of mind.

While atheists have mistaken a Capitalist concept for religion, their understanding of the Christian God is that of a powerful rescuer who wouldn't let people free to choose their own action and be responsible, but rather watching your every move and either destroy the enemy or save you from danger! This is the same understanding as that of a six year old.

These losers have a grudge against social tradition as responsible for their suffering. They are seeking to heal their childhood issues as a collective, and not as individuals. It is fitting to the concept of conscious collective, of their feeling deprived by traditions; their awareness of their feelings organized their collectivity. It is a conscious collective. It classifies it a social or class struggle and not a religious one.

I was in the thought that atheists provided the antithesis for believers, but now they have a belief of their own. I guess if you can't beat them why not join them huh!

What I am getting back that is constructive could best be summarized by Ashlee Simpsons "I am me boyfriend, etc.". Of course I accept and respect that. I too am myself. I am Liberal, and most certainly I am NOT Godless, therefore it follows that YOU, Ms. Coulter are fundamentally wrong. Modify your constructs or become irrelevant in this new day and age. Best regards. Bruce.

Bgone,

Here's another possible answer to your question, "Is there any chance that whatever is, is not?"

I may well be wrong, but I understand that some quantum physicists think that the universe may blink on and off, at some set frequency, like
the yellow traffic lights at intersections. When it's off there's no universe, when it's on there is.

So perhaps everything is and isn't within the space of a nanosecond - just like Schrodinger's cat.

Frozen 1:

Jengu loves Coulter, too. (Didn't read the original Coulter post, so I can't comment on any of that).

Coulter is well-loved.

Slightly off topic warning: Coulter, if spiritual Existentialism is too fluffy for you, try Exorcism instead. Not trying to be funny, but you do screech like a demon possessed. Alternatively, stay the way you are. Obviously you have found paradise of some type. Tear this apart if you wish. I just did not want to give up on you without one last attempt to get past your reactive armor plating. God loves you. Be good to yourself.

Bgone,

Thanks for your comment at 11:34 p.m. last night. I slept late so I've just caught up with it.

You asked: "Is there any chance that what is, is not?" Of course. Do you recall the "Holodeck" in Star Trek?. It created the perfect 3-dimensional world of whatever you wanted, but it wasn't. At least it wasn't what it seemed. But the whole show was what "it was" even though it seemed to be something different.

Compare the Buddhist take on your question. Nothing has any inherent identity, despite its appearance. A dog is not a dog. What you see as a dog is a product of causes and conditions inseparable from everything in all the universes.
Or, as the Buddha said, "Nothing is as it seems, and is also not otherwise."

Speaking of dogs and God. "Dog" is a three-letter word that refers to a kind of animal that I recognize. That sort of animal is the referent of the word "dog." "God" is a three-letter word that refers to - what? Nothing that I can recognize. So the word "God" has no referent. It appears that it refers to nothing at all - certainly nothing that exists - or "is."

You also wrote: "Did those $500/hr lawyers ever decide what the word 'is' means? God is a three-letter word. They don't stand a chance with it."

How do you like my parsing of these issues? Would it surprise you to learn that I was once a lawyer? Never charged $500 an hour though.

Happy New Year to you, if there is such a thing.

There goes atheism right down the tubes. Just when I couldn't prove there is no God here comes JENGU. My luck has been on the blink recently so I'm building an altar with the works. Then I'm gonna catch me an evangelical and sacrifice him to JENGU. If that don't work I'll pick my atheism up where it left off.

It's comforting to know one is not alone at the crap table. JENGU is right there by your side. But can JENGU cure herpese?

candide:

Thanks for the clarification.

Smafdy: I am not a Christian, as you seem to believe; I guess you can't read very well.

I have advanced degrees, taught at a major university, and know all this crap about religion. Armstrong has made a lot of money pandering to the semi-illiterates in our midst, distinctly lower brow: people who went to college but spent their time boozing and whoring and now want some knowledge.

I hope to post this as a feature each day, but I'm not that dedicated to the idea, so it might be more sporadic than that.

GOD OF THE DAY!

From Wikipedia's "List of deities" entry.

In order of appearence.

JENGU

A jengu (plural miengu) is a water spirit and deity in the traditional beliefs of the Sawa ethnic groups of Cameroon, particularly the Duala, Bakweri, and related Sawa peoples. Among the Bakweri, the name is liengu (plural maengu). They are similar to West African Mami Wata figures, though belief in miengu likely predates most Mami Wata traditions.

The miengu's appearance differs from people to people, but they are typically said to be beautiful, mermaid-like figures with long, wooly hair and gap-toothed smiles. They live in rivers and the sea and bring good fortune to those who worship them. They can also cure disease and act as intermediaries between worshippers and the world of spirits. For this reason, a jengu cult has long enjoyed popularity among the Duala peoples. Among the Bakweri, this cult is also an important part of a young girl's rite of passage into adulthood.

Hey, what's not to worship about good ol' Jengu (or miengu)?

BONUS GOD! (chosen at random):

AVETA

In Celtic mythology and especially Gaul, Aveta or Lyregwyn was a goddess of female-fertility, childbirth and midwives, also associated with all fresh water.

Seems like Jengu and Aveta have some similar characteristics. Hmmmmm. Proof of existence? I wonder if Aveta is a mermaid-like figure with long, wooly hair and a gap-toothed smile (and Irish eyes a'smilin').

What variety of prescription drugs is the best seller? Why do people go to the alleys and buy illegal drugs? Why is Budweiser so popular?

Thinking people should be able to understand. When they were children they were threatened with the fires of hell. That put a demon on a very important "bridge of the mind" the nebol bridge. Their natural fear of death was increased. Not only will you die they are told but you must do as God's representatives tell you else you will be set on fire to burn forever.

The demon on the nebol bridge is an addiction. Drugs, alcohol and religion are all in the same class of things. Drugs and alcohol are all Devil juice. What is religion, God juice? Your professional mental health expert says otherwise. Unfortunately, he/she is faced with the same addiction(s).

Conclusion: planet earth is in the throws of a mental health crisis. Over 10,000 nuclear weapons in the hands of the emotionally disturbed is not comforting to those with a little sanity left. Could they be atheists?

The answer is obvious. All worship is Devil worship for it is Devil and not God that is installed on the nebol bridges of the children. Doing so, threatening children with the fires of hell is child abuse, in my opinion. Hiding behind the first amendment does not stop the law from keeping children out of rattle snake dancing to demonstrate FAITH.

Ba'al,

As Muslims we are aware of the fact that there are times when people get involved in wars whether they like or not. The verses you listed were revealed at a time when the Muslim minority had a peace treaty with the some people around them. The problem was that those same people did not keep their side of the bargain. They kept attacking, harassing and killing the Muslim community. That's in a nut shell of the situation at the time. Chapter nine deals with that issue and how the Muslims should deal with it and declares that the peace treaty is null and void. Defending yourself and standing up to your enemies and fighting off oppression is not such a bad thing, is it. I don't see why you have a problem with that. I think it is necessary to know the context of events that happen. Otherwise you end up with certain misunderstanding and making the wrong conclusion.
You list K 47:004"...or let them ransom themselves until the war terminates." Right there until WAR terminates. And I don't see why you list K9:29-31 any way. As far as not taking some of the people of the book as friends is concerned I would say the same thing. At the time there were some Jews and Christians who were hostile to the new Muslim community and wanted them to be disposed off. In the Quran we are told that the Muslims loved the Jews and the Christians as people of the book, respected and believed what has been revealed to them from God before but those same people did not reciprocate with same feelings but wanted but harm to them. Sometimes it's easy to be lazy and just read the polemics and think you have a good idea and knowledge of certain subject; Far from it...

Dan S:

Good one.

The disdain some of the posters here have for Karen Armstrong's careful, measured, and courteous thoughts reflects the fanaticism with which various of you would treat those with whom you disagree. I see little difference between radical atheists who would hope to hang all believers (see the comment above about believers' "necks" to be "Saddamized") and fanatical believers who betray their own religious ideals to bash those who don't hold rigid views like their own.

To: candide, savannah, ga USA, Posted January 2, 2007 6:13 PM (the first post on this topic):

Hey Candide! Usually I have to read at least a few posts before I find something that irks me enough to respond. Today, I came to yours right off the bat. Thanks - it's a real timesaver.

You wrote:

"Karen Armstrong doesn't really believe in God. She has written a number of books which are pap for the semi-educated. But she pretends she is not an atheist when she clearly is no believer."

Pap for the semi-educated? And that would make you...

...educated?

Boorish is more like it.

I have read The History of God. It's not an easy read, and frequently not enjoyable (the same can be said of many scholarly texts). However, to insult the readers of an author's work as being semi-educated and pap-fed at that, is the height of haughtiness.

So exactly what are your qualifications for making such a statement (other than being a Christian)?

Which of the author's books have you read?

Have you ever been published as a literary critic?

As for education - do you hold a degree in Literature? History? Political Science? Theology?

....Crickets Chirping...

Posted January 2, 2007 6:13 PM

Bob wrote: "Religions offer no real indications of any emerging (global) future; in fact, they only create more violence and cultural fragmentation." What about the Baha'is, whose approach is global, based on a recognition of the oneness of God, oneness of religion, and oneness of humanity?

Victoria extols the Qur'an as the "final revelation." You are proving the atheist critics' point. Your co-religionists persecute my fellow Baha'is because Muslims believe there can be no legitimate revelation after Muhammad. I think it actually is possible to have one's views and at the same time not kill, persecute, and disadvantage those who disagree with you. It is called the golden rule and every religion has taught it.

Wayne:

Atheists do not deny god - the very premise of that statement is that god exists. Atheists do not believe that god exists - not remotely the same as denying something.

BTW, gravity is a very bad example. Atheists do believe in gravity, because there is an abundance of empirical evidence supporting it. If someone can provide empirical evidence that god exists, I will certainly reconsider.

Ashley:

“What else explains all the panelists who seem compelled to define gods in a way which atheists would just HAVE to accept. I mean, come on, everybody knows that YA GOTTA HAVE FAITH!”

I hear your frustration loud and clear. And I would never want to suggest that you do not know your own mind on a matter of such personal consequence. To do so would be presumptuous and insulting. And you are quite correct that believers, of which I am one, find it almost incomprehensible that a person can really have no faith or god at all. This impulse springs, in part, from our desire to share our personal faith journeys and a hope that our faith can be universalized to one and all. In some cases, as you well know, this impulse becomes judgmental and condescending. It is my sincere hope that I can avoid these pitfalls.

I do think it might be helpful to consider broader definitions of faith and god. Depending upon what one means by faith, some people maintain that all humans need and have a core of beliefs, or if you will, a “faith”. Paul Tillich talks of “faith” as “that with which one is ultimately concerned.” In this use of the term, “faith” is the organizing principle around which people build their lives. And this “faith and/or ultimate concern” need not be traditionally religious in nature. In fact it is often very different than the faith or religious affiliation in which people profess to believe. But whatever the focus of ones “faith” and/or “ultimate concern”, be it religious (of whatever tradition) or secular (science, socialism, capitalism, money, power, sex, reason, narcissism etc…), humans seem to need something “ultimate” that they rest their values upon. And, upon examination, most people will discover that they have developed and engage, whether consciously intended or not, in some kind of ritual practice around this “faith” and/or “ultimate concern”. I personally tend to believe this accurately describes how most humans live.

Again, I would not pretend to either speak for you or any atheist or other believer. However, I think that, as discussed above, faith and god can be viewed in a far broader context than is usual.

Note: Obviously I’ve given a rather simplified overview of Tillich’s ideas on faith. Time and space constrain further elaboration.

Wayne:

Atheists haven't decided to deny god - the very premise of that statement is that god exists. Atheists believe that no god exists - not remotely the same as denying something.

Also, btw, gravity is a very bad example. Atheists do believe in gravity, because there is an abundance of empirical evidence supporting it. If you can provide empirical evidence of god, then we atheists will reconsider.

The difficulty with the premise of the article is that it gives us humans the right to choose whether or not God exists, making ourselves gods. To me, that is a risky decision, like denying gravity exists. It is easy to delude ourselves into believing we are gods, there are millions of ways we delude ourselves every day. All you have to do is watch TV for a few hours and that will be obvious. Of course, God, just like gravity, does not depend upon our believing to exist. To ignore either is to ignore the possibility of a rather rude awakening of our folly.

In the end, our decision to deny God has a flaw. It discounts the fact that God has that same right for us. If He does not exist, then that is not a problem as both the faithful and non believers will find the same end. If He does, then there is more than one end for us, and the faithful will be better equiped for that eventuality. Those who deny God risk Him denying them.

Ms Armstrong: Thank you for sharing your knowledge and views with a world in dire need of your voice.

Victoria, you comment on the perfection of the Koran and wish us peace. These passages from that particular "Word of God" seem not particularly peaceful. In fact, these types of passages become more frequent as the Koran progresses.

K 9:029
Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor do they follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of our superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

K 47:004
So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make them prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom themselves until the war terminates.

K 9:29-31
The Jews call Uzair [Ezra] a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the Son of God. God's curse be on them; how they are deluded away from the truth! They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of God, and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary. Yet they are commanded to worship but One God.

K 5:36-38
The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land.

K 5:54
O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors. They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily God guideth not a people unjust.

One can find much more like this, including passages indicating that able-bodied believers who refuse to fight are cursed by Allah.

Of course Old Testament passages glorifying ethnic cleansing, as in the Book of Joshua, are no better.

Most atheists, to the extent that they think about it at all, think of the Koran, the Old Testament, and the New Testament as interesting pieces of very old literature. Personally, I believe they were written by people with a specific agenda -- in the case of the Hebrew and Christian bibles, not always the same agenda. Regardless of how you may feel about things, there are people in the world who use passages like this as a justification for oppression. I do not intend to single out Muslims in this regard. I do mean to say that atheists reject all of this.

Somewhere else you lambasted me about the current policies in Iraq, Palestine, and elsewhere. (I would like to add Darfur to your list). I agree with you completely. What is scary -- and undeniable -- is that some people justify these pointless wars on religious grounds.

Peace.

Thanks, Dan S, for saying:

"Oh no, not Armstrong too! ... Now [atheism] is just a palate-cleansing sorbet en route to the religious main course?" and for the rest of your comments too. I hope she reads and ponders them.

I'm not so sure she meant to say that a "religious" main course follows atheism, but would like to know what she did mean.

I also wonder about her use of “sacred” (but not “divine”) in relation to atheists, e.g., “… atheism has rarely been a blanket denial of the sacred per se….” and “Even the most fervent atheists often have sacred things in their life….”

In her lexicon, is “divine” reserved for discussion about belief in a supernatural god, while “sacred” is a more general term that can have non-religious meaning? Is she saying atheists can be reverent without believing in God? If so, it seems like another one of those back-handed compliments or unconscious insults that other panelists have given to atheists.

I'll give you this point of view as an atheist.

IF there is a deity, IF for some reason I might be wrong in my empirically verified belief that the divine does not exist, I absolutely believe that no bunch of pedantic monkeys on a misbegotten rock orbiting an unspectacular star in an insignificant galaxy somehow miraculously "got it right". We've been guessing for tens of thousands of years, if Cro-Magnon relics are any indicator, and we're still no closer to an answer after all those attempts to pull a random rabbit out of the hat.

As for atheist ethics, I have to ask you religious nutjobs, who in the Hell ever gave you the exclusive on "do unto others..."? As an atheist, it is entirely my right to salad pick you inanity for the rare gems of actual wisdom you've belched up over the millenia and apply them to human relations. Believe me, the list of addages you've spat out that actually works is a pretty slim memo compared to the reams of bunk y'all've produced, but it does work rather well.

Thank you for an excellent article. I will have to read "A History of God".

"Jews, Christians and Muslims were all called 'atheists' by their pagan contemporaries...because their conception of the divine was so radically different from that of their neighbors that it seemed blasphemous."

And that is the whole issue for me. In my view, there is no such thing as "blasphemy" or "heresy" or "orthodoxy." All those terms are attempts to control what people believe, whether it's Roman-era pagans trying to define the new believers or modern-era Christians and Muslims trying to define atheists.

Would that every believing Christian, Muslim and Jew had but one neck we could Saddamize!

there is a third possibility- the miracle of the Qur'an- 1400 years later and not one comma out of place- written in a current living and spoken language- no translation errors

only the simple exact same true revelation of ALLAH
without any human hand
unique, isnt it?
the final message from God

peace

Warp says, "Why is morality defined in most religions as believing what is right, rather than doing what is right?"

Sorry, but where did you get such a peculiar idea?

Warp goes on, "(Of course, what switched me to atheism was all the errors in the Bible. As Twain noted, it wasn't what God seemed to know in the Bible that got to him, it was what God didn't seem to know... meaning a human hand was involved.)"

So there are only two possibilities: Scripture is 100 percent inerrant or it is 100 percent bogus? Only the strictest form of fundamentalism holds that. (The problem with fundamentalism is that it has no respect for scripture.) Of course a human hand was involved. That does not preclude God revealing Himself.

THANK YOU MS ARMSTRONG
YOU ALWAYS PROVIDE A WIDE AND FAIR OVERVIEW

Like they say in the TV ads:

"Please, folks, try my product."

http://www.pantheism.net/

oh jesus karen you are so right.religion is the problem and NOT the answer.wake-up dear readers most churches are run by money hungry homophobic womanhating ministers and priest. its like a pyramid scheme the only problem is jesus/god she just doesnt exist!

I have to admit, though, that Jeff's comment:

""Why is Atheism in Vogue ?"

Hmmm. I didon't notice. I'll have to pick up a copy."

is divine, albeit in a strictly secular sense. Bravo!

Dookie,

If there is a God that is all powerful and all good then

"If God has spoken, why is the universe not convinced?" --Shelley

Look at all the wars between religions and they still can't agree among themselves.

Why is morality defined in most religions as believing what is right, rather than doing what is right?

Because there is no realexternal force driving this. If there was, we'd see a lot more unity.

(Of course, what switched me to atheism was all the errors in the Bible. As Twain noted, it wasn't what God seemed to know in the Bible that got to him, it was what God didn't seem to know... meaning a human hand was involved.)

Oh no, not Armstrong too! Skimming through the various panel responses, I've already found out that atheism cannot supply an ethical foundation, isn't actually real, is perhaps a mere political response (" little more than the Separation Clause on steroids") or something that just further disfranchises various groups. Now it's just a palate-cleansing sorbet en route to the religious main course?

I mean, ok, she's stressing common-ground similarities and opportunities for dialogue, trying to assimilate or translate atheism into (broader) theistic traditions, making it comprehensible or even positive for thoughtful believers. And I'm sure crude and callow conceptions of God do play a part in propelling some folks towards atheism. And certainly this is much more sophisticated, nuanced, and historically-grounded than the other responses I've read so far. But _c'mon_, lady, you're killin' us here! Yes, yes, viewed in a historical and cross-culture perspective the similarities are greater than they may seem at first. And I wouldn't mind if atheism helps to spark more sophisticated and useful beliefs about God. But I can't help but think that in this sort of conversation one also has to recognize and respect the differences. Otherwise, we perhaps end up with the kind of bemuddlement, if I might coin a word, that seems to characterize Quinn's essay*, or the unintentional echoes of dispensationalism in this one.

In the practical context of this particular conversation, we atheists do not have belief in the existence of divine supernatural beings - God/Gods/etc - nor (modern Western tradition) do we generally seek to project transcendent or ineffable things onto the workings of the universe (within the human world, that's another matter). We don't think God is a different sort of reality, we think God simply _isn't_, just like [insert various rude-sounding stock comparisons with fantastical/childish/silly/discarded beliefs, if one wishes]. We're not just rejecting idolatry, we're rejecting _theology_.

I dunno, I'm usually all about the creative misunderstandings and tacit agreements that grease the wheels of getting along, but something about the mannered and sincerely well-meant attempts to erase/contain/domesticate atheism in so many of the essays here just gets my back up, and makes Dawkinsian tactics seem more and more useful. Interesting.

* (That is, if one is going for the whole logical and coherent set of beliefs & doctrines thing, rather than the far more common and practical day-to-day stuff - often ill-defined and incoherent, sure, but that's entirely besides the point.)

Dookie:
If there is a God as advertised and God showed Himself we could not identify God. There is no miracle so great that it verifys God, that God alone did it. The specification of God dissallows it.

Devil is another supernatural critter with a more reasonable specification. We can identify Devil. And the spec on Devil says he has great power. After all, the chief Devil, Lucifer attempted to take over heaven and throw God out altogether.

Devil's power is great enough to do any miracle the human mind can imagine. That includes all miracles canonizing saints, Fatima, Lourdes, Guadalupe, all that we are told about and for sure knots on trees and stains on subway walls not to slight images on grilled cheese sandwiches.

Then there's the warning. Devil wants everyone in hell. It's a fact that sale of soul to Devil brings the wealth of earth to the seller, maybe. That's what religion is all about. Devil's representatives lead people with FAITH to hell. And it's the worst possible case, they, the faithful pay Devil's fee to Devil's agents, ministers. I can't put the whole story here but I'm sure you're getting the scenario.

Try http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul but don't expect much for it, your soul because the big money goes to those who lead the multitudes to hell.

Oh, almost forgot. There's really good news. The Bible is a proved hoax so you don't need to worry about it. Laugh it up.

If you believe in a god you are fearful of the divine and everyone around you is paying the price for it. Stop being so selfish please.

Is there a 'believer' on this board who believes there are no widespread centuries-long misunderstandings held by millions and not by others. Something not related to religion?

Would we really love God if we knew for sure he existed? I say it is not possible. If God sat on top of a volcano then fear would drive us to God. This is not love.

Norrie, is there any chance that what is is not? I cna't prove an is not so I guess is is.

Speaking of is. Did those $500/hr lawyers ever decide what what the word is means. I've been afraid to use the word ever since I found out how ellusive it's meaning was. God is a three letter word. They don't stand a chance with it.

Thank you Karen Armstrong for your essay. It's very informative and thought-provoking.

As for "God", "gods", "religion", "atheism",
"thinking" and everything else:

What is, is.

The rest is [unnecessary] commentary.

Jeff claims that Buddhists have a "...history of *not* running around murdering people..."

What a nonsensical statement. Just two all-too-recent examples: (a) the Khmer Rouge killing fields; and (b) brutal WWII-era Japanese militarism abetted by Zen leaders.

Dookie: If you only want faith (and presumably only YOUR faith) discussed...

why are you on a public forum that purports to speak from multiple religious viewpoints?

???

Just a thought....

Karen,

I can compromise to accept the existance of a god -- "IF" you give her no characteristics, books, and laws (that were really written by priests.)

Is this what you mean by idolatry?

Your history of God was really a history of what humans made up about God. No?

Has anyone noticed that On Faith isn't really about Faith but more about secular progressive liberals talking about "spirituality" and creating traditional/religious scarecrows.

Atheism is in vogue. I don't really care but I do feel bad for the atheists.

Fern:
There was a time when astrologers were as respectable as the pope is today. What you see in God now is where astrology was at the time. Astrology has been "redefined." Has a lot to do with things like showing the earth is round and stars are not fireflys that ever so slowly fly across the sky.

The source of God, the Bible is now a proved hoax. Like the finding that the earth is round that news is not yet widely known. Whatever will they do for God? Not to worry for God will be "redefined" and religion, faith in scriptures, God's word and scripture interpreters, God's representatives shall continue. Uh, just like astrology continues. Had your palm read recently?

You wrote: "How often we hear preachers, broadcasters and lecturers claiming that "God" wills this and forbids that -- and it is uncanny how often these opinions of the deity coincide with those of the speaker." How very true.

Today Pat Robertson said on the 700 Club that God had personally told him that America was going to be again the victim of a terrible terrorist attack in the year 2007.

Back in 2005 he called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez.

In 2003 he criticized the US government for not supporting notorious indicted war criminal Charles Taylor of Liberia, saying that "So we're undermining a Christian, Baptist president to bring in Muslim rebels to take over the country." Four years earlier, Robertson had made an $8 million investment in a Liberian gold mining venture under an agreement with Taylor's government.

I fail to see any evidence of a "vogue" in atheism. What there is is an increased frenzy on the part of conservative religionists over what they have traditionally defined as secular humanism. If there is a vogue, it's apparently in the resurgence of belief in the end times, a belief that our problems are rooted in our godlessness. The only vogue is the vogue of reinvigorated hostility toward a segment of skeptical humanity that has remained a small but remarkably stable percentage of the planet over the cenuries. What is in vogue is a decision by some of us atheist not to be punching bags for the ignorant anymore, a decision to actively defend the rational and the scientific. We're just being the squeaky wheel.

From Wikipedia, an interesting note on what could happen to people who dared deny a Trinitarian godhead: Michael Servetus (29 September 1511 – 27 October 1553) was a Spanish theologian, physician and humanist. In 1529 he published De trinitatis erroribus ("On the Errors of the Trinity"). The next year he published Dialogorum de Trinitate ("Dialogues on the Trinity") and De Iustitia Regni Christi ("On the Justice of Christ's Reign").

In these books, Servetus built a theology which maintains that the belief of the Trinity is not based on biblical teachings but rather on what he saw as deceiving teachings of (Greek) philosophers. He saw himself as leading a return to the simplicity and authenticity of the Gospels and the early Church Fathers. In part he hoped that the dismissal of the Trinitarian dogma would also make Christianity more appealing to Judaism and Islam, which had remained as strictly monotheistic religions.

On 16 February 1553, Servetus, while in Vienne, was denounced as a heretic by Guillaume Trie, a rich merchant and a very good friend of John Calvin. On June 17, he was convicted of heresy by the French inquisition, "thanks to the 17 letters sent by Jehan Calvin, preacher in Geneva" and sentenced to be burned with his books. On 27 October 1553 Servetus was burned at the stake just outside Geneva. Historians record his last words as: "Jesus, Son of the Eternal God, have mercy on me." Calvin tried to justifiy the use of such harsh punishments, not only against Servetus, but against heretics in general when he wrote:

'Whoever shall maintain that wrong is done to heretics and blasphemers in punishing them makes himself an accomplice in their crime and guilty as they are... Wherefore does he demand of us a so extreme severity, if not to show us that due honor is not paid him, so long as we set not his service above every human consideration, so that we spare not kin, nor blood of any, and forget all humanity when the matter is to combat for His glory.'

Karen -- Thanks for your essay. You are a beautiful writer. I have a couple of questions.

You say,

“In the very early days of their history, Jews, Christians and Muslims were all called "atheists" by their pagan contemporaries.”

Really? It seems odd to apply the term “atheist” to people who have a distinct god. Where can we find references for that statement?

You also say:

“Today many feel the need to rinse their minds of inadequate ideas of God, and may have to enter into what the mystics used to call the dark night of the soul or the cloud of unknowing, so that we can all move forward.

Please tell us, when we move forward, do you think we’ll be more theistic or more atheistic?

Really? Sounds absurd to me. What might a "new synthesis of the divine be"? I'm not even curious, actually.

Even when I disagree with her, I find Karen Armstrong's ideas to be thought provoking. We had a wave of political religion (thesis) and now we're seeing a wave of anti-religion (antithesis). She's arguing that we'll move forward with a new synthesis of the divine. It's a reasonable idea to explore further.

An interesting (perhaps) aside to the question, but let's get back on track in this chat room.

First, the question:

"Atheism is enjoying a certain vogue right now. Why do you think that is? Can there be a productive conversation between believers and atheists, and if so over what kinds of issues?"

Here's my (humble) response:

I don't think "vogue" is accurate; perhaps "on the rise," is more to the point.

The reasons are:

1. We are better educated.

2. Science is more easily available to greater numbers of educated people.

3. Religions offer no real indications of any emerging (global) future; in fact, they only create more violence and cultural fragmentation.

4. The Bush Administration's abuse of "faith based politics" to advance a radical right agenda, which has created an umitigated global distaster and even meanaces the Constitution.

5. We are a secular democracy and we all know that.

6. Important thinkers, who oppose irrationalism in the public sector, are publishing and speaking more openly to the issue.

7. Finally, we don't need to be "atheist" to hold any of these views. If there is no God, there can be no "atheist". The burden of proof is always on the "believer," regardless of the belief.

And:

No, there cannot be a productive conversation between people who insist on irrational beliefs, as opposed to reason, and those who don't. That is why we have the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Thank you.

People what have you done
locked Him in His golden cage.
Made Him bend to your religion
Him resurrected from the grave.
He is the god of nothing
if that's all that you can see.
You are the god of everything
He's inside you and me.
So lean upon Him gently
and don't call on Him to save you
from your social graces
and the sins you used to waive.
And the bloody Church of England
in chains of history
requests your earthly presence at
the vicarage for tea.
And the graven image you-know-who
with His plastic crucifix
he's got him fixed
confuses me as to who and where and why
as to how he gets his kicks.
Confessing to the endless sin
the endless whining sounds.
You'll be praying till next Thursday to
all the gods that you can count.

-Thirty years later, not much has changed.

Karen makes an interesting point about the similarity between the modern atheist's motives and those of religious people of the past who took a hard line against idolatry. The central issue is really in particular human conceptions of and imposed limitations on a supposed absolute/transcendent reality. Any particular conception made or interpreted by humans is doomed to be just an insufficient idol of the supposedly real absolute truth.

Taken to the logical conclusion, though, this means that most capital-R religions are idolatrous through and through. Scripture is idolatrous. Ritual, prayer, religion-based morality all require idolatrous human-centric conceptions of the boundless truth. This doesn't bother me at all, but I imagine it must turn off many of the faithful.

"Truth is a pathless land" - J. Krishnamurti

Ashley,

you're not going to get anywhere with these people if you insist on going around using complete, declarative sentences with subjects and verbs. lord knows, i've tried that tact with religious people before and it always ends with someone putting an eye out. mark my words.

It would be nice if the religious "bottom" would notice that Buddhists, who do not believe in a creator god, have a very long history history of *not* running around murdering people, unlike Christians and Moslems. When it comes to cultivating morality, belief in a creator is irrelevant at best. I think the only reason that atheism is "in vogue" is that sensible intellignet people are getting sick of the deliberate stupidity-mongering the American Christianity has resorted to. The message : nobody cares what you believe, just please shut up and stop being such a pain in the ass to everybody else.

"Why is Atheism in Vogue ?"

Hmmm. I didon't notice. I'll have to pick up a copy.

Ashley, you must know that Karen wrote a history of a being you insist does not exist. Isn't the fact that God has a history enough?

I'm an atheist. I don't believe in any gods, whether western, eastern, or extraterrestrial. I don't believe in karma, or reincarnation, or Gaia, or the universe as god. Puny or transcendent, if it is a god I don't believe in it.

I don't believe because there exists no evidence for any of these things. Teleological claims have failed the reality test.

How hard is this to understand? I'm beginning to realize that religious people of all dispositions find it impossible to accept that some people really, truly just don't believe. What else explains all the panelists who seem compelled to define gods in a way which atheists would just HAVE to accept. I mean, come on, everybody knows that YA GOTTA HAVE FAITH!

Pffft. Make a good, rational case for your gods. Provide evidence for your gods. In other words, fufill the same criteria that humans demand for every other phenomenon in the universe.

"In the very early days of their history, Jews, Christians and Muslims were all called "atheists" by their pagan contemporaries."

I see a "tapering off" here. They had many gods and then they managed to get by with just one. Being called "atheists" was just an echo of the future, things to come.

But then there's faith.
1. Faith in the sacred scriptures.
2. Really faith in the man preaching from the ancient scriptures proving points with, "it is written."
3. Are you sure there's a god/God involved in faith?

Which one is it? http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul makes a better than average case all this faith that begins with "it is written" and fosters the careers of those who read what it is that someone wrote is actually about a supernatural being known as Devil. Now there's lots of Devils so we can't be sure which one in particular Moses made the deal with. Lucky for those of faith the whole "it is written" thing is a hoax otherwise they'd be looking forward to spending eternity with Devil. They probably don't know the difference anyhow and would insist that was heaven.

Candide,

Please provide the names of Karen Armstrong's books you have read and when and what do her books have on page 100?

All that ever was or will be is here now.

Only reason to "organize" is for self (not Self) gratification. Men-duh. Ego-duh, duh.

Theatre was developed from religious ritual - to "entertain" the masses with the message.

Even had a "God Machine".

http://anarchon.tripod.com/indexGREEKTH.html

"Mirror, mirror, on the wall. Who IS the fairest of them all."

Karen,

Bravo for your global view of God and "atheisim"!!!

Karen Armstrong doesn't really believe in God. She has written a number of books which are pap for the semi-educated. But she pretends she is not an atheist when she clearly is no believer.