He's a good speaker but he's wring.

Definitions do matter. The definition of atheism is absolute and not subject to opinion. Here it is: http://m.dictionary.com/d/?q=atheist&o=0&l=dir

I'd say many Christians are pragmatically atheists, in that they live their lives as if there isn't a God.

I like that -- he definitely has passion.

I agree with most of what he said. But his rant at the end was a little off. Even if there is a God, it wouldn't meant the Pope himself could jump off a building (or run a read light) and not go splat.

My pre-seminary friends used to joke "An agnostic is an atheist hedging his bets."

Even if there is a God, it wouldn't meant the Pope himself could jump off a building (or run a read light) and not go splat. -- Trust at August 27, 2011 7:57 AM

Then that means you believe in the law of gravity and gravity can't be suspended at any time, for any reason, by some unknown deity? Why not?

Why shouldn't the Pope believe that then? He has a direct line to God®?

Even denying the reality of damage -- what about evil?

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?”

Epicurus (Greek philosopher, BC 341-270)

Pat Condell gets so much right.

Jim P. How about the possibility that God (if he exists) does not define Evil in the same way that you and Epicurious do?

How about the possibility that God (if he exists) does not define Evil in the same way that you and Epicurious do? -- Isabel1130 at August 27, 2011 5:38 PM

Very good question but very distracting because you are now going to be off topic.

If the definition of Evil® is different for God®, what would that definition be? War? Disease? Drugs? Nukes? Computers? Mushrooms? Fat? Peas?

If his definition is so different that we can't understand it, then how were we created in God's® image?

It comes back to the same essential question that Epicurus posed. Why would an omnipotent being create a creature that couldn't understand his basic actions?

Silly primate. Your entire life is an intelligence test. Some of you fail. You still live in a jungle. It just has buildings in it.

Some of you make noises without meaning, and don't realize it. Hey - "good" and "evil" are YOUR definitions, not mine. My pass/fail is also survive/die. Don't be confused that sometimes, death is slow, even diffuse. I have a set of laws. What you do with them is your lookout. I note they are often tested by persons who exclaim, "Hey, y'all, watch this!" who are then surprised at the result.

Your capacity for absurdity is immense, even in My experience. For instance, the idea that mowing down acres of My creatures to put up a warehouse with a cross on it to "worship" Me was not Mine.

Jim, two points here, and I am no religious philospher, or a believer in god. I am sure that many could make this argument, more eloquently than I.
First, define evil, and then explain how we can recognize goodness, without it's counterpart evil to compare it to.

Secondly, explain how you eliminate. "Evil" from the world, without also eliminating free will from mankind? Doesn't the absence of free will in a world of forced goodness create its own set of problems?
I find it ironic, that in order to elimiate evil and evil actions in the world, that a supposed libertarian would be in favor removing choice and volition from life? A world of enforced goodness, is a world of total control, with no independent thoughts and actions. There is no evil, but there is no goodness either.

I for example am extremely grateful to live in a country and state where I am allowed to own an effective weapon for self defense, rather than in a country where the powers that be have decided that in order to restrain the possibility of me using a gun to commit" evil" that I must be prevented from even having a choice or freedom in the matter.

I'm not arguing for the existence of God©. I'm arguing against it.

I use the Epicurus quote as the simple argument that is hard to refute without very twisted logic.

As you see, it is very effective.

This is the same as the argument about limb regeneration.

Why does anyone bother arguing about this? I thought this was supposed to be, at least in part, an advice column about manners. When did it become good manners to tell someone they are stupid for subscribing to religious belief?

Like any of you have any idea whether anything is out there. Atheism must by necessity be a belief, never full knowledge.

First you'd have to be able to agree with everyone else on earth about the form and nature of God.

Then you'd have to find some way to acquire objective evidence that God didn't exist.

Not going to happen. You can't prove a negative, for one thing. Furthermore, a God who could create the entire universe and set the laws of nature in motion could certainly hide from the primitive instruments of one little species of hairless ape on one little blue planet in one galactic backwater someplace-or-other.

I can even understand why he'd do it. Look at how we little hairless apes *behave* every time we learn something new and powerful. Look at what we've done with DNA, for instance. Look at what we've done with chemistry and physics. We're less dangerous when we're left guessing.

Who knows how many other sentient species are living out there on other worlds minding their own business. They don't need us cracking the secret of God and undoing their entire existence. Because WE TOTALLY WOULD. Religious or not.

People commit atrocities for all sorts of reasons. Rape, torture, and other forms of abuse hurt equally no matter why they're committed. I'm more interested in stopping abuse than I am in being thought police and trying to shame everyone around me into thinking my way.

Besides, it is not like religion doesn't drive people to do good deeds as well. And even if you could argue they were condescending while they were helping, secular people are often condescending in their helpfulness too.

And of course, in the end, this is all going to go away--no matter how smart we think we are, which isn't saying much because, in the grand scheme of things, we're not. Even if some of us evolve into something else, humanity as we understand it today (again, not very well) will die out. We could very well wipe ourselves out *before* any of us evolve into something else. And someday the earth and sun will die, and someday long after that the universe will go too.

Nobody is going to care at that point whether you were religious or not. Except any putative God who may be lurking out there--and at that point it's between you and him. Good luck with that. Hopefully the Christians are wrong.

(Yeah, that idea isn't enough to convert me either. I'm just saying.)

Agnostics may be hedging their bets but atheists are just arrogant. Sorry, there's no other way to describe it. I joke that I am a militant agnostic: "I don't know, and you don't either." That sums up the situation right there. NOBODY knows. Not Freddie Fundie and not any of you.

That final, blustery rant was the worst defense of atheism I've ever heard. Because people break at red lights and use medicine, they don't believe in God? Good job, Jillette, tear down that weak strawman God you just set up.

Regardless of how directly involved someone thinks God is in their life, most believers I know seem to feel that with their belief in God comes either a responsibility or a requirement to make the best choices they can.

"You can't prove a negative, for one thing.

Here's the crux, Dana: I can prove that assertions made by people citing the Bible are wrong.

Often, people have no idea what they are saying because they quoted someone else without thinking about it.

I see the "absence of evidence" argument from fundamentalists who insist a "great Flood" happened. It's wrong, because I can show the existence of continuous processes which would NOT be present had such a thing happened.

What people defend is the Bible™, and the chain of people who told them it was True™ - not a God.

In fact, there is a big difference between God™ in the Bible™ and whatever set nature in motion, and fundamentalists usually lack the training to do what they must: prove a positive.

If God prevented evil, humans would have no free will. The bible makes it very clear we were given free will. Evil isn't god's fault, it's yours. And mine.

> Evil isn't god's fault, it's yours.

Speak only for yourself, always... There's no reason for the rest of us to trust your judgment. If you were such a distinctive paragon of virtue, we'd know.

(PS- For the past several years, when Christians have pulled that shit in real-life conversation —we're all in the same boat here— I've called the bluff, in a clear-tone of voice and with bright eye contact. It's done a lot for my company at cocktail parties.)

@Dana
I can even understand why he'd do it.{hide}
Then why didnt you explain why?

Look at how we little hairless apes *behave* every time we learn something new and powerful. Look at what we've done with DNA, for instance. Look at what we've done with chemistry and physics. We're less dangerous when we're left guessing.
What have we done those sciences thats so horrible? And how is it were less dangerous when ignorant when all reaseach shows less violent crime is commited in countries with a higher level of scientific knowledge and the more comfortable lifespans they provide?

Who knows how many other sentient species are living out there on other worlds minding their own business. They don't need us cracking the secret of God and undoing their entire existence. Because WE TOTALLY WOULD. Religious or not.
So you are saying that should we find go he will destroy the universe in retribution?

People commit atrocities for all sorts of reasons.
Primarily religious reasons

Rape, torture, and other forms of abuse hurt equally no matter why they're committed.
Even when ORDERED by god?

I'm more interested in stopping abuse than I am in being thought police and trying to shame everyone around me into thinking my way.
Funy thing about that is, most people commiting abuse dont think it is abusive. So you would HAVE to shame them into thinking like you if you wanted them to stop commiting abusive acts.

Seriously did you even think that train of thought thru?

Besides, it is not like religion doesn't drive people to do good deeds as well.
True enough, so long as it is constrained and not given undue political power, otherwise hello witch burnings

And of course, in the end, this is all going to go away--no matter how smart we think we are, which isn't saying much because, in the grand scheme of things, we're not.
So, are you argueing we shouldnt try to better our lot? Seriously if people with that attitude were still in charge of humanity you wouldnt be having this converstaion online by sending controlled electrical impulses millions of miles across the air and wires and space.

It took nearly 1200 yrs for humanity to recover and rediscover scientific knowledge destroyed and suppresed by the rising power of christianity and islam. Imagine where we would be today if the printing press have been developed in the 4th century instead of the 15th? if computers had been created in the 9th century instead of the 19th?

"Primarily religious reasons"

Primarily power, actually. Religion was power in a lot of places for a long time. Don't think those people wouldn't have found reasons to control, hurt, and kill others. They would have.

If God prevented evil, humans would have no free will. The bible makes it very clear we were given free will. Evil isn't god's fault, it's yours. And mine.

I have as much reason to believe in the bible as truth as I do Grimm's Fairy Tales. In other words: none.

My first reaction to reading these comments, is that almost no one here knows an actual Christian, fundamentalist, or other wise. Based on my experience, most of these negative comments are based on inaccurate assumptions. In my experience, Christians are more broad minded and more accepting of other beliefs than the average person.

Well, now I'm rethinking calling myself a "hopeful agnostic". LOL.

I love Penn Gillette. Anyone watched "Bullshit"? Epic entertainment.

"you'd have to find some way to
acquire objective evidence that God didn' t
exist. Not going to happen. You can't prove a
negative, for one thing."

That, of course, is the point. I cannot be absolutely certain that Leprechauns do not exist, but I don't have to be. If someone claims they do exist, the burden is on them to prove it. You can prove a positive, after al.

It isn't arrogance, being atheist. It just a matter of making simplifying assumptions in one's life. No leprechauns, no elves, no omniscient creators.

The definition of atheism is absolute and not subject to opinion. [1. person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.]

That is the commonly used definition, but consider what the root word means: theist: believer in the existence of a god or gods, esp. belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

The highlighted portion is critical. A theist is someone who believes there is a god, and a particular set religious statements correctly defines that god. Muslims, Jews, Christians, et al, are theists.

Putting "a" in front of theist means negation. An atheist is not a theist. IMHO it is essential to keep the plain (as opposed to common) meaning of the word in mind.

All theists are atheists with respect to all religions other than their own. Christians are atheists with respect to Islam; that doesn't mean Christians believe there is no god because, by virtue of their being Christians, they believe Allah does not exist. By definition, Christians believe Islam (and Mormonism, and Scientology, et al) is founded upon error -- it is objectively wrong.

As an atheist, I see theists, and raise them one: I believe all religions to be founded upon error. They are all -- and on this score there is evidence by the cartload -- objectively wrong; some subjectively, as well. (Crid finds insulting Christians offensive. I -- Dominionists notwithstanding -- agree. Christianity is objectively wrong, while subjectively being, at worst, innocuous.)

My pre-seminary friends used to joke "An agnostic is an atheist hedging his bets."

Your pre-seminary friends haven't thought this through.

Regarding all religions as founded upon error says absolutely nothing about whether some entity upon which the mantle of "god" could be plausibly hung exists.

Atheists disbelieve in all religions.

Agnostics believe the question "does some godlike thing exist?" is unanswerable.

Therefore, it is completely reasonable to be simultaneously both an atheist and an agnostic.

---

OT: David Carolla is very good on The Car Show.

> Crid finds insulting Christians offensive.
> I -- Dominionists notwithstanding -- agree.

Gratuitous, unearned insults should be avoided.

But if someone's giving you a hard time, Christian or whatever, do what you need to do.

Listen, I think Islam is going to need to be beaten into submission just as Christianity has been here in the United States.

That doesn't mean the fight with Christianity is over, it just means that most Christians watch their boundaries pretty well, so you don't have to be a prick about it...

...Until they act up. And then you have to get all up in they faces...

This will never end, OK? Their texts are unimprovable, so we'll be policing their conduct until the end of civilization.

"(Crid finds insulting Christians offensive. I -- Dominionists notwithstanding -- agree."

I agree with both you and Crid, insulting Christians, or Buddhists, or Muslims for their closely held beliefs benefits no one. All it does is make the insulter look like an ill mannered ass.
I an a dyed in the wool agnostic and still find much to admire among my friends who are people of faith. Particularly those who are Catholic, and Jewish. Never had a Catholic or a Jew beat on my front door trying to convert me, or tell me I was going to hell if I did not see the world the way that they did.
I think a lot of you, instead of making fun of religious people should watch how they behave.
Those that use their faith as a framework for moral and ethical behavior, and kindness and consideration towards their fellow man are the people that I want to be friends with. Their reasoning ability is not suspect. They just started out with an assumption that I do not happen to share.
I get a lot more bent out of shape by the so called atheists who are actually gaia worshipers who also started out with what are probably two faulty assumptions.

The first being that the earth is going through an unprecedented warming period, and the second that this warming is caused by the industrial activities of man.
To add insult to injury, the third implicit assumption is that we (the little people) rather than they, (our social and intellectual superiors) should be doing something about it.

Climate change clearly must be an article of faith because flapping your gums about it while you log millions of miles on private jets seems to be okie dokie. :-)

Gratuitous, unearned insults should be avoided.

But if someone's giving you a hard time, Christian or whatever, do what you need to do.

Listen, I think Islam is going to need to be beaten into submission just as Christianity has been here in the United States.

Apologies for the mis-quote.

IMHO, Christianity has been permanently beaten into submission by The Enlightenment and modernity. Scarcely any Christians actually believe their scriptural claims are True in a material sense.

Unfortunately, the same can't be said for Islam, because waaay too many Muslims believe that the Koran is objectively true.

---

OT: Spa was an excellent race. I have been watching F1 for 30 some-odd years; I think this could well be the best season.

"If God prevented evil, humans would have no free will."

This is another example of how people use a term without understanding it.

"Free will" doesn't depend on religion at all. You can make a decision which has no consequence, or you can make one that has a large one. You can make two decisions which take different paths to the same result.

All this is camouflaged by the human trait of redefining success as events unfold. You cannot even pick up a pencil the same way twice, yet if it ends up in your hand in a useful way, voila!

Irony: since mankind has never been able to predict the future to the degree necessary to avoid fatalities, it invented a deity "in control" of those events. Because life is too horrible for some to think it might have no purpose.