₦airaland Forum

Anyone who has not removed some body parts as a result of the fear of sin, do they get to go into heaven with all their body parts, As Jesus say?

Anyone to try the rest of these questions?

Chrisbenogor:
@helpee

I think you approach the bible predisposed that all the teachings in the bible are good, while it is true that there are good teachings in the bible still there are a lot of stories that should really make one cringe and shudder, children are murdered in cold blood, people are stoned to death for the most petty offences, lets be honest dude where is the goodness in that.
Its no wonder that our history books are full of witch hunts, inquisitions and genocides that have wiped out people all done in the name of God.

Parochial partisanship have desensiticise many people from the horrors of the bible.  As a christian kid, I use to take the side of the Jews in all their reported trouble with the non-Jews, until the age of about 12/13 (when a more balance moral compass kicked in) when it dawn on me that barbarism is barbarism, pure and simple.

In fact, I tried this thought experiment with some nieces of mine some months ago.  Their parents are Christian evangelical pastors in a small congregation in the UK. I asked what their opinion was of all the murders orchestrated and committed by the Jews (in the old testament, Number 31, etc).  I was not surprise when they came out rooting for the Jews.  These are 13 and 14 years girls with little sense of moral justice.

In fact, a similar but more elaborate experiment was conducted amongst children in Israel recently, and the results were shocking.  I shall post the result when I can find the write-up.

The apologists for Christianity typically claim that its critics generally misrepresent the Christian position, and consequently all their criticism are really aimed at a carricature version of Christianity.  While I generally disagree with this position, it is also true that there is no single one version of Christianity, making it particularly hard for the critic to take aim.  Today, there are well over 30000 Christian denomination, each denomination holding onto a slightly different Christian message.  Or is that true?

In his book, The Dawkin's Delusion, the Christian theologian, Alistair McGrauth, accuses Richard Dawkins of attacking a misrepresentation of true Christianity, without really stating what constitutes true Christianity. It could well be that it is true that a great deal of the criticism are unjustified, owing to the misunderstanding of what true Christianity is. But what are the core tenets of Christianity?

Let me make an attempt at defining what Christians believe.  I would welcome correction, if I misrepresent the Christian position;

1)  That there is a God who intervenes regularly in the running of the world, who created the world in seven days, who forgives sins, who is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent, etc.

2)  That Jesus Christ is this God

3)  That Jesus was born of a virgin around 4BC (or 6AD) , died and resurrected and ascended into heaven

4)  That there is ultimate judgment, salvation, heaven and hell

5)  That God created humans in the Garden of Eden and that humans sinned, hence dead and evil

6)  That God destroyed all humanity, but one family, and some animals,  in a catastrophic flood

7)  That the bible is the inerrant word of God.


This is by no means exhausive. You are welcome to add to the list.

I would like to invite our Christian friend to advise us if this constitute a misrepresentation of their belief.

Pastor AIO:
I think first and foremost we will need a set of CRITERIA by which to judge worldviews.

We should bear in mind that those world views will be evaluated according to one value system or another.

Hang on a minute . . . All world views come ready made with their own value systems.

In fact our value systems by which we judge everything are derived from one world view or another.

Is there an Absolute set of CRITERIA by which we can make these judgements.

That is criteria that are not the particular bias of any particular worldview, but can be accepted by absolutely everybody living.

Brilliant point.  Can be summarised as follows "Are there any objectives ways of appreciating reality?"  For if there is, it is only against such that worldviews can be judged.

My view is that, for some elements of reality, there is an objective measure (that is not to say that it is know), while for others, it is not clear, or indeed may in fact be relativistic.

pilgrim.1:
However, even though I believe that worldviews should be respected, it is not the same thing as saying that they should be left unexamined. Infact, it is by carefully examining the claims of Biblical Christianity that led me to change my prejudices previously held against it. Prior to that time, I had deluded myself into thinking that ridiculing the Biblical faith was the same thing as "examining" it. Yes, one could examine worldviews, appreciate their core values even though we don't agree with them, as well share our persuasions in an amicable manner with others. Very little to absolutely nothing is achieved by disrespecting the worldviews of anyone. Where some issues tend to be aberrations, they can be critical examined rather than disrespect them by default.

Thanks for that and I get your distinction make a lot of sense to me (and may I say, many critics of religions as well). I generally see this approach as a rather more "civilised" way of dealing with people. In my experience, many critics are frustrated when their targets do not make and understand the distinction and that is why they have to resort to "abrasive" methods to rile their targets up a bit.

There is a massive distinction between criticising a belief and criticising adherents to that belief and for me, that is the message I want to put across. Having said that, I realised that for many people this distinction is not clear and for the sake of courtesy, I would not wish to inflict unwarrented hurt to those who have become so attached to their beliefs, much as I would like for them to see the difference.

For instance, I would have found totally unacceptable and dispicable when the missionaries (and even atheists) matched into African villages many years ago and desecreted local shrines, disrespected the local beliefs, etc. Thankfully, most missionary work is no longer done like this. Sensitivity to local beliefs and understanding is required, to create a rapport with your target audience.

I think that one of the reason why atheists have become very vocal recently is because it is taken for granted by the general public that religious views are deserving of respect. Consequently, religions has infiltrated into almost every sphere of life, totally unchallenged. See the extend to which they influence politics now in America & Nigeria. This is what is pissing off a lot of nontheists and secularist.

Pilgrim,

I know we were having very similar discussion in another thread, so to stop spraying our argumentations about I would rather we hold fire a bit and if possible start a new thread, just about these issues, as we both have got interesting things to say, which might be lost in the forest of other threads.

Supposing I grant your premise about definitions of atheism and worldview, you still have not say anything one way or the other whether worldviews should or should not be crutinised, examined, criticised.

Basically, I would like to know whether as a principle, worldviews deserve respect, and thus should be left unexamined. Such worldviews may be as diverse as the Moche of Peru (circa 300 CE), the traditional worldviews of the natives of Papau New Giunea, the Mohammedans, the traditional Igbo beliefs, the Christian beliefs.

This is really the thrust of this thread.

I have this morning received the book by Kai Neilsen (Atheism & Philosophy) I ordered a few days ago. I also bought a copy of Alistair McGrath's The Dawkins Delusion. So rubbing my hands for some interesting exhange

On the subject of worldview, Kai Neilsen has made a good contribution to the subject. And of course, there many critics of naturalism out there as a worldview. Just check on Amazon, but searching for the word naturalism. For me, one of the best defenders of naturalism is Richard Carrier in book "Sense and Goodness Without God. A defense of Metaphysical Naturalism". Another worldview sometimes adopted by atheist is called physicalism, but this is not a well defended.

pilgrim.1:
Hallo all,

I think that some people are making a very fundamental mistake when they make inputs into discussions of this nature. Let's mind the topic again:

               "Should Worldviews And Religions Be Respected And Protected?"

We all know that atheism is a worldview: there's no gainsaying or denying the fact. If we are not careful to read the topic and assume that "worldviews" should not be respected or protected, then certainly it means that atheism should not be respected or even protected.

That being the case, why are [b]a[/b]theists so passionate to push their own agenda and establish unions, hold conferences, incorporate institutions and lobby for [b]a[/b]theism to be taught in British schools?!? Surely, as a worldview, atheism has nothing to be respected for, nor should its adherents/proponents be concerned about its values anyway.

You see, the problem that confronts has always been a narrowing and reductionist mentality that often betray the ideas of many people. While some may think it is "alright" to castigate other worldviews with ultimate disrespect, they often fail to realize that the topic also focuses on and includes their own worldviews as well! It may be easy to pick on other worldviews and pressume that the rational thing to do is disrespect them one and all! How often we fail to understand that such an attitude does not portray rational thought or integrity in human experiences.

Certainly, we can examine and evaluate the worldviews and convictions of people other than our own: that is not the same thing as "disrespecting" them. Intelligence is not the same thing as belligerence towards publicly affecting issues. There are political opinions, religious persuasions, economic policies, cultural interpretations, and social transactions that are not based on balanced and egalitarian principles. We all know that already. So, what's the problem? Simply this: we often tend to mention extremisms as if they apply to the general situation - and hence derive this attitude that "worldviews and religions be this[/b]respected and [b]un[/b]protected". [b]WHY do we often become so polarized and often forget issues like this?

For those who feel that "worldviews" should be this[/b]respected, please lead by example and categorically demonize [b]your own worldview first before seeking to point at others! Get the feel for your own first and foremost before calling for a sweeping tenet at others! Failing to do so is hypocrisy and cowardice. I don't mean to be rude to anyone, but please think carefully before making statements that leave huge gaps in the fabric of intellectual discourses.

Cheers.

Hello,

Pardon me to emphasise that this thread was calling for the examination of ALL worldviews and not only those one disagrees with.

It was prompted by calls from many religionists that other people respect their beliefs, as they respect the beliefs of others.  I put it to the evangelical christian that  they do NOT generally respect the beliefs of other people, otherwise they would stop evangelising amongst them.

Having lived amongst evangelicals for many years, I have seen how they criticise other "Christians" particularly the Catholics, other Protestans, Moslems, etc, etc.  They have sought to change the behaviours and beliefs of non-evangelical.  Does this amount to respecting non-evangelicalism?


Nowhere in this post was any mention of atheism made.  I know it can be taken as given that because I am an atheist, every argument I make is in defense of atheism.  That would be wrong.  This was a general point that transcends religion, politics, etc.  The rigorous examination of all worldviews is a requirement for human progress and it was in this light that I raised this post.

By the way, atheism, per se, is not a worldview.  There are worldviews (naturalism, metaphysical naturalism, humanism, etc) that are based on atheism, but atheism, by itself is not a worldview.  It is important to recognise the distinction.

Transformational stories are great and this is a good one, not least because it is also well written.

Very good post Pilgrim. Can't wait for more.

pilgrim.1:
@huxley,

Many thanks for your reposte. I'll take the time to reply as well; but my observation is that Dawkins rants and misrepresentations may not be useful to us here. I know that many people may find McGrath quite unsuitable because in their way of thinking, they fail to understand that he is as passionate for truth and evidence as Dawkins claims to be. The difference is that Dawkins is assertive on his presumptions, while McGrath is honest to the core. At the end of the day, the real gist to be had is that McGrath actually dealt with Dawkins' objections in a very thoughtful manner that no one who is open enough to see would have failed to observe it.

Later then, I'm trying to follow up another recently opened thread by Queenisha. Thanks all the same.

Hello,

Understand. I have already read all you have posted on that thread. Very engrossing so far. Seems like you have been through a lot in your short life already!

Keep it up.

pilgrim.1:
@huxley,

It's great to read your efforts at a working and practical definition of both theism and atheism. When we have a functional understanding of the terms either way, it then becomes easier for us to find a common ground for the germane questions of this discussion.

That said, here are a few things to highlight from yours:

It matters very little to me, at least, if it was someone else saying what Dawkins had said. The main issue is what has he really said that makes for a coherent discussion? When we examine the conclusions from his argument as a whole, would we be concerned at all that it was said by someone else?

Basically, the point I was making is that if something is true and objective, it remains so whoever may utter it.

pilgrim.1:
First, there have been several very sound rebuttals of Dawkins' polarized views. Alistar McGrath is one name that even Dawkins will not forget in a hurry; and a few examples rebutting the latter may include:

I very much aware of mcGrath and have listened to many debates and interviews he has given. I tried reading his book (The Dawkins Delusion) but gave up after about 10 pages. In his books as well as his debates, he preceeds almost every sentence with "It seems to me . . . . " When one is looking for some objectivity, this way of argumentation is rather feeble and unsatisfactory.

I also aware of the other Dawkin's flees (Dawkin's word for those authors who making a living denouncing him) and at most one John Haught even attempts to approach the issue from a non-theological point, which by necessity has to be. For instance, when Dawkins challenged the Ashbishop of Canterbury whether he believed in the virgin birth, he so much as said he was not too sure about the virgin birth and that the are no Christian foundational doctrine based on it anyway. (I gasped). But as for the resurrection, the Ashbishop said he would have to believe in the resurrection because the doctrine of salvation was based on it.

Hitchens challenge McGrath about the resurrection of the Saints on the death of Jesus, and asked whether this resurrection does not cheapen resurrection, McGrath just waffled over the issue.

Darkins wrote the following in TGD;

The god of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction:

Jealous and proud of it, a petty, unjust unforgiving control freak, a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser
A misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

Those of us schooled from infancy in his ways can become desensitized to their horror. A naif blessed with the perspective of innocence has a clearer perception. Winston Churchill's son Randolph somehow contrive to remain ignorant of scriptures until Evelyn Waugh and a brother officer, in a vain attempt to keep Churchill quiet when they were posted together during the war, bet him he couldn't read the entire bible in a fortnight: "Unhappily it has not had the result we hoped. He has never read any of it before and is hideously excited; keeps reading quotations aloud " I say I bet you didn't know this came in the bible . . . " or merely slapping his side and chortling "God, isn't God a shit"' Thomas jefferson, better read, was of a similar opinion: "The Christian God is a being of terrific character - cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust."

Taken from The God Delusion, Page 31, by Richard Dawkins,

Can you make a case that these attributes of God as described by Dawkina are unjustified? With such a direct frontal confrontation Christian always retreat to the issue of "Ah, you guys don't understand God". Why would a Christian "know" god anymore than non-Christians?

Now, you like McGrath, I shall pick up his book from my local bookshop tomorrow.

pilgrim.1:
Of course, each one of these writers have their varied styles; but I especially enjoyed Alistair McGrath's books because they essentially and concisely captured Dawkins' most vociferous arguments in a neat package and engage the reader with the salient points. David Robertson is appreciated by many people for showing how very much Dawkins misrepresented the Biblical message.

I would like to see how Dawkins misrepresented the bible.

pilgrim.1:
Theism and all the "-isms" mentioned above are not on the same philosophical grounds. Even so, look at it from the other point I argued earlier: do we not think that George Smith's appellation of babies as [b]a[/b]theist is rather in the same league as Dawkin's child-abuse propaganda? However, it is true that children, on the other hand, may not have chosen to call themselves 'Christians, Jewish', etc., yet one should understand why those children are addressed as such - because they grew up in Christian or Jewish homes. Now Dawkins may have a problem with that; but we would really have to question whether he was not proposing a hideous child-abuse campaign for teaching children anti-Christian ethics! The issue here is not whether children lack or do not lack theistic beliefs: rather, it is an irrational campaign to promote godlessness among children that we should discourage.

Did you see a video making the rounds on the net called "Jesus Camp" ? I think I posted a clip of the video on here. Have you seen the kind of stuff that goes on in Moslem madrasa? Admittedly not all religious educations are like that.

You like to paint a different picture which bares little resemblance to what the skeptics are calling for. They are calling for the teaching of religion as a subject, just as history, without indoctrination. They are also calling for the teaching of critical thinking from a much younger age.

Godlessness (or atheism) has no doctrines or philosophies to teach. In fact, atheism gets its raison d'etre from the existence of theism. If there was no theism, there would be no atheism. All Dawkins et al are calling for is that children be left free from indoctrination and taught the best available "facts" about the world.

For instance, if a child were to ask you "Why are there no native placental mammals in Australia?" What is the best explanation for this really bizarre anomaly?

pilgrim.1:
Quite to the contrary, Dawkins is being mischievous - carpriciously and embarrasingly mischiecous for a man who wears the title of "professor". Wait a minute, how do you think Dawkins reacts to remarks of his atheism and theory of evolutionary biology? Do you assume the mistake of thinking that he welcomes disrespect to his theories? Not in the least. Now the question is this: if Dawkins craves respect for his theories and yet cannot respect other people's views about the reality of life, who's playing the hypocrite?

I think you are being rather uncharitable to Dawkins here. He may not agree with you and may even criticise your beliefs, but he is no dunce. This is a man that has published some of the best academic books in his subject and many other books popularizing science. Very few of his critics can match his skill and abilities. Even when he is being critical, he shows respect to his subjects, because his targets are (usually) their beliefs and NOT the individuals.

Dawkins, as a scientist, would welcome criticism and debate. Are you aware of any of his pronouncements where he discourages debates. In his subject of evolutions, he and Stephen J Gould famously had a bitter and scholarly debate about the mechanism that drives evolution. Even so, I think they considered themselves as friends, on opposite side of the scientific debate. That is how science is conducted.

If you had read TDG carefully you would have come across an incident he narrate about one of his university professor whose cherished theories was unceremoniously overthrown in a seminar at their college, by a visiting professor from America. Dawkins gloats and cherished this event so much that he narrated it in TDG, basically to show the humility and practice of science. Why do you think he would go to great length to narrate this if really he was dogmatic about the conduct of science?

An expression that I learn from him is the following "All scientific position are held only tentatively . . . " Although I was aware of this, it had never really ingrained into my consciousness.

Hello Pilgrim.1,

Since our last exchange, I have been doing some research on the question of the definition of atheism and will have to agree with you that etymologically, atheism means "without god"  rather than "without belief in god", on the premise that theism means god.

Looks like at some point in the middle ages theism came to also mean "belief in god", thus the other definition which I tended to favour.  Like I say, these are philosophically VERY different positions to defend, but practically for an individual, the difference is negligible.

I had found the defence of "without god" atheism a very difficult position to defend and likewise have many philosophers. Notwithstanding, many have attempted.  I shall soon present my list of the philosophers and the position they take.

Now, on Richard Dawkins.  I must admit, when I first became aware of Darkins, I thought his style was too abrasive and tended to distance my position from his, but that was about 20 years ago.  I have since learnt a lot about the subject and have revised my views about him.  I must also admit,  there is a lot that I do agree with him these days.  Of course, that does not mean I agree with him on everything, nor am I a disciple of his.  He will be the last one to encourage discipleship and committment to him.  I am sure he would rather ask you to look at the evidence/facts he present.  In order words, supposing what he said was being said by someone else, would they have the same force?

Take for instance, the core of his criticism;

1)  The labelling of children as Christian, Moslem, Jewish.  He regards this as a form of child-abuse.  Ok, these are strong words, but I have yet to see any good rebuttal of his point.  We rarely call children Keynesian, Marxist, Smithian, etc, etc.  So why should we label children with labels they did not chose for themselves?

2)  Why do religions deserve respect?  No other ideologies in life is respected simply for being an ideology, so why should religion?

3)  The miseducation of science in schools with the teaching of creationism, etc.

Dawkins is not a philosopher.  Hense, he tends to steer clear of deep philosophical arguments.  If you did read "The God Delusion" that fact would be very obvious.  Strong philosophical atheist find his arguments a little unsatisfactory ( I remember having the same feeling)  not because they were wrong but because they did not go far enough or were a little loose.  I am yet to see a robust philosophical rebuttal of TGD. This is not probably not the sort of thing philosophers spend most of their time on.

Would be interesting to see your arguments against Dawkins or any other arguments. Although Flew has criticised Dawkins I simply cannot remember the main thrust of his criticism.  Please can you enlighten me?

As far as I know, the only change in his position is that there may be a god, an impersonal god, uninterventionist god. Apparently, he appears to be impressed by the Argument from Design. So for all intends and purposes, his life is indistinguishable from the life of an atheist.

Now that the churches are falling over themselves to endorse TTE as having the greatest explanatory power with respect to life, are you gonna split from your currrent church and form you own.

How can you worship in the same place as people who endorse TTE? Just as churches are spliting over the question of same-sex relationships, are you gonna split?

imhotep:
Very very good. So, we are to believe (mark the word => believe) that the tiktaalit evolved in to man. Not so?

You can see that evolution appeals to our faith (mark the word => faith).

No wonder it needs the Pope's seal of authentication. Long live the Pope!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ah, so your position with respect to Jesus supposed resurrection is based on "belief" rather than the fact of his resurrection?

Evolution does NOT appeal to faith. Why don't we see human, elephant, rabbit fossils in the same rock strata as Tiktaalik? Sorry, I should not really be asking these questions of you - you clearly would not understand them unless you redress the damage inflicted on your faculty by religion.

imhotep:
Yes, name-calling can be a diversionary tactic. It is an old trick!!!!!!!!!!!!

The question remains => has any evolutionist seen the tiktaalik as it evolved into man? Without hiding under the cajolery that it takes 500 million years!

You believe that Jesus resurrected, don't you? Did anyone see Jesus in the process of resurrecting from the dead? Who was in the tomb with him, watching him as he unwrapped himself from the shroud and stood up?

Udyro:
Sometimes i wonder whether the poster is really a christian, 'because all his threads sound like an atheist or an anti-christ.
always against.

no offence meant bros, i just like all ur post, You are a good critic!!

anywhere
even in this wicked world, Those who truly call upon God's name receive His divine protection according to Psalm 91.

personally, i enjoy every divine protection of that particular psalm, i can therefore, confidently say that the Almighty God, who dwells in the highest heavens, is still protection those who calls on for protection.

Interesting. But what would be more interesting is to see how often you agree and how often you disagree, and the reasons for your position.

Can you oblige us?

imhotep:
He was baptized as an infant but, as an adult, held on to 'modernist' ideas, drawing very close to atheism.

Just as there is evidence backing creationism. And the evidence backing evolution still leaves many questions unanswered.

Bone and fossils will always be excavated. BUT HAS ANYONE SEEN THE TIKAATIL EVOLVING INTO A MAN

imhotep:
Direct your request to huxley. The link below was taken from his profile on this forum:

"Say hello to your grandfather - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik."

I guess the silliness of the question lies in the use of the word "SEEN". Was it postulated anywhere that it would be expected to "see" this evolutionary change as it happened? That is why this comment is so stupid.

Not surprising, the silliness of the IDiots has no bounds.

Is god protecting you today?

davidylan:
Huxley, i will not respond to you beyond this because this is another attempt to hijack threads that don't belong to you. Quoting the bible like a charm is worthless to the unsaved . . . and that was my very argument. As a child of God, saved by the blood of Jesus . . . i have every right to claim the promises of the FATHER.

I know you would like to be left to wallow in this cesspit of duplicity. But the way I have seen you ride roughshod over other people who you think have "lesser" knowledge and understanding of the bible than you do, you deserve to be called to rights when you get it muddled up, as is your wont.

davidylan:
This is balderdash. My father used to tell me something, you dream silly dreams when you over eat. Where in the bible is the snake represented as evil or temptation? Simply because the "serpent" is used to denote the devil in the bible? Well the devil did not appear to Eve as a snake, he did in form of a man.

@ Deepzone, your dreams are simply a product of an over-active imagination. On the rare occassions i get such dreams i immediately rebuke them in the name of Jesus Christ and promptly go back to sleep. The bible tells me a thousand shall fall at my left and ten thousand at my right but no evil shall come near me or my friends or my family. Chikena . . . i am covered by the blood of Jesus . . . i shall fear no dreams.

What sort of theology is this?  I remember posting a thread (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-159856.0.html) about the advantage enjoyed by Christians, quoting Psalm 91, and you strongly disagreed that this was not meant for Christians.

Are you just making things up as you go along?  Looks like that to me.

Pilgrim.1,

Thanks for the stuff about Nagel. Most helpful. Seriously, I was unaware of Nagel as a contributor in the area and I thought I was aware of most of the contemporary writers in this subject.

I have placed an order on Amazon for some books in which he is a contributor and can't wait to read his essays on the subject. I shall repond to the rest of your post later, cuz am very bz right now and can only make the odd corsory contribution.

BTW, what exams are you studying for?

Learn the true identity of Jesus Christ here;


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfzolk7FRXk&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CA5SHKM3V48&feature=related

Enjoy

Pilgrim.1,

Can you point me to any of the writings of Nagel about atheism and his critique of Smith? I can seem to find any.

Much oblige, thanks

When Atheists Attack
by Sam Harris | NEWSWEEK (http://www.newsweek.com/id/160080/page/1)

When Atheists Attack
A noted provocateur rips Sarah Palin—and defends elitism.

Let me confess that I was genuinely unnerved by Sarah Palin's performance at the Republican convention. Given her audience and the needs of the moment, I believe Governor Palin's speech was the most effective political communication I have ever witnessed. Here, finally, was a performer who—being maternal, wounded, righteous and sexy—could stride past the frontal cortex of every American and plant a three-inch heel directly on that limbic circuit that ceaselessly intones "God and country." If anyone could make Christian theocracy smell like apple pie, Sarah Palin could.

Then came Palin's first television interview with Charles Gibson. I was relieved to discover, as many were, that Palin's luster can be much diminished by the absence of a teleprompter. Still, the problem she poses to our political process is now much bigger than she is. Her fans seem inclined to forgive her any indiscretion short of cannibalism. However badly she may stumble during the remaining weeks of this campaign, her supporters will focus their outrage upon the journalist who caused her to break stride, upon the camera operator who happened to capture her fall, upon the television network that broadcast the good lady's misfortune—and, above all, upon the "liberal elites" with their highfalutin assumption that, in the 21st century, only a reasonably well-educated person should be given command of our nuclear arsenal.

The point to be lamented is not that Sarah Palin comes from outside Washington, or that she has glimpsed so little of the earth's surface (she didn't have a passport until last year), or that she's never met a foreign head of state. The point is that she comes to us, seeking the second most important job in the world, without any intellectual training relevant to the challenges and responsibilities that await her. There is nothing to suggest that she even sees a role for careful analysis or a deep understanding of world events when it comes to deciding the fate of a nation. In her interview with Gibson, Palin managed to turn a joke about seeing Russia from her window into a straight-faced claim that Alaska's geographical proximity to Russia gave her some essential foreign-policy experience. Palin may be a perfectly wonderful person, a loving mother and a great American success story—but she is a beauty queen/sports reporter who stumbled into small-town politics, and who is now on the verge of stumbling into, or upon, world history.

The problem, as far as our political process is concerned, is that half the electorate revels in Palin's lack of intellectual qualifications. When it comes to politics, there is a mad love of mediocrity in this country. "They think they're better than you!" is the refrain that (highly competent and cynical) Republican strategists have set loose among the crowd, and the crowd has grown drunk on it once again. "Sarah Palin is an ordinary person!" Yes, all too ordinary.

We have all now witnessed apparently sentient human beings, once provoked by a reporter's microphone, saying things like, "I'm voting for Sarah because she's a mom. She knows what it's like to be a mom." Such sentiments suggest an uncanny (and, one fears, especially American) detachment from the real problems of today. The next administration must immediately confront issues like nuclear proliferation, ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and covert wars elsewhere), global climate change, a convulsing economy, Russian belligerence, the rise of China, emerging epidemics, Islamism on a hundred fronts, a defunct United Nations, the deterioration of American schools, failures of energy, infrastructure and Internet security … the list is long, and Sarah Palin does not seem competent even to rank these items in order of importance, much less address any one of them.

Palin's most conspicuous gaffe in her interview with Gibson has been widely discussed. The truth is, I didn't much care that she did not know the meaning of the phrase "Bush doctrine." And I am quite sure that her supporters didn't care, either. Most people view such an ambush as a journalistic gimmick. What I do care about are all the other things Palin is guaranteed not to know—or will be glossing only under the frenzied tutelage of John McCain's advisers. What doesn't she know about financial markets, Islam, the history of the Middle East, the cold war, modern weapons systems, medical research, environmental science or emerging technology? Her relative ignorance is guaranteed on these fronts and most others, not because she was put on the spot, or got nervous, or just happened to miss the newspaper on any given morning. Sarah Palin's ignorance is guaranteed because of how she has spent the past 44 years on earth.

I care even more about the many things Palin thinks she knows but doesn't: like her conviction that the Biblical God consciously directs world events. Needless to say, she shares this belief with mil-lions of Americans—but we shouldn't be eager to give these people our nuclear codes, either. There is no question that if President McCain chokes on a spare rib and Palin becomes the first woman president, she and her supporters will believe that God, in all his majesty and wisdom, has brought it to pass. Why would God give Sarah Palin a job she isn't ready for? He wouldn't. Everything happens for a reason. Palin seems perfectly willing to stake the welfare of our country—even the welfare of our species—as collateral in her own personal journey of faith. Of course, McCain has made the same unconscionable wager on his personal journey to the White House.

In speaking before her church about her son going to war in Iraq, Palin urged the congregation to pray "that our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God; that's what we have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan, and that plan is God's plan." When asked about these remarks in her interview with Gibson, Palin successfully dodged the issue of her religious beliefs by claiming that she had been merely echoing the words of Abraham Lincoln. The New York Times later dubbed her response "absurd." It was worse than absurd; it was a lie calculated to conceal the true character of her religious infatuations. Every detail that has emerged about Palin's life in Alaska suggests that she is as devout and literal-minded in her Christian dogmatism as any man or woman in the land. Given her long affiliation with the Assemblies of God church, Palin very likely believes that Biblical prophecy is an infallible guide to future events and that we are living in the "end times." Which is to say she very likely thinks that human history will soon unravel in a foreordained cataclysm of war and bad weather. Undoubtedly Palin believes that this will be a good thing—as all true Christians will be lifted bodily into the sky to make merry with Jesus, while all nonbelievers, Jews, Methodists and other rabble will be punished for eternity in a lake of fire. Like many Pentecostals, Palin may even imagine that she and her fellow parishioners enjoy the power of prophecy themselves. Otherwise, what could she have meant when declaring to her congregation that "God's going to tell you what is going on, and what is going to go on, and you guys are going to have that within you"?

You can learn something about a person by the company she keeps. In the churches where Palin has worshiped for decades, parishioners enjoy "baptism in the Holy Spirit," "miraculous healings" and "the gift of tongues." Invariably, they offer astonishingly irrational accounts of this behavior and of its significance for the entire cosmos. Palin's spiritual colleagues describe themselves as part of "the final generation," engaged in "spiritual warfare" to purge the earth of "demonic strongholds." Palin has spent her entire adult life immersed in this apocalyptic hysteria. Ask yourself: Is it a good idea to place the most powerful military on earth at her disposal? Do we actually want our leaders thinking about the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy when it comes time to say to the Iranians, or to the North Koreans, or to the Pakistanis, or to the Russians or to the Chinese: "All options remain on the table"?

It is easy to see what many people, women especially, admire about Sarah Palin. Here is a mother of five who can see the bright side of having a child with Down syndrome and still find the time and energy to govern the state of Alaska. But we cannot ignore the fact that Palin's impressive family further testifies to her dogmatic religious beliefs. Many writers have noted the many shades of conservative hypocrisy on view here: when Jamie Lynn Spears gets pregnant, it is considered a symptom of liberal decadence and the breakdown of family values; in the case of one of Palin's daughters, however, teen pregnancy gets reinterpreted as a sign of immaculate, small-town fecundity. And just imagine if, instead of the Palins, the Obama family had a pregnant, underage daughter on display at their convention, flanked by her black boyfriend who "intends" to marry her. Who among conservatives would have resisted the temptation to speak of "the dysfunction in the black community"?

Teen pregnancy is a misfortune, plain and simple. At best, it represents bad luck (both for the mother and for the child); at worst, as in the Palins' case, it is a symptom of religious dogmatism. Governor Palin opposes sex education in schools on religious grounds. She has also fought vigorously for a "parental consent law" in the state of Alaska, seeking full parental dominion over the reproductive decisions of minors. We know, therefore, that Palin believes that she should be the one to decide whether her daughter carries her baby to term. Based on her stated position, we know that she would deny her daughter an abortion even if she had been raped. One can be forgiven for doubting whether Bristol Palin had all the advantages of 21st-century family planning—or, indeed, of the 21st century.

We have endured eight years of an administration that seemed touched by religious ideology. Bush's claim to Bob Woodward that he consulted a "higher Father" before going to war in Iraq got many of us sitting upright, before our attention wandered again to less ethereal signs of his incompetence. For all my concern about Bush's religious beliefs, and about his merely average grasp of terrestrial reality, I have never once thought that he was an over-the-brink, Rapture-ready extremist. Palin seems as though she might be the real McCoy. With the McCain team leading her around like a pet pony between now and Election Day, she can be expected to conceal her religious extremism until it is too late to do anything about it. Her supporters know that while she cannot afford to "talk the talk" between now and Nov. 4, if elected, she can be trusted to "walk the walk" until the Day of Judgment.

What is so unnerving about the candidacy of Sarah Palin is the degree to which she represents—and her supporters celebrate—the joyful marriage of confidence and ignorance. Watching her deny to Gibson that she had ever harbored the slightest doubt about her readiness to take command of the world's only superpower, one got the feeling that Palin would gladly assume any responsibility on earth:

"Governor Palin, are you ready at this moment to perform surgery on this child's brain?"

"Of course, Charlie. I have several boys of my own, and I'm an avid hunter."

"But governor, this is neurosurgery, and you have no training as a surgeon of any kind."

"That's just the point, Charlie. The American people want change in how we make medical decisions in this country. And when faced with a challenge, you cannot blink."

The prospects of a Palin administration are far more frightening, in fact, than those of a Palin Institute for Pediatric Neurosurgery. Ask yourself: how has "elitism" become a bad word in American politics? There is simply no other walk of life in which extraordinary talent and rigorous training are denigrated. We want elite pilots to fly our planes, elite troops to undertake our most critical missions, elite athletes to represent us in competition and elite scientists to devote the most productive years of their lives to curing our diseases. And yet, when it comes time to vest people with even greater responsibilities, we consider it a virtue to shun any and all standards of excellence. When it comes to choosing the people whose thoughts and actions will decide the fates of millions, then we suddenly want someone just like us, someone fit to have a beer with, someone down-to-earth—in fact, almost anyone, provided that he or she doesn't seem too intelligent or well educated.

I believe that with the nomination of Sarah Palin for the vice presidency, the silliness of our politics has finally put our nation at risk. The world is growing more complex—and dangerous—with each passing hour, and our position within it growing more precarious. Should she become president, Palin seems capable of enacting policies so detached from the common interests of humanity, and from empirical reality, as to unite the entire world against us. When asked why she is qualified to shoulder more responsibility than any person has held in human history, Palin cites her refusal to hesitate. "You can't blink," she told Gibson repeatedly, as though this were a primordial truth of wise governance. Let us hope that a President Palin would blink, again and again, while more thoughtful people decide the fate of civilization.

Harris is a founder of The Reason Project and author of The New York Times best sellers "The End of Faith" and "Letter to a Christian Nation." His Web site is samharris.org.

Hello again,

And many thanks for your response. I must say, yours are the only responses that are getting me to work harder for my arguments, which I quite enjoy.

Since you mention Kai Neilson, I must admit, he is one of the leading philosophers on the subject whose books I don't own, although I have read parts of his work at bookshops, libraries and on Amazon. I did not think he covered the subject in as much depth as Michael Martin and that is why I have also hesitated in buy his books. Now, in view of your recommendation, I have place an order on Amazon for a couple of his books.

Ernert Nagel, is unfamiliar to me as a writer on this subject although I have come across him many times in the Philosopher of Science circles. I have not found any works of his dealing with atheism yet.

Since you seem to be impressed by the credentials of Kai Neilson, why don't you check out those of Michael Martin. He is arguably the leading writer in the field at the moment.

Michael L. Martin (born 3 February 1932) is an analytic philosopher and professor emeritus at Boston University.[1] He completed his Ph.D. from Harvard University.

Martin has concerned himself largely with philosophy of religion, though the philosophies of science, law, and sport have not escaped his attention. On the former, Martin has published a number of books and articles defending atheism and various arguments against the existence of God in exhaustive detail (among them, the Transcendental argument for the non-existence of God). Martin, in his Atheism: a Philosophical Justification, cites a general absence of an atheistic response to contemporary work in philosophy of religion, and accepts the responsibility of a rigorous defense of nonbelief as, jestingly, his "cross to bear:"

The aim of this book is not to make atheism a popular belief or even to overcome its invisibility. My object is not utopian. It is merely to provide good reasons for being an atheist. … My object is to show that atheism is a rational position and that belief in God is not. I am quite aware that theistic beliefs are not always based on reason. My claim is that they should be. — Atheism: A Philosophical Justification, 24

Martin is a pluralist naturalist, as opposed to a physicalistic naturalist. He believes in non-physical abstract objects, as to explain the Principles of Logic and objective morality.[2]

Martin serves on the academic advisory board of the Secular Student Alliance [3] and the editorial board of Philo.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Martin_(philosopher))

I shall respond to the rest of the post later.

Having looked at the various definition of atheism used by various atheism themselves and their critics, I thought it would be prudent to take a step back and look at how far we have come.

Basically, I think the atheism "community" is not a monochromatic camp, with people supporting and espousing slightly different views - positive atheism, negative atheism, implicit atheism, explicit atheism, natural atheism, personal atheism, probabilistic atheism, relativistic atheism etc, etc.

Why are all these diverse but slight different adjectives needed for the word. I think this is partly motivated by renewed interest in taking a more philosophical approach to religion, belief, and non-belief.

I used the expression "philosophical atheism" earlier and I noticed you totally misunderstood what it means. It basically means the application of the tools of philosophy to the subject of atheism.  It is not the same as the philosophy of atheism, and I agree with George Smith on this.  A few example might be in order;

Philosophy of Science is NOT the same as philosophical science
Philosophy of Literature is NOT the same as philophical literature
Philosophy of atheism is NOT the same as philosophical atheism.

Philosophical Atheism (the word "Philosophical" is used as an adjective in this respect) is synonymous with "thinking" or "thoughtful" atheism. Basically, atheism arrived at after having reflected of the arguments for and against the propositions of beliefs and existence of god.

Philosophical atheism can be contrasted with what David Eller and George Smith called natural atheism - A natural atheist is someone who lacks knowledge or exposure to the idea of god. And I agree that children who have not been schooled in theism, are atheist of the natural kind. 

Example 1 - I have a four and a half years old son who has not been schooled in the notion of god (except on the odd ocassion that his mum takes him to church). He uses the word "god" only as an expletive, which he picked up from nursery (as in, "Oooooh, my god".

Now what do you think my son is, with respect to beliefs in god?  He knows about the existence of many thinks at his age - the sun, planets, animals, cars, daddy, mummy. He even knows that babies come from mother's tommy. So at his age he is capable of understand many concepts, but god, as a concept to him is meaningless.

Example 2 - Feral Children.  What belief system would a feral child have, who was not introduced to the notion of god before he/she was separated from fellow human communities?  A great number of these feral child would have lived amongst animals, which clearly (as far as we know) do not cognitively relate to the notion of gods.

Are feral children, on first discovery atheists, or theists?

In my view, these are reasons why such subtly distinctions are required.  They do not blur the lines (to use of of your favoured expressions), but they illuminate the subject further.


It would really be interesting to see what you think the theistic position of feral children are.

First, it would make more sense to define what is meant by atheism itself. There are many conflicting definitions that many atheists hold about the term; but for all practical purposes of this discussion, I would be leaving the reductionist idea that "atheism simply means the lack of belief in any god". My reason for throwing out that idea is simple: there are a lot of people who do not believe in God, but that in itself does not make them atheists. What qualifies as atheism is the commitment to the denial of the existence of God and the supernatural. However one looks at it, two things often stand out: "denial" and "existence" - these are the very core elements in the atheistic belief system, because the core values of atheism rest properly on the denial of the existence of God.

So what do you call people who do NOT belief in god?  They are clearly NOT theist.  So what are they?


Now, what is in the definition?


Lack belief in god (does not belief in the existence of god, or no belief in god) is the postion of the weak (negative atheism).
No-god belief (denial of god existence, or say god does NOT exist) is the position of the strong (positive atheist)

(I can open up a different argument about our use of the word "belief", I shall leave that for another time.  This
think this word itself is at the centre of a great deal of the problems we have in the understand of the theistic/atheistic position)

It is inaccurate to assume that 'not believeing in God' equates to "atheism". The latter is much more than a 'lack of belief' in God - it involves an active commitment to non-belief in God or gods, paranormal and supernatural phenomena, and spiritual values of any sort. It is in this regard that the argument stating that "Everyone is born an atheist" is quite redundant and gravely uninformed. Many people hold that idea because they took David Eller's word for it, who in 2004 in his book Natural Atheism, p. 12 stated that: "All humans are born Atheists".

What name have you got for "not believing in God"?


The notion of describing children as some form of atheist predates Eller by many hundred of years. I think his exposition of the subject was simply much stronger, by putting them in a class of their own.

On the contrary, a better and more rigorous way of looking at it would be as Doug Jessef succinctly stated in 1998 - that someone who simply lacks theistic belief does not count as an atheist; his quote --

            "Someone who simply lacks theistic belief, a small child who has never been taught about God, or someone who simply rejects God as an act of rebellion does not count as an atheist"


Please note that this is a critical definition of atheism - given by an atheist himself. It means therefore, that the idea to make atheists out of babies is not shared by knowledgeable atheists around the world. Further, the rationalistic assumption that "everyone is born an atheist" simply does not hold any substance at all. This is one example of how people can make a grave mistake (as David Eller did), and many people would just take their word for it!

Doug Jessef is just one of many atheist who take the positive atheist position. Nicholas Everitt, J L Mackie and Richard Dawkins takes the probabilistic approach, George smith the negative approach, Michael Martin argues for both.
In fact, I have got a good book in which about 20 professional atheistic philosopher discuss this subject and the range of approach is as vast as the number of philosophers presented.  If you can check it out it is called
"Philosopher without God" http://www.amazon.com/Philosophers-without-Gods-Meditations-Atheism/dp/0195173074/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221954996&sr=8-1

I already pointed out from the online resource that "The discussion of atheoi was pronounced in the debate between early Christians and pagans, who each attributed atheism to the other" (etymology of Atheism).

You see, calling someone who also believes in a god, albeit a different god from one's god, an atheist (as was the common practice in classical times) only shows how diverse the meaning of the word was, even back then.  This is clearly a form of relativistic atheism - for they both believe in god, but different gods.

Was it therefore wrong for Romans to call Christians as atheist, as documented by Polycarp? I don't think so. At the time, if you did not believe in the local orthodox god of the majority, you would be called atheist. I am sure the Christians also called the Roman pagan followers atheist, although these pagans had their own gods in the form of Zeus, Appolo, Mithras, etc, etc.

While I may not concern myself with the adjectives appended to atheism itself (such as 'positive atheism', 'negative atheism' or even 'weak atheism'), my one focus has been what the term "atheism" connotes. Just like the term theism simply being the expression of belief in the existence of God or gods, there are several qualifiers to distinguish between various types of theism. My present concerns however are about atheism, and not the adjectives appended thereto; and this is why people like George Smith is of very little consequences at the moment. Recall that I already stated:

I am surprise why you would casually dismiss Smith's treatment of this subject.  He was one of the foremost authors on this subject in recent times and his treatment is cited amongst many scholars as actually being the
breakthrough (for non professional philosophers) the subject need for sometime.  Other authors like Antony Flew, Bertrand Russell were found to be too technical and did not make as big an impact as Smith. Admittedly, the arguments have gotten more sophisticated since Smith published in the 70s.

Imagine if we were to coin a new word to mean denial of god's existence or lack of belief in the existence of god - let's called it delackism.  I submit that we can legitimately do this, after all, that is how language has evolved. (Don't be too hang up of the etymology of the word "atheist"

Now, how would a delackist defend his postion in view of the evidence or lack thereof? Basically, a delackist would find herself confronted with all the issues an atheism has to face today.  Issues such as;

1) Can children be described as delackists?  If not should we make a separate category for children?
2) Is it possible to have knowledge of something that is beyond our senses? If not, should we create a separate category for this?
3) What if everyone else calls everyone else a delackist?

I trust you will see the problem that many moderm day philosophers face, mostly centred around 2 above and it is an epistemological problem.  As we know more about the world, the more we find we need new categories to describe the world. The same applies to delackism, as to atheism.

George Smith's treatment, while important, was only foundational to the whole subject of atheism.  Michael Martin's treatment, which defend both positive and negative atheism, extend the work of Smith much more and also goes into very advance (and mathematical) philosophical exposition of the subject.  His basic approach is as follows;

1)  Where does the burden of proof lie?  He argues it lies with the theist, not the one refuting the claim.
2)  If he is right in saying that the burden of proof is with the theist, then the theist MUST define WHO their god is, otherwise all god-talk is meaningless. Thus negative atheism is geared at examining the meaningfulness of god-talk.  So he argues whether there is meaning, consistency and logical coherence in an all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful god.
3)  In the defence of positive atheism, he extends the work he has already done with negative atheism with arguments from evil,teleological arguments, free will and theodocy.

This is quite an impressive work and for my money the best book on the subject, although a lot of it is too technical for me.

- -
- -

More to follow

The Vatican said "Evolution is compatible with the Bible". Don't you think the owe their followers an explanation as to how it is compatible? How is the gradual prolonged emergence of various lifeforms compatible with the instanteneous creation of the Genesis narrative.

If I was Catholic I would be demanding that of the Vatican?

Pilgrim.1,

Many thanks for your detailed response. I have only just quickly skimmed over them but was able to draw one main point. I shall address the full post later today when I have more time. For the meantime, I have just one more question for you. (or two).

Why do you think only your definition of atheism (denial of the existence of god) the correct? All other definitions dating back 400 years appear to be wrong. Why is that so?

Can you provide evidence that the positive definition has been the position consistently defended by atheist, apart from Doug Joseph?

Will address your other points later.

HAve a good day!

Is god omniscient?


Case 1:  Genesis 22 - Abraham about to sacrifice Isaac.

8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

9 And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood.

10 And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.

11 And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.

12And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.


"For now I know that thou fearest God . .  ."  How could god not have know that Abraham fearest him, if he is omniscient?  Why did he have to put them through this ordeal to just to find out if Abraham feared him.  What sort of monstrous and sick god is this?




Case 2 - Genesis 3 - Adam&Eve in the garden of Eden

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

6And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

7And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

8And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.

9And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?

10And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

11And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

12And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.


How could an omniscient god not have known where Adam was but had to rely on saying "Where art thou?". Were they playing some sort of hide&seek game?  Did Adam&Eve know they were dealing with an omniscient being?

Did god know Adam&Eve know they were going to "sin" before he created them?  If so, why did he not make them more resistant to temptation?  Or, why did he bother to create them at all, if he already knew the ultimate outcome, being that they would sin, he would throw them out, he would then drown the offsprings in the Flood, he would destroy Sodom&Gomorah, etc.

Basically, it looks like whatever he tried his hands on, ends in failure.  What sort of "calamity god" is this that can never pull off just one tiny single success in any project?

I shall start by presenting text from some well know books about atheism. Firstly, lets see George Smith, in Why Atheism

George Smith defends the longest-standing known definition of atheism, called negative atheism (or weak atheism). This definition has a long pedigree. Positive atheism (the denial of the existence of God) is not a positions often defended by atheists. Read Smith below to get a sense of the definition;

Derived from the Greek word atheos (meaning "godless, not believing in the existence of gods", an atheist is "is one who does not believe in the existence of a deity". Atheism, or the absence of theistic belief, is therefore a perspective, not a philosophy. Although there can be atheistic philosophies that are based solely on naturalistic principles, there cannot be a "philosophy of atheism" per se, because a negative position can never serve as a satisfactory foundation for a philosophical system.

Since an atheist is a person who does not believe in any god or number of gods, how we define atheist will depend on how we define god. Some theists have been called atheist for disbelieving in the god (gods) of the orthodox majority. Early Christians, for example, were frequently accused of atheism by their pagan critics. "We are called atheists", wrote Justin Martyr in the second century, "and we confess that we are atheists so far as the pagan gods are concerned, but not with respect to themost true God . . . " Hence, if Christians qualify as atheist owing to their disbelief in the pagan gods, then everyone is an atheist of some sort, since those who believe in the god (or gods) of one religion will necessarily disbelieve in the god (or gods) of other religions. (From Why Atheism, pages 18 - 19)

Nineteenth-century atheists repeatedly attacked the short and easy refutation by exposing its faulty definition of atheism (known as positive atheism, since it positively affirms the non-existence of god). Consider the British atheist G. W. Foote, editor of the Freethinker and the author on many books and articles on atheism. Foote's atheism was scarcely of the timid variety; convicted of blasphemy and sent to prison, his case provoked the young John Staurt Mill to write a passionate defence of religious freedom. Yet Foote repeated insisted that atheism is properly defined as the absence (or lack) of theistic belief, and not the denial of God's existence. In a typical exchange, Foote challenged a critic "to refer me to one atheist who denies the existence of God". The atheist is a person who is without a belief in a god; "that is all the A before Theist really means".

This was also the view of Charles Bradlaugh, the most influential atehist in Victorian England. In The Freethinkers Textbook (1876), after noting that the meaning of atheism has been continously misrepresented, Bradlaugh went on to say "Atheism is without God. It does not assert no God".

No historian has yet undertaken a thorough investigation of this negative definition, so we don't know when it came into common use, but we see traces of it as early as the 17th century. For exampl John Locke, in Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690), cited travel accounts that reported "whole nations" of atheists, "amongst whom there was to be found no notion of a God, no religion". The negative definition also appears in the first comprehensive defense of atheism, Baron d'Holbach's The System of Nature (1770). "All children are atheists", according to d'Holbach, because they have no idea of God.

Unlike most of their modern counterparts, some previous Christians were fairminded enough to read what atheists had actually said before attacking their position. Once such person was Robert Flint, a highly respected scholar who wrote extensively on theology, history and economics. Flint clearly understood that atheism, as defended for many decades by prominent atheists, is negative rather than positive in character. In Agnosticism (1903), Flint pointed out that the atheist "is not necessarily a man who says, There is no God". On the contrary, this "positive or dogmatic atheism, so far as being the only kind of atheism, is the rarest of all kinds. . ." The atheist is simply a person "who does notbelieve that there is a God", and this absence of belief may stem from nothing more than "want of knowledge that there is a God." Flient concludes: "The word atheist is a thoroughly honest unambiguous term. It means one who does not believe in God, and it means neither more nor less".

The same point had been made decades earlier by another Christian theologian, Richard Watson, who was well known for his attacks on Thomas Paine and other freethinkers. In a Biblical and Theological Dictionary (1831), Watson maintained that atheism literally means "without God": An atheist, "in the strict and proper sence of the word, is one who does not believe in the existence of god, or who owns no being superior to nature."

Twentieth-century freethinkers have continued to defend the negative definition. In A Rationalist Enclyclopedia (1950) Joseph McCabe, a former Jesuit priest who became prominent atheist, defined atheism as "the absence of theistic belief". And Chapman Cohen, president of Britain's National Secular Society and author of many books on atheism, wrote "If one believes in a god, one is a theist. If one does not belief in a god, then one is an A-theist - he is without that belief. The distinction between atheism and theism is entirely,exclusively, that of whether one has or has not a belief in God". (Why Atheism, Pages 23 - 24)



==========================================================================

Of course, humans would not be humans if we did not make improvement on what we already have working well. Thus some philosopher have actually started make and defending positive atheism. On such is Michael Martin, who has written a number of books on the subject. For my money, his best book on the subject is "Atheism - A Philosophical Justification"

In this work Martin defends both weak (negative atheism) and strong (positive) atheism. I shall be posting on his work in due course when I had had the time to digest better the arguments.

==========================================================================

Other atheist scholars defend atheism from a probabilistic stance, basically say that after examining all the arguments, the chances of such a god as the Abrahamic god is extremely unlikely. Richard Dawkins and Nicholas Everett fall into this class.

===========================================================================

In a pragmatic sense, what does all of this mean. Well for all intends and purposes, a weak atheist, a strong atheist, a probabilistic atheist and an agnostics share the same outlook of life. They live their lives practically without reverence to a god of deity. The subtly technical differences in their philosophical positions does not express itself into differences in their worldviews and their approach to life, as far as deities are concerned. And ultimately, this is what matters, whether one spends their valuable time and effort worshiping a being about whom they have no knowledge, or whether one spends one time and effort on more human and earthly related activities.




One of George Smiths seminal books, "The case Againgst God" is given in the link below;

http://www.federacionatea.org/documentos/thecaseagainstgod.pdf

imhotep:
You have always lampooned religious groups on this forum. Since, in your world view, religion is rubbish, then whatever the Vatican has to say about (the scientific) theory of evolution must also be rubbish.

You see the inconsistency in your modus operandi??

Or my goodness!  What is this logical fallacy called again?  Sorry I cannot remember.  

The fact that I criticise someone for having a certain view, or I criticise the view, does not mean that they are always in the wrong, or all their views are always wrong.


In fact, that is the more reason why I focus on the  view, rather than the person.  The view should be the target of scrutiny unless other circumstance call for the examination of the individual.