I’m well aware of this, but that doesn’t change the fact that Webster imparts an illogical definition of the word (if for no other reason than it only takes one ‘god’ into account), nor the fact that there are several other dictionary definitions which do agree with my comment. There are dictionary definitions that define atheism as ‘godlessness; immorality.’ Are your atheist friends immoral people?

rosemarie wrote: “Also, most of my friends are atheists.”

Everyone is an atheist to varying degrees. Christians/Muslims/Jews are atheists regarding every god save the one they’ve respectively made an exception for. They all lack belief, for example, in the gods of the Greek Pantheon, or all of the gods of Hinduism. The ‘full blown’ atheist simply makes no exception for any god(s).

rosemarie wrote: “Some of them are so passionate in their belief system that I call them ‘Evangelical Atheists.’”

Their ‘belief system’ consisting of what, exactly? The belief that there is no god? I as an atheist do not hold such a belief, nor would I allow your friends to define who I am as an atheist - someone who lacks belief in any and all gods. Nonetheless, if they can make a logically consistent case for their belief that no gods exist, is that case any less valid than the theist who invariably cannot make such a case?

rosemarie wrote: “I don’t understand why we just don’t respect everyone else’s beliefs.”

Why are beliefs inherently worthy of respect? If I believed that anyone with the name ‘rosemarie’ is a serial killer, or a child molester, would you respect that belief?

rosemarie wrote: “Religions have done much harm, but occasionally religion inspires goodness -”

Sure, religion inspires ‘goodness.’ But this does not lend one shred of veracity to religious/theological claims. If ‘goodness’ was all that religion inspired, you’d be hard pressed to find anyone who would speak out against it. But the harm it has caused over the centuries far outweighs the ‘good’ it’s inspired, which is why so many people speak out against it - religious people included.

I don’t have any points of contention regarding your comments on capitalism, other than the fact that they have little if anything to do with the topic at hand.

This is a common misconception of (logically consistent) definitions of the terms.

A/gnosticism refers to knowledge (from the greek term ‘gnosis,’ or knowledge - the prefix ‘a’ means ‘without’ or ‘absence of’) The agnostic simply contends that (any) god(s) cannot be known. The agnostic is without knowledge of any god.

A/theism refers to belief. A theist (from the greek ‘theos,’ or ‘with god[s]‘) is one who believes in a god (or gods). The atheist (a= without/absence of + theism=belief in a god or gods) simply lacks belief in any god. Atheism is not an assertion that (any) god does not exist, hence, there is no burden of proof.

3. As for God, the Father, is he God? Who is he? “And God spoke to Israel {Jacob} in the visions of the night, and said, Jacob, Jacob. And he said, Here am I. And he said, I am God {Heb. El}, the god {Heb. elohim – a noun} of your father {Abraham}.” (Genesis 46:2-3) The phrase “I am El {proper name}, the god {noun} of your father” elucidates the proper name of the god of Abraham. The name of Abraham’s god was El.
Who was El?
El was the highest god of the Canaanite pantheon. He is mentioned in passages of the Ugaritic texts. (See, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, pp. 129, 135, 137-141, 143-148, 150-152, 154, 155, 519, 659.) For example, “Your decree, O El, is wise, Your wisdom is eternal …” (See, Mullen, Jr., Theodore E., The Assembly of the Gods, p. 145.)
Josephus, the Jewish historian, wrote, “But he who first built it {the city of Salem/Jerusalem} was a potent man among the Canaanites, and is in our own tongue called the righteous King {Melchizedek}, for such he really was; on which account he was the first priest of God, and first built a temple {Gr. ιερόν}, and called the city Jerusalem, which was formerly called Salem.” (See, Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, Book 6, cha. 10, par. 1, (437).) Josephus’ statement is remarkable, because, according to the Old Testament, Solomon was the first to build a temple for God. But, according to Josephus, before the times of Abraham, there was a temple of God in Salem and Melchizedek was the first priest of God: that is, El; El Elyon. His worshippers were the Canaanites. The god of Abraham was the highest god of the Canaanite pantheon.
Philo of Byblos (Byblos was a city located in modern-day Lebanon) was a 1st century CE historian. His book Phoenician History was presumably a translation of the book of Sanchuniathon, an early Phoenician historian. Eusebius quotes Philo, who quoted what Sanchuniathon wrote: “Kronos {the Greek god, who was represented by the planet Saturn}, therefore, whom the Phoenicians call El {the god El}, who was king of the {Phoenician} country, and subsequently, after his decease, was deified and changed into the star Saturn …” (See, Eusebius, The Preparation for the Gospel, Book. IV. cha. XVI, par. 156d.) King El was a man, who was deified after his death. He became the highest god of the Canaanites, El Elyon.
(This is a big subject condensed in three paragraphs.) The bottom line is this: The Head-God of Christianity can be traced to the god of Abraham. The god of Abraham was the god of Melchizedek, the king of Salem. That god’s name was El. El was a king who lived before Melchizedek, and who was deified after his death (this custom survived, up to the Roman times- Julius Caesar became a god after his death). Therefore, the Head-God of Christianity originated, as a man, about 3,800 years ago.
As Roddney Sheffer would ask, “Specifically, which god are you asking about?” Do you want to ask about Zeus?

Andrew

It seems to me that there is a 3rd alternative to believing or not believing and that is to simply doubt. Agnostics do not have the burden of proof. The other 2 sides do. Both have failed.

Christians do not like to admit the many definitions of god within their inerrant tradition-based or bible-based faith. Nevertheless, they are no different than the worshippers of the many savior-gods of 2,000 years ago. The Greek culture who produced the likes of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle had Zeus and Dionysis. The Egyptians had Horus. The Romans had Mithra and Apollo. The Jews have Jehovah. Christians have Jesus. Our western civilization is a product of these cultures and replicates these same religious patterns. Same old, same old.

Will we ever learn? No. Why? We are an insecure species in need of self assurance and comfort in an ever changing world. We are prone to self-deception ever searching to justify belief in the god most suitable to our likes and dislikes, i.e. “anthropomorphic idolatry.”

Right on target Mr Sheffer! Thank you.

When Romans committed their genocides, they’d stick you with a spear, not riddle you with shells containing depleted uranium.

The game is the same, but the stacks are as high as they can ever be now. I don’t think many people realize just how important the time we are living in right now is. More important than 1914, more important than 1939.

It’s time to change - or face extinction as a species.

These United States were founded by rebels, revolutionaries and dissidents, not conservatives or neo-cons, and the same goes for the founders of Christianity and true followers of Jesus/JC.

From the abolition of slavery to civil rights, people of all faiths and atheists united to revolt against the status quo for the greater good; equal human rights!

The neo-con base is made up of fundamentalist Christians [Christo-terrorists] who are pro-war, pro-empire and anti-the Mystery of love. They lust for Armageddon and worship a god they have created in their own image; judgmental, unforgiving and violent.

NOT at all what JC was about.

The term ‘Christian’ was not even coined until the days of Paul, about 3 decades after Jesus walked the earth a man. The early followers were called Members of The Way; being the way JC taught: to love and forgive ones enemies and do not judge any other.

JC was NEVER a Christian, but he was a social justice, radical revolutionary Palestinian devout Jewish road warrior who rose up and challenged the job security of the Temple authorities by teaching the people they did NOT need to pay the priests for ritual baths or sacrificing livestock to be OK with God; for God already LOVED them just as they were:

Sinners, poor, diseased, outcasts, widows, orphans, refugees and prisoners all living under Roman Military Occupation.

2,000 years ago The Cross had NO symbolic religious meaning, nor was it a piece of jewelry.

When JC said: “Pick up your cross and follow me,” he was issuing a POLITICAL statement, for the main roads in Jerusalem were lined with crucified agitators, rebels, dissidents and any others who disturbed the status quo of the Roman Occupying Forces.

“If enough Christians followed the gospel, they could bring any state to its knees.” -Father Philip Francis Berrigan

My concern is with trying to close the
gap between what is understood about global warming by the relevant scientific community, and
what is known by those who need to know, the public and policy makers. I think that we still
have a long way to go in making the danger clear, in part because of the inertia of the climate
system and the danger of passing tipping points – points at which little or no additional forcing is
needed to cause large, relatively rapid, undesirable effects.
Our fellow species feel the danger in climate change. Animals are not on the run for the sake of exercise. But
they do not control what is happening. We do. We cannot avert our eyes and pretend that we do
not understand the consequences of continued “business as usual”.
A related alternative metaphor, perhaps less objectionable while still making the most
basic point, comes to mind in connection with an image of crashing of massive ice sheets fronts
into the sea — an image of relevance to both climate tipping points and consequences (sea level
rise). Can these crashing glaciers serve as a Krystal Nacht, and wake us up to the inhumane
consequences of averting our eyes?
Alas, that metaphor probably would be greeted with the same reaction from the people
who objected to the first. That reaction may have been spurred by the clever mischaracterization
of the CEO, aiming to achieve just such a reaction. So far that seems to have been the story: the
special interests have been cleverer than us, preventing the public from seeing the crisis that
should be in view. It is hard for me to think of a different equally poignant example of the
foreseeable consequence faced by fellow creatures on the planet. Suggestions are welcome. James Hansen
WE CAN DO IT, YES WE CAN

Obama do you read DV?

And we’re slowly working on that.

And I agree 100% with Doug Tarnopol. I too am an atheist, but I really couldn’t care less if people are feeding and clothing the poor in the name of Jesus or Abraham or whoever else you want to feed the poor for.

All that matters is that the poor are being fed. Period.

If we got rid of religion, capitalism and nationalism, then and only then will we stand some chance of living together in peace.

Fat chance of that ever happening!

Well, there’s a third option: jettisoning the notion of “God” altogether. I’m sure you wouldn’t have a problem with this, either.

I think the entire discussion about god in the US (atheists, fundamentalists, and many in between) is utterly beside the point. What matters is how one acts; what one believes is one’s own choice, as you rightly say. It’s the imposition of those beliefs on others, specifically in religion, that is the problem. I have no problem imposing (or rather adhering to) the rules of the Enlightenment game: separate church and state. Reasons? See European history up to the 19th century (and beyond). Or any other region’s history. As you point out.

I’m an atheist, but the Dawkins et al types are really missing the point. I couldn’t care less whether someone builds houses for the homeless out of faith for Jesus, personal guilt, spite, or anything else. I just care that the house was built.

Amazing how difficult taking that stance apparently is in the good ol’ USA.

What’s wrong with God granting talents in varying degrees. This is just part of nature’s diversity. Who wants a world full of Einsteins?

As far as “countless egregious errors,” how do you know that God was aiming for 100% healthy humans? Suffering is a part of life and it is so by design. People of faith understand suffering as a means to cleanse our sins. Surely the babies have not sinned, but their ticket to paradise is guaranteed. The parents and relatives, however, suffer and must deal with their condition. This life is a temporary existance intended as a test. It is the afterlife that is eternal.