Today I talked to an Atheist.

My privilege.

I love Colby Buzzell's book, & also Jason Christopher Hartley's also...Go Rob, you rock! Stay safe, keep up the good work!

To: Pulsar

Hardly unique to the Muslim faith, wouldn't you agree? Weren't Protestants and Catholics killing one another for centuries (think Thirty Years' War, 1618-1648 Anno Domini)? Religion is inherently divisive, even if a few particularly tolerant individuals can divore themselves from that mold. It seems a tad ethnocentric to reserve a comment like that for Muslims alone. Who knows how to wage war better than European/American nations of Judeo-Christian faith? We've had a lot of practice (think Crusades, Conquistadors, Manifest Destiny, etc.) Islamic nations are having a hard time of things in the present, but Catholic vs. Protestant turmoil has materialized as recently the late 20th century-- familiar with the IRA? Besides, don't Protestants and Catholics both worship the same deity? And his son, right? Isn't that pantheism? But I digress...

You are welcome. You and yours are doing a good job in Iraq and Afghanistan. God bless and peace to you.

Brad, why do you have a problem with presenting theological beliefs as logical?

For hundreds of years, philosophers have used a great variety of methods to present/refute various understandings of god through methods of logic.

Even mathematics is not a science, for numbers are ideas, not physical objects that exist in the real world.

Just as the concept of a singularity that existed before the big bang is a concept, not a physical, scientific object.

It gets even muddier and more fascinating when we consider things like fractal geometry and imaginary numbers.

Whether or not you agree with the thinking or not, it is foolish to believe that theology/philosophy does not contain "critical thinking".

Perhaps you're simply apply this to a variety of people who, whether or not they are certain of god's existence, or of how the universe is structured, do not apply any critical analysis to their beliefs, and do not continue to develop or seek proofs of their understandings.

But this can be applied to both atheists and theists. God-filled or godless, random or structured, the unexamined life is not worth living, and the unexamined universe is not worth living in.

Brad, why do you have a problem with presenting theological beliefs as logical?

I don't. I have a problem with presenting ANY belief as logical and/or rational when it doesn't hold up to the scrutiny. The only connection with theology there is that there are a lot more people presenting theological ideas that don't hold up to scientific/logical/etc scrutiny than there are with other sets of beliefs...but the idea is the same in all cases, theological or otherwise.

Whether or not you agree with the thinking or not, it is foolish to believe that theology/philosophy does not contain "critical thinking".

Indeed, which is why I do NOT believe that. Only when the argument or idea (whatever it may be) is both presented as fact or truth AND don't hold up to critical thinking, do I have a problem with it. Ideas that do hold up to critical thinking, logic, etc etc, I have no problem with. I guess maybe I wasn't clear enough about that originally....

But this can be applied to both atheists and theists. God-filled or godless, random or structured, the unexamined life is not worth living, and the unexamined universe is not worth living in.

I couldn't agree more. No group or set of beliefs (or lack thereof, or whatever the case may be) gets a free pass, or any more or less examination and criticism then any other. Every idea should be held to the same standards if it's to be considered a "fact", or otherwise used to justify an action...or basically anything beyond personal opinion (which of course is irrelevant to objective thinking and such)....everyone should be able to think and believe whatever they want.....when they want to present those thoughts or beliefs as facts, they have to work for it :)

I agree... too often theism vs. atheism arguments do not involve logic at all. This doesn't help anyone.

Atheism will use "clever" sophisms like FSM to "discredit" theists... Ridiculous to begin with, considering, for at least 4 thousand years, the leading theological/philosophical thinkers did not have an Anthropomorphic or even finite conception of god.

Which would amount, in essence is no different than, for example, attacking the mathematical concept of infinity, randomness, or imaginary numbers (Uhh... because I can't see it or quantify it, it doesn't exist)

Sophists like Xeno would be proud.

For their part, the less sophisticated theists/proselytizers will just use cop-outs like pascal's wager.

The implications of the questions of reality are too important to bicker like children about.

when they want to present those thoughts or beliefs as facts, they have to work for it :)

Herein, dear friends, we enter the realm of "faith". This is based on neither tangible fact nor sound logic, but rather that "knowing" at the core of one's being.

Elusive? Yes.

Subjective? Of course.

Difficult to to either prove or refute? You betcha!

Necessary? There are theists and atheists the world over who seem to agree that a certain intrinsic level of intangible "knowing" offers the promise of hope.

Herein, dear friends, we enter the realm of "faith". This is based on neither tangible fact nor sound logic, but rather that "knowing" at the core of one's being.

Please refer to my above posts as you attempt to say that theism does not use logic.

Subjective? Of course.

Not any more than concepts are subjective. Again, it appears you did not read my above posts.

Necessary? There are theists and atheists the world over who seem to agree that a certain intrinsic level of intangible "knowing" offers the promise of hope.

I have no idea where you are trying to go with this statement.

Atheism will use "clever" sophisms like FSM to "discredit" theists...

Hi Jivatman (@ 7.4), the FSM was not conceived to "discredit" theists but rather to combat the teaching of creationism in the Kansas schools. The point was to illustrate that it is not reasonable or desirable to promote one religion's creation myth over the myriad of others in public schools.

Sorry, I have to stand up to FSM persecution when I see it. :-)

Rob, very nice article. I like the way you've articulated your views, and you are lucky to have a friend with whom you can have these conversations. Seems more and more difficult to do these days...

Hi Jivatman (@ 7.4), the FSM was not conceived to "discredit" theists but rather to combat the teaching of creationism in the Kansas schools. The point was to illustrate that it is not reasonable or desirable to promote one religion's creation myth over the myriad of others in public schools.

Well, imo, the establishment clause does not apply to state governments, which was the common opinion until 1994. But then again, states have long lost their power under the constitution, and are no longer the sovereign entities they were origonally intended to be.

Why not let the people of the state decide what they want? Why should the Federal government bully them into their own interpretation of the first? If they became a laughing stock, so be it. I'd see that as a sign that we're not quite a tyranny, yet.

As to whether it is desirable to teach only a single view, no, it would be preferable to show many.

Personally, I do not see why there should be a problem exploring issues of god in an elective philosophy class exploring Plato, Aristotle, Kant, ect. (Plotinus I really like, though my favorite of all is Adi Shankara).

I realize it would be difficult to do properly, but philosophy teaches the type of thinking which is sorely needed in the days where people resort to straw man.

But nobody should be averse to this. Not atheists, not the Illinois Rep, nobody.

Sorry, I have to stand up to FSM persecution when I see it. :-)

Does not change the fact that the FSM conception of god has form, therefore finite,
And an implied attack on religion in general which holds no water.
Views, when held merely for jest, are deserving of persecution.

Personally, I do not see why there should be a problem exploring issues of god in an elective philosophy class exploring Plato, Aristotle, Kant, ect. (Plotinus I really like, though my favorite of all is Adi Shankara).

I would LOVE to see a somewhat standard comparative religion class and/or critical thinking class (or at least part of a class). Not really sure how it could be done and keep everyone happy enough not to go nuts about it, but something along those lines is sorely needed imo. As an atheist I have no problem at all with teaching several ideas and/or theories on any given topic, so long as it's done in a way that holds up ALL the ideas in the same scrutiny...which sadly is nothing like what the people fighting for religious ideas in classrooms seem to want (for the most part anyway).

I heard a story a while back about some schools in Britain giving philosophy classes through many grades, starting young.

They mentioned how they asked questions like "Is rain music?", and how vigorously the children debated questions like that.

I see we agree that we'd both like to see logic/philosophy type classes as standard coursework.

Of course you mention the inherent difficulty, perhaps impossibility, of a teacher being unbiased with regards to it.

Well, maybe it isn't a terribly big deal, as long as your talking about legitimate philosophers, and logic-based ideas.

I would'nt see it as a problem if you had tons of little Kantian, Platonists, or the like running around. I'd actually enjoy that.

Why not let the people of the state decide what they want? Why should the Federal government bully them into their own interpretation of the first? If they became a laughing stock, so be it. I'd see that as a sign that we're not quite a tyranny, yet. Honestly? The people have decided what they want-- one country from sea to shining sea, not a loose confederation of mini-countries bound by a compact into a federation of mutual respect. We call ourselves "Americans" rather than "[insert state here]-ans", we talk about American "culture", to travel abroad we seek identification papers from the federal government, and we expect that federal government to protect us both domestically and abroad. Ever since the Civil War, we have-- as a nation-- steered in this direction, wrong or right. We have, over the years, increasingly believed that the Bill of Rights should limit all government power, that it is indicative of the rights we think all people should have anywhere in America, irrespective of state of residence. It is one reason why we say "the United States of America is..." instead of "the United States of America are..."

And generally speaking, when you see someone lamenting the shift away from "states' rights", it is generally in the service of the opinion that some people should have their rights restricted-- this religion is better than that religion, this skin color is better than that skin color, this sexual orientation is better than that one, and so on and so on...

Two hundred years ago, prior to the advent of near instantaneous communication, or rapid widely accessible transportation, having states manage their own affairs was not only desirable, but necessary. Today, it's certainly less necessary, which has led to widespread questioning as to whether it's desirable.

Does not change the fact that the FSM conception of god has form, therefore finite, And an implied attack on religion in general which holds no water. Frankly, a God without form who yet somehow interacts with the universe is the concept which holds no water. It's hard to conceive of a God who could be "infinite in form" and yet have both a "personal" interest in the universe and the ability to interact with it.

for at least 4 thousand years, the leading theological/philosophical thinkers did not have an Anthropomorphic or even finite conception of god. Sorry, but the history of religion is rife conceptions of God[s] both anthropomorphic and finite. The conception of an infinite and mysterious God seems primarily to be a response to our increasing understanding of the way the universe works.

And the attempt to use mathematical concepts to insist that there is a physical correlate for intangible and imaginary numbers is misguided, at best. Unless, of course, you think the best description of "God" is one which is restrained merely to Man's relationship to the universe, and in no way extends to the "spiritual" as that "realm" is commonly conceived.

I'd be ok with that sort of "religion", but that's clearly not the understanding of the overwhelming majority of current religions.

A good starting point if you want to compare religions is one of the standard collegiate works, The Religions of Man, by Huston Smith. It goes through the major religions in a very non-biased, descriptive format and has a lot of good info. There are plenty of other very good works in this field, I'm just recommending the one that I used in my comparative religion class.

Great seed, btw, and so nice to see everyone playing well together. I'm sure his noodly appendages are swelling with pride to see such good behavior... ;:-)

Honestly? The people have decided what they want-- one country from sea to shining sea, not a loose confederation of mini-countries bound by a compact into a federation of mutual respect. We call ourselves "Americans" rather than "[insert state here]-ans", we talk about American "culture", to travel abroad we seek identification papers from the federal government, and we expect that federal government to protect us both domestically and abroad. Ever since the Civil War, we have-- as a nation-- steered in this direction, wrong or right. We have, over the years, increasingly believed that the Bill of Rights should limit all government power, that it is indicative of the rights we think all people should have anywhere in America, irrespective of state of residence. It is one reason why we say "the United States of America is..." instead of "the United States of America are..."

"The people" have decided nothing. An increasingly powerful executive branch has decided for them. A stacked Supreme court has decided for them, and decided to re-interpret the constitution against the tenth amendment, but increasingly, against the majority of the other amendments as well.

The federal government has continued to raise taxes to pay for it's military, and it's increasingly powerful, corrupt, and bureaucratic slew of organizations. The States are drowning in debt, and, with federal taxes so high, can no longer afford to raise taxes to pay for their own crumbling infastructure.

And, with the tenth amendment trampled on, they're increasingly powerless against an overreaching federal government.

This was one of the reasons that states were created; to be sovereign entities. The constitution strictly limits the powers assigned to the federal government. These have been trampled upon.

And generally speaking, when you see someone lamenting the shift away from "states' rights", it is generally in the service of the opinion that some people should have their rights restricted-- this religion is better than that religion, this skin color is better than that skin color, this sexual orientation is better than that one, and so on and so on...

No. It's more often in favor of increased rights. For example, gay marriage, for which the federal government was pushing a constitutional amendment against, and many states have defied.

I'm believe I'm significantly more optimistic than you, In that I believe more power needs to be vested in the closest sovereign entity to the people. As time goes by, freedom and equality in culture and in the population increases, yet corruption of the federal government and their limit of individual freedom only increases.

Frankly, a God without form who yet somehow interacts with the universe is the concept which holds no water. It's hard to conceive of a God who could be "infinite in form" and yet have both a "personal" interest in the universe and the ability to interact with it.

We describe god by that which the world is not. The world changes so is without time, space or change. God is of infinite consciousness. We perceive manyness, so all is one.

It is a contradiction to attempt to apply the concept of "personal" interest in that which is a part of him, namely, us.

Sorry, but the history of religion is rife conceptions of God[s] both anthropomorphic and finite. The conception of an infinite and mysterious God seems primarily to be a response to our increasing understanding of the way the universe works.

Kabbalah, Advaita Vedanta, Plotinus, ect. All have a conception of god as one of infinite oneness. I hardly consider 4 thousand+ years to be "recent".

And the attempt to use mathematical concepts to insist that there is a physical correlate for intangible and imaginary numbers is misguided, at best.

You're missing point. There is no concrete correlate for any mathematical concepts whatsoever. We understand them from scientific experiments, and tests of how objects in the universe interact in the real world, but the underlying laws, order, "logos" is you will, is beyond the experiments themselves.

As an atheist I find some comments wrong.
We need religion. It gives many people a stable base to endure their lives.
We need faith (be it atheism or theism) to follow our view of what our lives should be.
Devout followers (not radicals) of all faiths (not all of them) do not follow the true path of love your fellow man.
Radical Fundamentalists (and I include some atheists) are telling us who to hate and not who to love.
That is wrong.
The basic question: What happens after we die?
The only people who knows the truth are not telling.
Personal opinion: I love surprise parties. I have never had one. So I wont be disappointed.
BTW. Great post.

books can sometimes be bad things depending upon what is in them. Unless "the people" choose to do anything about this, then they have chosen strictly by their acquiescence. You can lament that all you like, but the vast majority of Americans simply do not care one way or the other.

We are defined as much by what we choose not to worry about as by what we choose to address. You're free to claim that only the machinations of a despotic government are to blame, but frankly, that's extremely short-sighted.

You might not like the direction we're going in, and I might not like the direction we're going in, but the vast majority seem to like it just fine. If they didn't, it would be more of an issue, wouldn't it?

No. It's more often in favor of increased rights. For example, gay marriage, for which the federal government was pushing a constitutional amendment against, and many states have defied. I obviously disagree. For example, "the federal government" neither pushed for nor passed a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. State representatives pushed for a federal outlawing of gay marriages, and were defeated. In the meantime, anti-gay amendments have passed in a number of states, Ohio included, I'm sad to report. Therefore, by your own chosen example, I have to conclude that you're simply wrong.

I'm believe I'm significantly more optimistic than you, In that I believe more power needs to be vested in the closest sovereign entity to the people. I believe that you don't have nearly enough information about me to draw general conclusions of this sort, and yet, at the same time, I wouldn't be surprised to find you more optimistic than me, since I tend not to be an optimistic person. For instance--

As time goes by, freedom and equality in culture and in the population increases, yet corruption of the federal government and their limit of individual freedom only increases. I'm not sure how you blithely assume this is true. Because blacks are now considered fully human and equal to whites, by the government if not by the whole of society? Because women have the right to vote? You state a contradiction in your own assertion-- freedom and equality in the population increases, while the federal government increases the limits on freedom. And not a few paragraphs earlier, you concluded A stacked Supreme court has... decided to re-interpret the constitution against the tenth amendment, but increasingly, against the majority of the other amendments as well. Is "freedom" increasing or decreasing? If it is increasing, then your fears of a despotic federal government seem unfounded. If it is decreasing, then your optimism about the culture and population seem unfounded. You should make up your mind.

We describe god by that which the world is not. I agree-- god is imaginary, i.e. what the world is not.

The world changes so is without time, space or change. God is of infinite consciousness. We perceive manyness, so all is one. It is a contradiction to attempt to apply the concept of "personal" interest in that which is a part of him, namely, us. These statements are essentially meaningless.

Kabbalah, Advaita Vedanta, Plotinus, ect. All have a conception of god as one of infinite oneness. I hardly consider 4 thousand+ years to be "recent". In terms of the 30,000+ years of human conceptions about gods? 4,000 years is recent. And even now, the beliefs of Plotinus, et al are not widespread, and are directly contradicted daily in the numerous faiths currently practiced today. So I'll repeat myself-- the history of religion is rife conceptions of God[s] both anthropomorphic and finite. The conception of an infinite and mysterious God seems primarily to be a response to our increasing understanding of the way the universe works.

You're missing point. There is no concrete correlate for any mathematical concepts whatsoever. We understand them from scientific experiments, and tests of how objects in the universe interact in the real world, but the underlying laws, order, "logos" is you will, is beyond the experiments themselves. I get the point just fine. In fact, you're merely repeating me, and then tacking a meaningless platitude to the end of my statement as though this somehow alters it. Either God is nothing more than a description of the relationship between real things, or God is imaginary. You're welcome to believe that God is "infinite consciousness" and "exists outside time and space" (for whatever that's supposed to mean), and that everyone and everything is "part of God", but this puts you at odds with the conception of God espoused by most believers in God. And that doesn't even begin to address the fact that most of your conception of God seems to be composed of meaningless phrases which only appear to make any sense.

The basic question: What happens after we die?
The only people who knows the truth are not telling. What? Bodies don't rot? The assumption that anything other than this happens is exactly that-- an assumption. In no way can an "assumption" be said to be "true" without evidence.

Is "freedom" increasing or decreasing? If it is increasing, then your fears of a despotic federal government seem unfounded. If it is decreasing, then your optimism about the culture and population seem unfounded. You should make up your mind.

I shall clarify.

Governments, over time, devolve to tyranny. As people desire more and more power, they continually consolidate it into the hands of fewer people, and excersize greater control over the populace.

Individuals are naturally inclined towards liberty. Over time, society grows in openness, and extends more equality to greater proportions of it's populace.

Which results? Liberty, overall, for Society remains as governments pass away.

In terms of the 30,000+ years of human conceptions about gods? 4,000 years is recent.

30,000+ years is beyond the written record we currently have. They may very well have believed the same.

Either God is nothing more than a description of the relationship between real things, or God is imaginary. You're welcome to believe that God is "infinite consciousness" and "exists outside time and space" (for whatever that's supposed to mean), and that everyone and everything is "part of God", but this puts you at odds with the conception of God espoused by most believers in God.

By logos, I mean the inherent order which governs our universe. The physical laws themselves, such as E=MC2. Essentially, the order that exists as opposed to chaos. Also, the fact that anything exists at all.

By god I speak of the source of the logos itself, as well as that which will exist when this universe ends. Alpha and Omega. That which is without time. We know that, in time, this universe will pass away, that that which passes away, which changes, is from the perspective of god, ultimately unreal.

And that doesn't even begin to address the fact that most of your conception of God seems to be composed of meaningless phrases which only appear to make any sense.

Thanks IAR. I could say the same thing about any of your points, or, for that fact, anything I refuse to address simply because I don't want to.

Which results? Liberty, overall, for Society remains as governments pass away Then your fears of government are ultimately unfounded.

30,000+ years is beyond the written record we currently have. They may very well have believed the same. It would be a stretch to believe so, since quite obviously most theists do not believe what you propose, even today. And while it wouldn't do to reprint in whole Frazer's Golden Bough in this comment, you might reference it at some time, and see whether or not anthropomorphic representations of deities outweigh or are outweighed by the conception of deity which you propose.

By logos, I mean the inherent order which governs our universe. The physical laws themselves, such as E=MC2. And that differs from my description of God as "nothing more than a description of the relationship between real things" in what way, exactly?

Thanks IAR. I could say the same thing about any of your points, or, for that fact, anything I refuse to address simply because I don't want to. You're welcome to try. In the meantime, please explain for all of us what it means to "exist" when "everything which exists comes to an end." Explain what it means to "exist" "outside of space and time." Explain what the phrase "from the perspective of God" means, i.e. what it means for "the inherent order which governs our universe" (the "physical laws themselves") to have a "perspective".

As I said, these assertions ape the form of meaningful sentences, but seem inherently devoid of meaningful content.

It would be a stretch to believe so, since quite obviously most theists do not believe what you propose, even today. And while it wouldn't do to reprint in whole Frazer's Golden Bough in this comment, you might reference it at some time, and see whether or not anthropomorphic representations of deities outweigh or are outweighed by the conception of deity which you propose.

Slightly misleading to say "most", as all the Dharmic religions have at least a somewhat realistic timescale:

"The main reason that we oriented this episode of Cosmos towards India is because of that wonderful aspect of Hindu cosmology which first of all gives a time-scale for the Earth and the universe -- a time-scale which is consonant with that of modern scientific cosmology. We know that the Earth is about 4.6 billion years old, and the cosmos, or at least its present incarnation, is something like 10 or 20 billion years old. The Hindu tradition has a day and night of Brahma in this range, somewhere in the region of 8.4 billion years."

"As far as I know. It is the only ancient religious tradition on the Earth which talks about the right time-scale. We want to get across the concept of the right time-scale, and to show that it is not unnatural. In the West, people have the sense that what is natural is for the universe to be a few thousand years old, and that billions is indwelling, and no one can understand it. The Hindu concept is very clear. Here is a great world culture which has always talked about billions of years."

"Finally, the many billion year time-scale of Hindu cosmology is not the entire history of the universe, but just the day and night of Brahma, and there is the idea of an infinite cycle of births and deaths and an infinite number of universes, each with its own gods."

-Carl Sagan

And that differs from my description of God as "nothing more than a description of the relationship between real things" in what way, exactly?

That is what I defined as logos, the natural laws. Since this very well may not be the only universe/logos, that leaves the question of what is beyond, and what is underlying, these logoi.

As I said that that which passes away or changes is ultimately unreal, from the perspective of god.

Perhaps a more comfortable terminology for you is that our universe will ultimately compress back into a singularity

It changes, therefore it is not the ultimate reality.

I use the phrase "From the perspective of god" to describe the world as being false. Yet it is not false because it does have a degree of stability, and people in this universe are able to attain onesss.

Neither completely true or false, it is god, obfuscated.

Slightly misleading to say "most", as all the Dharmic religions have at least a somewhat realistic timescale: I see, so when a large contingent of Hindus are marveling at statues of Ganesh weeping tears of milk, this is an indication of their belief in an impersonal God, the "logos"? I think you're losing sight of the very thing which you proposed, that this understanding of an impersonal, non-anthropomorphic God on the part of theists and philosophers is "ancient"-- telling me about Hindu cosmology says nothing about the Hindu conception of God (or gods). It's wonderful that the Hindu cosmology posits something akin to the right time-scale for the age of the universe, but that is at best tangential to your earlier statement.

Over the vast timeline of human religion, the concept of God which you propose is both recent and held by a tiny minority of believers.

And I believe you should look up the definition of the word "most." I stick by it. Even if all believers in Dharmic religions everywhere believed what you propose (although they don't), "most" would still be an appropriate adjective.

Since this very well may not be the only universe/logos, that leaves the question of what is beyond, and what is underlying, these logoi. That's not an explanation, that's merely a rephrasing of the assertion, as are that which passes away or changes is ultimately unreal, from the perspective of god and Neither completely true or false, [the universe] is god, obfuscated.

Let me know when you get around to explaining the meaning that's supposed to be contained within these sentences.

Even if all believers in Dharmic religions everywhere believed what you propose (although they don't), "most" would still be an appropriate adjective.

huh? I was following your argument, and seeing your point until you threw this sentence out. Logically, it doesn't follow.

Jivat- I agree with you in the ultimate conception of Hinduism focusing on Atman/Brahman as the Logos. But I think the confusion comes with popular religion vs. ideal religion. Religion often devolves into more polytheistic forms - look at what happened to Taoism from the time of Lao-Tze to maybe two centuries after he passed. Catholicism often disguises this with the saints. And many nations on conversion move their Gods into the new religion in this manner. People who blindly attack religion often seize on the crudest forms of the practice and not the way it should be. What do you think?

I see, so when a large contingent of Hindus are marveling at statues of Ganesh weeping tears of milk, this is an indication of their belief in an impersonal God, the "logos"? I think you're losing sight of the very thing which you proposed, that this understanding of an impersonal, non-anthropomorphic God on the part of theists and philosophers is "ancient"-- telling me about Hindu cosmology says nothing about the Hindu conception of God (or gods). It's wonderful that the Hindu cosmology posits something akin to the right time-scale for the age of the universe, but that is at best tangential to your earlier statement.

Hindus very immensely across many of their interpretations/conceptions of texts. As I said before, one of the most popular ones is to worship "Ishvara"- the infinite, formless, god, in the form of an anthropomorphic one, because the human mind cannot contemplate infinity. This is considered a pragmatic solution, and the form of god chosen can be anything, but most typically one of the Hindu gods, obviously.

Essentially, the theory is different from the practice, for pragmatic reasons.

As for how many religious people have a realistic timescale, I imagine it's more than half, because It's hard to say that 100% of christians and Muslims believe the world is a few thousand years old.

As for my conception of god, you have to ask me a more specific question about them, other than just that you don't understand it, because I did in fact address several of your other points, such as defining god differently than just as a relationship between real things.

If not, well, I suppose you're not up for this type of discussion, because I'm not the first person to use this form of phraseology and deduction.

The ideas themselves, are far from unique, as well.

huh? I was following your argument, and seeing your point until you threw this sentence out. Logically, it doesn't follow. Most theists are not believers in Dharmic religion. Even if all followers of Dharmic religions believed wholeheartedly in the conception of God that Jivatman proposes (and I don't believe that they do, as you note), it would still be true that "most" theists don't believe in the conception of God that Jivatman proposes.

Essentially, the theory is different from the practice, for pragmatic reasons. Then you have no room to disagree with my statement. Religion is the practice of religion, as much as it is the theory, and the pragmatic practice of the religion you claim is non-anthropomorphic is itself anthropomorphic, undercutting your argument.

As for my conception of god, you have to ask me a more specific question about them, other than just that you don't understand it, because I did in fact address several of your other points, such as defining god differently than just as a relationship between real things. No, frankly, you didn't. You merely rephrased your assertion without offering explanation. Using one meaningless phrase to "define" another meaningless phrase isn't an explanation, it's obfuscation. I've been fairly clear in what I asked, and I'm still waiting for you to provide an answer that isn't composed of meaningless jargon.

If not, well, I suppose you're not up for this type of discussion, because I'm not the first person to use this form of phraseology and deduction. Yes, the problem is obviously that I'm incapable of understanding, not that your explanations are meaningless. You might stop to consider that being unable to clearly explain something means that you probably don't understand it yourself. I happen to believe that's where you're sitting right now-- lots of convenient obscurantist jargon, and no actual substance.

I'll repeat myself, since you're apparently having trouble grasping the questions-- please explain for all of us what it means to "exist" when "everything which exists comes to an end." Explain what it means to "exist" "outside of space and time." Explain what the phrase "from the perspective of God" means, i.e. what it means for "the inherent order which governs our universe" (the "physical laws themselves") to have a "perspective".

Your last set of answers had zero meaningful content.

I still think it's a rather negative headline.

Simon L---

Are you just trying to pick a fight or do you have a real comment to make.

Today I talked to an Atheist.

Simon L. Unless you can explain yourself as to why you find that statement negative. The only thing in here negative would be you. And a bit trollish as well. I am curious as to why you find a simple and straight forward headline Negative?

The headline reinforces the negative group thinking "we vs them".

The headline gives the reader a negative impression about atheists, ie: "bah today I talked to one of those awful atheists!" Or it says that "oh my god, today I talked to an Atheist! I am scared mommy, will I go to hell now?"

By the way, the nickname "Proud American" is really something...

Rob, the headline was not negative.
What went thru my mind when I read it was, whoa, he's gotta be some brave soldier to dare to do that, and probably on his own time, too. Too many people are terrified of having their own assumptions called into question, and even discussing something with an atheist (or a Born-again C, or a Mormon, or a Muslim) is too disturbing to them.
Keep on keeping on, Rob, and we will ALL of us on the Vine breathe a sigh of relief when you are stateside again.

The nick name came from a quick comment when I responded to another loudmouth like yourself. (I guess if you're going to be nasty, I will return the favor). But, that being said, I am a Proud American, so thanks for the compliment. (dripping with sarcasm)

Rob, I don't mean to use your awesome story to sling mud at someone else, I apologize.

Rob, I don't mean to use your awesome story to sling mud at someone else, I apologize. Yes, you do. At least be honest. If you didn't, you would have refrained from mud slinging. You may feel as though it were justified, but don't pretend anyone held a gun to your head and forced you to do it.

Actually before you come with the snarky remarks

The only thing in here negative would be you.

I hope to see you on act like a jerk to others...

...another loudmouth like yourself.

Nice, you guys really show how an good christian should behave. Keep up the good work. I really feel welcomed. Mmm..

All I said in my comment was that I found the headline to be offensive/negative towards atheists and that it reinforces the groupthinking of us vs them, which I find dangerous.

Maybe you guys like this grouping, where we divide and rank people based on their beliefs or their lack off?

Either way it's obvious you guys dont like feedback that you find negative (or a threat to your beliefs) and thats why you attack me so fast and nastily.

The proud american asked me:

Are you just trying to pick a fight or do you have a real comment to make.

My response must be that it seems you guys (not only the proud american) want to pick a fight. But I guess that is in the nature of religious people (as you haven't proved me wrong so far)...

Saying someone is an atheist, when they are in fact an atheist is not negative, Its just observation.

i think that the atheist and religious vs. argument is one that will be kicked about for times to come. however, one must realise that it is in the human nature and interest to clarify by categorizing. the human body does this to ward off infection the eye does this to decipher threat and the world does this by extension.

we see things as either dangerous or safe, worthwhile or a waste, good or bad. the grey is what gets us in trouble.

the idea of "god fearing" people being by design good some how isnt universal ( and im catholic ) and the idea of being " godless" doesn't hold water either as a determining factor to worth. ive known people of both persuasion that both uphold and break these ideals.

at this point in a stratified society there is no determining factors which we can trust to make or break an individual.

we cant assume

we must moreover remember that people are people and they are gonna do what the are gonna do- good or bad.

although their upbringing and belief structure will contribute to their outcome and behavior it will not defiantly determine it.

rob- i enjoy stopping by your column and love to watch how you eloquently side step dismay and conflict in the thread resulting from your first hand experience as represented on the vine. keep it up

Thanks for the comments and if I offended sorry.

Rob, your title is not offensive at all. I happen to be an atheist, and all the title did was pique my curiosity and bring me to your article, which was very thoughtful. Obviously, it's impossible to please everyone, but I fail to see how this article is in any way offensive.

In response to 8.10,

I can see I hit a nerve with my original comment (Are you just trying to pick a fight ) and I can also see that that is exactly what you hoped to accomplish with your derogatory comment about a nickname, anyway what I do regret is responding in any way as it only gave you a reason to get on your soapbox and bash people of what did you call us ("a religious nature") We should just fade into the background. Again I will stick with my original assessment and say yes that is exactly what you hoped would happen. Glad you can find amusement for yourself at the expense of others.

What was that about not using Rob's column for mud-slinging, again?

I still think it's a rather negative headline.

I think that it can possibly be construed as such. However, I didn't get that impression, and I think I'm probably one of the louder atheists on the Vine.

Rob, the headline was not negative.
What went thru my mind when I read it was, whoa, he's gotta be some brave soldier to dare to do that, and probably on his own time, too.

You just contradicted yourself there.

Glad you can find amusement for yourself at the expense of others.

O the irony of that in light of your comments here.

What was that about not using Rob's column for mud-slinging, again?

Self-control issues.

We are a destructive genus.. The human animal...

I love that you express hope that we can move past tendencies towards violence and greed! I find it so sad when people say things like "war is inevitable", as if that is an excuse for us to not try and improve ourselves! I don't think it's easy or anything, but there is no reason not to at least hope (and try) for a more peaceful world :o)

A true religion does not lead to violence. All major religions are against violence.
Please don't give me hidden quotes in different religious texts. All religious texts have them.
The texts that all religions follow are against violence.
The biggest problem with religion is the way the scriptures are interpreted.
Most are interpreted as pacifist. Some otherwise. There is the problem.
I hate violence.
As an atheist I find true followers of religion as people who I respect. They follow my guidelines as to how to treat all people.
Maybe I am following their guidelines?

CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?!

On the internet? Doubt it :P