In our local paper a religionist decried the “new atheists.” That’s the religionist’s term for atheists who don’t lay down, play dead, and kowtow to the theistic majority.
Theists much prefer the “Old Atheists,” you know, the ones who -- under threat of fines, imprisonment, torture or death -- dared not speak up against the Church’s suppression of scientific advancement; didn’t openly decry the Church’s intolerance of varied belief or no belief; who kept silent when the Inquisition rampaged; you know… the good old atheists in the good old days.
In the course of his letter this defender of the faith offered this insight:
“Nietzsche was wrong when he said 'God is dead,’ it’s Nietzsche who is dead.” Patently silly, but no doubt when he wrote it it struck him as particularly witty.
But inadvertently, and in a whole different sense he was correct. God IS’NT dead. Nietzsche WAS wrong. The Abrahamic God is no deader than Brahma, Ganesh, Zeus, Isis, or any of the thousands of other gods. God is no deader than Moby Dick, Jean Valjean, or Sherlock Holmes. God is no more deceased and buried than leprechauns, zombies, or sprites.
They cannot die, because they never existed. They will live on in literature and in the minds of some people prone to imbuing living status on fictional characters for eons to come.
Of course, Nietzsche knew this. He never intended his “God is Dead” statement to be taken literally. He was no fool. But, somehow a more succinct phrase i.e. “The age of dependency on the delusion of God/gods has expired - reason has seen to it.” doesn’t have quite the same ring.
Theists much prefer the “Old Atheists,” you know, the ones who -- under threat of fines, imprisonment, torture or death -- dared not speak up against the Church’s suppression of scientific advancement; didn’t openly decry the Church’s intolerance of varied belief or no belief; who kept silent when the Inquisition rampaged; you know… the good old atheists in the good old days.
In the course of his letter this defender of the faith offered this insight:
“Nietzsche was wrong when he said 'God is dead,’ it’s Nietzsche who is dead.” Patently silly, but no doubt when he wrote it it struck him as particularly witty.
But inadvertently, and in a whole different sense he was correct. God IS’NT dead. Nietzsche WAS wrong. The Abrahamic God is no deader than Brahma, Ganesh, Zeus, Isis, or any of the thousands of other gods. God is no deader than Moby Dick, Jean Valjean, or Sherlock Holmes. God is no more deceased and buried than leprechauns, zombies, or sprites.
They cannot die, because they never existed. They will live on in literature and in the minds of some people prone to imbuing living status on fictional characters for eons to come.
Of course, Nietzsche knew this. He never intended his “God is Dead” statement to be taken literally. He was no fool. But, somehow a more succinct phrase i.e. “The age of dependency on the delusion of God/gods has expired - reason has seen to it.” doesn’t have quite the same ring.
38 comments:
“The age of dependency on the delusion of God/gods has expired - reason has seen to it.”
Unfortunately, the cops don't look at the expired licenses and the theists are still driving around without being pulled over.
So you're saying that we had to put his "God is dead" comment in CONTEXT?!! Shudder the thought!(Sorry. I couldn't resist. lol)
I don't think that the term ''new atheists'' is correct. Atheists have been what they have always been. I think that it's attitudes of others that have changed.
As a Christfollower, I've always accepted you at face value and respect so much about you ... your love of family and friends, your wit, your intelligence, your strong moral values, your sense of justice, and much more. I wouldn't like you any less or any more if we agreed on faith issues.
Do we understand why we each think and believe (or don't believe) the same way? No, not really. Does that interfere in our friendship or take away from the large portion of things that we do have in common? Not in the least. (Although it does make for good conversation!)
That is why I think that it is the attitude of others, particularly those of us like myself who are in the category of Christian, that has changed. Many of us have already recognized and changed our attitude that just because one is 'different' from us doesn't mean that they are our enemy nor I am theirs.
It's a change that I welcome and hope that the hearts and minds of others will continue to change and soften and that we will learn from our many past (and vast) errors.
There will always be the ones who don't feel the way that I do ... but hopefully, the tides will continue to turn.
Respectfully,
your friend Joyce. :)
Bob... unlike DWI, there is no penalty for living under the influence of delusion. ;)
Joyce,
CONTEXT!!! hahahah...yeah. good one.
I guess the current breed of atheists are "new" in the sense we are more visable and vocal than our predessesors. I have o problem with that reality, I'm proud of it. But when "New Atheist" is usd as an epithet, well.. that sort of indicates to me somepeople are just threatened by the outspoken atheists.
Ditto on your sentiments. and thank you for them.
Hump
D-Hump? Could I expect your book to be every bit as dodgy and intellectually dishonest as your blog? Just curious.
JD,
I sincerly doubt you possess the intellectual acquity to actually understand it, much less read it without moving your lips.
OK Einstein, what is the point that you raise in this book of yours that you think would be the end-all, send JD Curtis packing argument that God does not exist? Just curious. Who knows? Maybe I'll buy it.
BTW JD... I went to your blog.
That's quite a following you have. Not a single reader commented on your blog since its inception.
I guess that speaks to the value of your commentary, and degree of intellect.
Therefore, you're obviously lonely.
You're welcome here if you can elevate the level of your discourse.
Hump
Sure, like I stated earlier. The one arguement that you raise in this little book of yours that you think proves, more than any other argument, that God does not exist.
Oh yeah, I know. I've only been at it since late May. It's tough generating interest given that there's alot of blogs out there.
OK, I'll go first. Would you mind filling me in on the background material concerning this little gem?
What’s More Christian than a Good Old Fashioned Book Burning?
What's that about?
JD,
I am in a quandry as to why you would think my book is an attempt to prove God/gods do not exist.
I would no more attempt such a nonsensical exercise as trying to prove why werewolves and zombies do not exist.
You see trying to prove the non-existence of something is futile. An exercise in the absurd. Proof is only required for a "positive assertion" (i.e. "God exists") not a negative assertio of "I see no evidence to believe in god, thus i reject the reality of such a concept".
Let me give you an example.
Let's say I were to proffer that you are the product of your mother having had sex with the entire Boston Celtics team. Now, the burden of proof would be on ME since I am offering the "positive assertion." You would not have any burden of proof by takings the negative position (that your Mom did NOT fuck the entire Boston Celtics team). See?
So in the absence of my providing said proof, the likelyhood of it being a fact is entirely discounted.
Thats why the prosecution has burden of proof of guilt (positive assertio), where the defendent has no such burden (negative asertion.)
As for the single chapter in my book that speaks to an evidentiary hearing in a court of law, the "circumstantial evidence" necessary to sway a jury is, I propose, in favor of the non-existence of God/gods. It is not "proof" in any scientific sense. But you'd have to read it, or have someone read it to you, for you to fully appreciate the difference.
Buy the book. You will learn even more than you have in this brief exchange. It could make you more learned. It even might help you get a reader or two to your blog.
Ok. like I said...if you have some good discourse to offer vs personal attack, I invite you post. If not this will likey be our last exchange.
Regards,
Hump
(PS: Your last post just asked me to give you a narrative on an entire chapter in my book? LOL. I think we are done here)
I see, that JD Curtis is an all around loser.
His blog is "The place to discuss Christianity, Right Wing Politics and which beer is best".
In scanning his dogma, I saw he is a birther, an apologetic, a fascist and he lies a lot.
I bet he is still one of those nincompoops who still think Bush actually did something correct.
Yep, a true loser. I need to go shower off the filth from his one person blog.
Bob.. he's a Birther???
Oh fuck. And here I wasted my time actually engaging this thing in dialog??
shame on me.
JD:
sorry... you must have an IQ equal to or greater than 90 to
post here.
All your subsequent posts will be automatically deleted. You may want to save your typing for your so called blog.
His name is Friedrich, not Fredrick. Don't translate it into English. That's not how it's done with philosophers in general (or with Nietzsche in particular).
And it's "succinct" not "sussinct"
Hammer,
thanks.
I may use your services as editor for my next book.
Hump
“The age of dependency on the delusion of God/gods has expired - reason has seen to it.”
I wish! It's kind of disheartening to see that despite all science has accomplished, people still don't seem to have the tools to resist or overcome superstition.
Also..hi..just got linked to this blog and I will be reading often. Thanks!
I'm waiting for the next one or two scientific discoveries that will kill religions/"God"/gods for good...But alas, I'm not naive enough to think ANY scientific discoveries will get religious nuts thinking sanely. There are still those idiots who think the earth is flat and less than 10,000 years old "cuz the Bible tells them so."
Hump...I wish that idiot JD you tried to reason with actually WOULD read your book (ANY book really). It's very entertaining and well written. :)...I think he simply perused the table of contents and thought that would be sufficient in holding a debate with you. LOL! Hell, I wish he'd actually read his Bible from cover to cover. That would really be an eye-opening experience for him. LOL! Or maybe he could pop open the Koran and try debating with a Muslim first before trying his so-called debating skills on an atheist. Depending on what Christian sect JD belongs to, maybe he could also start there....Convince the Catholics or Mormons to see his point of view. That would be fun to see. LOL!
Even if "God" isn't dead, many other gods are dead, as are their words. Who is still worshiping or "listening to" Mithras, Baal or Zeus? They are historical myth now (Look it up, JD...there are many more 1000's of gods you could be worshiping...don't just settle for your daddy's god!). Maybe someday "Jehovah" will join the other faded gods. Permit me to dream! LOL!
Rachelle said:
"I'm waiting for the next one or two scientific discoveries that will kill religions/"God"/gods for good...But alas, I'm not naive enough to think ANY scientific discoveries will get religious nuts thinking sanely. There are still those idiots who think the earth is flat and less than 10,000 years old "cuz the Bible tells them so."
I would bet that if you even could show them that there is a god and then killed him/her/it/them (OK corral type shooting) and filmed it, along with a million witnesses, the IDiots/fundies/creationists would then claim its a conspiracy and deny it all.
Lisa, Welcome!
Well, breaking free from religious delusion is a slow process. But the scientifc age is only 300 yrs old. Since then Europe has thrown off its religiosity, with 52% of European Union citizens claiming no belief. The US is always behind Europe on societal enhancements, acceptence of reason and human civility. It's just a matter of time. We were 8% of the US population in 1998. Atheists/agnostics are 16% in 2008.
That number will increase exponentially.
Rachelle,
Thanks for the compliment on my book.
I would love to see them discover life on distant planets. Even though the theists will squirm and twist their apologetics to make it seem like the bible implied such a thing, and it won't change most of their minds, it will be fun to watch them go through the exercise.
As for JD. Four things:
1) while I am happy to have discourse with believers, they need to bring something to the table other than an opening epithet unsupported by any justifcation for it.
2) They need to beable to stay focused and not invent things that were never said or proffered.
3) They need to be receptive to intellectual discourse, and have some basic understanding of the history of their religion and scripture.
4) They need an IQ above 90. Anyone playing the Obama "birther" card defies having met that qualifer.
JD satisfied none of those things.
Bob,
Next time, lets use an electric chair . Imagine one of those in miniature hanging around their necks. And instead of crossing themsleves, they will feign electrocution while getting their communion wafer.
That would be a site to behold.
Regards to all, and thanks for your input.
Hump
But you know what Hump? The electric chair scenario would still not be any funnier than the cracker and wine: body and blood silliness or the funny hats (miter, yarmulke, keffiyeh, etc.) or funny robes/ burkas, prayer shawls.
It is also no funnier than the rituals of rams horn blowing or bowing to Mecca with ass in the air or confessing sins to a pedophile priest.
Bob,
You ever watch someone stick their finger in an electric socket, or grab onto an electrifed fence?
Now.. picture the faithful pretending to go through that as part of the ritual before receiving their wine and cookie.
C'mon ... you gotta admit, that would be eminently more fun than watching someone cross themselves, or hearing some one blow the shofar.
:)
Yes, I would be rolling in the isle laughing my head off.
Me too. I'd join the church just to watch the show.
God is dead -- Nietzsche
Nietzsche is dead -- God
"Jesus never existed" -
The Flying Spaghetti Monster
The term "birther" was new to me. So I took a look here:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Birther
And I proceded to laugh my ass off!
- Fastthumbs
Schopenhaur had a wonderful jest about how if you could prove that only nonbelief can lead to eternal life, religion would disappear overnight.
I love making believers bristle by referring to Jesus as a character in a book. Atheists should carry a pack of disclaimer stickers ("Any similarity ... is purely coincidental," etc.) to adhere to the inside cover of every bible they encounter.
" I love making believers bristle by referring to Jesus as a character in a book. "
Yeah, when they pull the olk "Why are you angry at God?" platitude out, I always tell them I'm no more angry at God than I am at Moby Dick... no fictional characters ever incur my wrath.
Comedy provides an interlude from our daily stresses:
Birther:
A redneck born on American soil in a barn delivered by a drunken veterinarian who also performs abortions. Parents are both American citizens who are usually first cousins if not brother and sister.
Another thing I find funny is when believers get angry when they read an atheist blog. I guess they are insecure about their beliefs.
Jack,
You think they get angry on atheist blogs?? You should see the emails I get from "good" Christians to my Eternal Earthbbound Pets post rapture pet rescue site web email.
I always reply back asking if they kiss Jesus with their dirty mouth.
Okay. I gotta ask. Have you had a rapture ready animal lover send you money to protect a pet?
Jack,
I'll have to give you the same answer as I give the media interviewers :
"Less than 175 people"
That leaves it to their imagination. ;)
H
Drom,
I know of only one person who calls you D-hump. Think, think! Look back to Fighting Ignorance. I think we both know who the culprit is!
Joyce,
sorry..it's been too long, and I'm too old. But, I havn't given it a second thought in over a week.
Post a Comment