“Christ on the cross was an atheist when he said: ‘my God, my God, why have you abandoned me?’

WTF??? So Jesus, is not only talking to himself, but thinks he has abandonded himself. But he should also know that this act is saving all of humanity, therefore it isn't abandonment at all and it was actually his own choice to do..... He also didn't believe he existed?


On the topic of God being a symbol, fine if that is all it is. Atheists care that this symbol is then used for power and to restrict the freedom of other people*. I would be a lot happier if religious people kept their laws to themselves, and were nice to other people. This doesn't always happen and if you base your morals on your religion, you will also vote accordingly in any democratic process.

*Yes, this isn't just restricted to Christianity/Islam, though I may argue that in dogmatic states such as Stalinist Russia/Nazi Germany/North Korea the symbols may be different, but the outcomes almost the same. Actually the symbols are similar to those of religion, with a near supernatural leader who is perfect and must be worshipped.

(May 7, 2014 at 8:51 am)Confused Ape Wrote: The way I see it, dogmatic atheists are people who class themselves as a 7.

Have to disagree there: a 7 would be an absolute anti-theist whereas a dogmatic atheist would be someone who follows the dogma of atheism. Since there is no dogma, there can be no adherence therefore dogmatic atheism doesn't exist. There are people who follow the positions of particular authorities so maybe there's a kernal of future dogma there but I think that's more to do with modern celebrity worship than the religious-style blind following that the word 'dogma' implies. To me, this mischaracterisation is an attempt to accuse atheists of 'being as bad as theists'. I've pointed out in other threads how weak, childish and admittant of failure that argument is. Consequently, my opinion of this book is very low.

Quote: I dislike the word God, though, when discussing a symbol because people tend to think of the Christian God. This is why I prefer the term, the Divine.[/quote
As long as you define your terms so that decent discussion follows, use whatever terms you like
[quote]Different religions have different concepts of the Divine. Maybe one concept is correct. For example, the Hindu Brahman is very different from the Christian God.

It's not entirely impossible however I'd phrase this the other way round: given how many obviously impossible/implausible definitions of god exist, isn't it more likely that they're all wrong?

Quote:Is Brahman or any other concept of the Divine nothing more than a subjective experience produced by the brain? Neuroscience cannot provide an answer to that question. Or maybe it's the case that it hasn't been able to provide an answer yet.

The latter. I forget which university hospital did it but the areas of the brain which equated to 'religious experience' were mapped and compared to scans of other brains during 'reportedly similar' non-religious experiences. As I remember, the results were 'the same' thus debunking any supernatural cause of people 'feeling god'. Have a look online. If I find it first, I'll post it.

Quote:Our research indicates that our only way of comprehending God, asking questions about God, and experiencing God is through the brain. But whether or not God exists “out there” is something that neuroscience cannot answer.

True in an absolutist sense: the claims made for gods are not solely neural however understanding the neurology goes a long way to describing the 'religious experience'. So far this has also resulted in a debunking of it.

Quote: For example, if we take a brain image of a person when she is looking at a picture, we will see various parts of the brain being activated, such as the visual cortex. But the brain image cannot tell us whether or not there actually is a picture “out there” or whether the person is creating the picture in her own mind. To a certain degree, we all create our own sense of reality. Getting at what is really real is the tricky part.

Not quite: if the person is creating the image themselves, slightly different parts light up than if they're receiving outside stimulus.

Quote:Does the human race need anatheism? I honestly don't think so. God being a symbol of something is irrelevant to atheists who don't need a symbol for something they don't believe in. It's also doubly irrelevant to atheists whose brains don't produce symbols in anomalous experiences.

Exactly how I feel.

Quote:My brain does produce these symbols but that's no reason for me to become an anatheist. On the other hand, I can't be 100% certain that somebody's concept of the Divine isn't correct so I class myself as 6.9 on the scale as well.

Fair enough.

Quote:This forms the basis of today’s idea: God is a symbol that constantly requires reinterpretation.

Yeah - and that's what we call marketing. Don't like our God huh - don't worry, we'll change it into something more palatable.

Hey look- even atheists get to go to heaven now - according to the current Pope who'll leave no stone unturned to keep the money rolling in - keep catholic worship at the forefront.