Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Questions about God's existence, tend to follow assumptions about God. That is, the God of the Bible. All Knowing; All Good; All Powerful: Present in all times and places. Of course, the logical impossibilities are built in. These properties are mutually exclusive. Take away or modify any of these assumptions -- and we can't even continue the conversation. Over time, I have stopped asking for a working definition of God. It's hopeless. Without a working definition of God -- what are we even talking about? That is, if we are talking about the God of the Bible. If we expand our horizons to bring in other models for God -- Pantheism or Deism -- things get even murkier. We haven't even mentioned Polytheism. Or Hinduism, which is different. Not confusing enough yet? There is always the wide eyed mystic, who tells us that God is beyond definition. The ultimate mystery. Is that what things boil down to? The Ultimate mystery? Or -- God is Love. The word -- God -- has no objective meaning. This is a good time for me to make an observation. I've spoken to a lot of Atheists over the years. They can't agree on a definition, for the God, that they don't believe in. Which puts the default definition, in the hands of believers. Largely because believers are the ones who care enough, to keep the arguments going. I think this is self evident. Now, along comes the Templeton Foundation. They've taken sides. They have decided that the Agnostics have it right. So, a very brief look at both basic positions. Agnostic: Nobody knows anything about God. Neither God's existence nor non-existence is knowable. In case it still needs saying -- this has nothing to do with riding the fence. I can't argue with that. We have no objective, verifiable information about God. Nothing at all. Atheist: I don't believe. That's all that is. If we don't have an affirmative belief that God exists -- the default position is Atheism. This is the great battle -- -- that Templeton has chosen to leap into. A true tempest in a teapot. Of course, they have chosen to ignore -- Agnostic Atheist: Which is -- I don't know and I don't believe. Because without objective, verifiable information, we don't know and belief is silly. All of which ignores -- I don't care. Because, damn. It's all so silly. Arguing about the label -- which is about the word used --to convey the exact nuance -- of non-belief. Well, if Templeton wants to throw their money around -- taking sides in a war of words that doesn't matter -- they are free to do so. And I'm free to laugh at them. The humor is wearing thin.

You don't understand sarcasm.

Since when have you -- man of mighty faith -- cared about facts? I believe the quote is a lie. By your rules, that should be enough. Now, you expect me to be an Agnostic?

No. I do not believe that you lied. No. I do not believe that you knowingly made an untrue statement. Yes, I accept that you understand this quote to be true. The quote itself is clearly a lie. Not your lie. Someone else's lie. Yes, I'm sure that it's all over the internet. Bovine excrement has a way of travelling quickly. Bovine excrement is all over the web and displayed prominently in many places. That does not make it true. Albert Einstein would never make that outlandish, ludicrous statement. It goes to core personality and basic understanding. As to your take....... You still think that you understand me. No. You don't. If you could make an effort to understand a point of view -- other than your own -- it would help. Since you insist that everyone who does not agree with you, is wrong -- I don't hold out any hope. Are we done with this?

Sitting on the fence misrepresents Agnosticism. It suggests giving equal weight to God's existence and non-existence. No. The Agnostic is still free to weigh the (non-existent) evidence, and draw a conclusion based on probability. There is a simple word for this. Doubt. I know. It's a nuance. I think the distinction is important. Of course, a sense of humor counts for something. In one of his videos, Mr. Deity/Dalton commented on Agnostics sitting on the fence. He said -- "You could totally lose a nut that way." Of course, Dalton is one of the harsher Atheists on You Tube. A true Antitheist and no friend to Agnostics. I also think this war of words -- of which Templeton has foolishly taken sides -- has grown quite pointless. This war of words has nothing to do with anyone's state of non-belief. Only which label they use. I still prefer Apatheism, because the argument is more trouble than it's worth. Even better -- I like Secular as a label. Of course, Free Thinker is still available. Perhaps, you remember when Dan said that he was a Free Thinker? Life can be hilarious.

Thank you for that correction. I would have made it myself. I missed it.

When religion -- and the religious -- are not engaged in terror -- it's all about feeling good. Feeling good is not about rationality. Reason, evidence and facts are all meaningless. Only faith matters.

It sounds like you're talking about "objective morality". The silly notion, that morality and ethics, flow from God and Scripture. Have I missed something?

You continue to miss my point. I will try from a different direction. Suppose, I had found a magazine article, which quoted you. In this quotation -- which I'm supposed to believe -- because it's in print -- you are quoted as saying; how much you hate God. Further, in this quotation -- you say how anybody who believes that God exists, is a fool. So, I'm looking over this quotation. I reflect upon your actual beliefs -- and I say to myself -- this is bogus. Dan would never say such a thing. It has to be a lie. This is very much to the point. You would never say such a thing. If I saw such a statement, attributed to you -- I would know that it was a lie. In like manner, I look at this quotation, which is attributed to Einstein. Based on what I know of Einstein, it is absurd and ludicrous. Einstein would never say that. This is not about my beliefs. It is not about your beliefs. It's not about liking or not liking the quotation. Einstein would never say that. Before I forget --

The Bible is also not a science book.

I looked over your links. The top site is the Saturday Evening Post. The other sites are all Christian Propaganda. Belief does not make it so. That is what I meant by reality impaired. I stand by it. You have been clear that you care only about faith. Not evidence. Not reason. Only faith. You have demonstrated this, yet again.

If they believe it's literal history; it has the same meaning. If they take it as allegory; it is still a foundation myth, which shapes their values. God is Love.

In fairness to Dan, I don't think he is lying by intent. I do think that Dan is reality impaired. He wants to believe it, so it must be true. You know. Faith over facts.

"As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene...No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life. (Albert Einstein)" This is the quotation, that Dan attributed to Albert Einstein. We actually know a few things about Einstein. He was a Jew and he was a Pantheist. Now, read the quotation a few more times. What is more likely? Einstein actually said that? Or that a Christian propagandist lied his ass off? I'm going with it was a shameless lie -- and I'm calling bovine excrement on it.

Yes. Now your meaning is more clear. We can go directly to the example, set by God himself. Humanity, Every creature that wasn't on the boat -- and all plant life everywhere. The All Knowing, All benevolent, etc. killed the entire planet. A crime beyond genocide. Everything, everywhere was killed. The religious make excuses, for this, the ultimate crime.

The sins of the Catholic Church are difficult to list, both for quantity and depth of horror. Also, for variety. Child rape, slavery, torture, antisemitism, religious warfare, genocide, crimes against gay people, forced conversions, the Spanish Inquisition, Counter Reformations, witch trials with torture, mass murder; atrocity in Mexico, Central and South America; Crusades; the Albigensian Heresy -- where do you want to go with this? The rot is deep. If we start, it will be difficult to stop.

Yes. The Irish laundries. I know about that one.

Then again, on balance, America has more piety. The grass is always greener, in someone else's Hell. Neither of us lives in -- say Uganda -- where the crazies beat children to death, in exorcisms. There was a time, when Christianity was firmly in control of everything. We call it, the Dark Ages.

I hear that loud and clear. Of course, it's deeper. One of the Queen's titles is, Defender of the Faith. Alas, it comes with having a national church. In your place, I would also not be thrilled, with having Bishops in the government.

"Let us pray" assumes consent. More, it is a command. In a church, this is reasonable. In a secular setting -- like a government function -- or a graduation -- it is a violation of integrity. Such violation comes in different forms. For me, the most hateful, that come to mind, is turning the Pledge of Allegiance into a prayer. I think the switch over in National Motto to, One Nation Under God, comes in a close second. It is a forced seizure of secular space.

Talking to an invisible friend? It's a reversion to childhood and an impediment to emotional development.

It's so much more basic. As in -- I'm weak and pitiful and pathetic and flawed and sinful and shameful -- because Adam and Eve ate the fruit in the Garden of Eden. Now, I'm in a Fallen State. Worse, I must beg the Righteous God to save me, because on my own merit, I can't possibly earn salvation. I'm way to disgusting, even to be in God's Holy presence. It must be a gift, because I am so pathetic and unworthy. The basic proposition, could not possibly be more insulting, more demeaning or more disempowering. Add a few layers of crap. What happens when God forgives me? What happens if I lose that forgiveness? Classic drug addiction. Emotional highs, followed by devastating lows.

Since you asked -- I think that God belief is an addictive, feel good, emotional drug. The religious are addicts -- and the churches are drug pushers. Since you asked. I'm in a mood to speak bluntly and to the point. To specifics. You speak of Transference objects. What is prayer, but talking to an imaginary friend? Clearly, a regression to early childhood. Also, a substitute for real friends.

Yes. I know. It hurts, doesn't it? Really. I think it's time to let go. It's Dan. For all your good intentions, reality does not need defending. In the end, reality prevails. Let it go.