|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Science Fiction » alt.fan.douglas-adams » DNA - Atheist - Secular Novelist
| DNA - Atheist - Secular Novelist [message #217267] |
Di, 07 Februar 2006 23:17 |
|
I am currently working towards my masters of arts at University of
Sussex in Brighton. I am working on a course which is all about the
Novel as Secular Scripture. What I want to know is if any one would
know of sources to support my thesis which is essentially that HG2G is
the quintesential Atheistic secular novel.
I have to prove that 1. atheism is a religion, 2. that atheism has
scripture, 3. that the atheistic scripture is secularized in HG2G.
So far I have -
1. Atheism is a religion because a religion is a particular system of
faith, faith is a strong belief in anything ( or in this case the
belief in the non-existence of the Christian God).
2. Atheism's scripture is the negation of Christian scripture because
atheism in this context is the negation of the Christian God.
3. HG2G is the secularized version because DNA knew what he was doing
as both an English Major and an Atheist and wrote according to his own
educational background and personal beliefs.
Please help- I am looking for academic sources, so philosophers,
theologeans, critics, journalists and interviews would be great.
LRP grl
|
|
|
| Re: DNA - Atheist - Secular Novelist [message #217273 ] |
Mi, 08 Februar 2006 18:47 |
|
kimberly.rowles [at] gmail.com wrote in news:1139350641.352094.68610
[at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Please help- I am looking for academic sources, so philosophers,
> theologeans, critics, journalists and interviews would be great.
> LRP grl
Do you really want God to disappear in a puff of logic?
Sid
|
|
|
| Re: DNA - Atheist - Secular Novelist [message #217275 ] |
Mi, 08 Februar 2006 19:44 |
|
<kimberly.rowles [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139350641.352094.68610 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> I am currently working towards my masters of arts at University of
> Sussex in Brighton. I am working on a course which is all about the
> Novel as Secular Scripture. What I want to know is if any one would
> know of sources to support my thesis which is essentially that HG2G is
> the quintesential Atheistic secular novel.
> I have to prove that 1. atheism is a religion, 2. that atheism has
> scripture, 3. that the atheistic scripture is secularized in HG2G.
>
> So far I have -
> 1. Atheism is a religion because a religion is a particular system of
> faith, faith is a strong belief in anything ( or in this case the
> belief in the non-existence of the Christian God).
> 2. Atheism's scripture is the negation of Christian scripture because
> atheism in this context is the negation of the Christian God.
> 3. HG2G is the secularized version because DNA knew what he was doing
> as both an English Major and an Atheist and wrote according to his own
> educational background and personal beliefs.
>
> Please help- I am looking for academic sources, so philosophers,
> theologeans, critics, journalists and interviews would be great.
> LRP grl
>
Aren't you going at this backwards? Shouldn't you do the research first and
then reach a conclusion?
-- Dave
http://starry-starry-nights.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
| Re: DNA - Atheist - Secular Novelist [message #217277 ] |
Mi, 08 Februar 2006 22:26 |
|
not necessarily backwards. just kind of trying to get some idea of what
is out there now to do the research... this is my hypothesis not my
conclusion persay
|
|
|
| Re: DNA - Atheist - Secular Novelist [message #217278 ] |
Do, 09 Februar 2006 05:28 |
|
<kimberly.rowles [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139350641.352094.68610 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> I am currently working towards my masters of arts at University of
> Sussex in Brighton. I am working on a course which is all about the
> Novel as Secular Scripture. What I want to know is if any one would
> know of sources to support my thesis which is essentially that HG2G is
> the quintesential Atheistic secular novel.
> I have to prove that 1. atheism is a religion, 2. that atheism has
> scripture, 3. that the atheistic scripture is secularized in HG2G.
>
> So far I have -
> 1. Atheism is a religion because a religion is a particular system of
> faith, faith is a strong belief in anything ( or in this case the
> belief in the non-existence of the Christian God).
That's offensive to atheists who have arrived at their present philosophy
through rational thought and scientific enquiry!
I am not religious. I don't have "faith".
--
Dark Monk's Diary
"anyone got a siggie?"
|
|
|
| Re: DNA - Atheist - Secular Novelist [message #217279 ] |
Do, 09 Februar 2006 07:18 |
|
"Dark Monk's Diary" <darkmonksdiary [at] nothanksspam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dsegd1$jg6$1 [at] news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> <kimberly.rowles [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1139350641.352094.68610 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> I am currently working towards my masters of arts at University of
>> Sussex in Brighton. I am working on a course which is all about the
>> Novel as Secular Scripture. What I want to know is if any one would
>> know of sources to support my thesis which is essentially that HG2G is
>> the quintesential Atheistic secular novel.
>> I have to prove that 1. atheism is a religion, 2. that atheism has
>> scripture, 3. that the atheistic scripture is secularized in HG2G.
>>
>> So far I have -
>> 1. Atheism is a religion because a religion is a particular system of
>> faith, faith is a strong belief in anything ( or in this case the
>> belief in the non-existence of the Christian God).
>
>
> That's offensive to atheists who have arrived at their present philosophy
> through rational thought and scientific enquiry!
>
> I am not religious. I don't have "faith".
>
Then what has led you to believe there is no god? What proof can you offer?
If you have no proof of the existence of god and therefore reject that
notion, you must also, if you have no proof for the nonexistence of god, by
the same logic reject that notion as well. If that is the case, then you
are agnostic, not atheistic. Atheism requires faith that there is no god
simply because their is no proof there is a god. Lack of proof, as has been
noted elsewhere, does not constitute proof of lack.
This is why I consider myself agnostic and not atheistic. I simply do not
know since there is no evidence for either assertion.
-- Dave
http://starry-starry-nights.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
| Re: DNA - Atheist - Secular Novelist [message #217280 ] |
Do, 09 Februar 2006 07:24 |
|
<kimberly.rowles [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139350641.352094.68610 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
<snippity-do-dah>
>
> 1. Atheism is a religion because a religion is a particular system of
> faith, faith is a strong belief in anything ( or in this case the
> belief in the non-existence of the Christian God).
>
<snippity-ay>
>
Atheism is not "belief in the non-existence of the Christian God." Rather
it is the belief there is no gods of any stripe. You have framed atheism as
a direct attack against Christianity where there is not necessarily any
feeling of antagonism. (This is not to say the various Christian churches
haven't given plenty of reasons for that hypothetical antagonism.)
-- Dave
http://starry-starry-nights.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
| Re: DNA - Atheist - Secular Novelist [message #217281 ] |
Do, 09 Februar 2006 10:04 |
|
"Dave Adalian" <dpalta AT comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XIudnVx2b5NgQ3feRVn-pQ [at] comcast.com...
> "Dark Monk's Diary" <darkmonksdiary [at] nothanksspam.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:dsegd1$jg6$1 [at] news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
>> <kimberly.rowles [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1139350641.352094.68610 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> I am currently working towards my masters of arts at University of
>>> Sussex in Brighton. I am working on a course which is all about the
>>> Novel as Secular Scripture. What I want to know is if any one would
>>> know of sources to support my thesis which is essentially that HG2G is
>>> the quintesential Atheistic secular novel.
>>> I have to prove that 1. atheism is a religion, 2. that atheism has
>>> scripture, 3. that the atheistic scripture is secularized in HG2G.
>>>
>>> So far I have -
>>> 1. Atheism is a religion because a religion is a particular system of
>>> faith, faith is a strong belief in anything ( or in this case the
>>> belief in the non-existence of the Christian God).
>>
>>
>> That's offensive to atheists who have arrived at their present philosophy
>> through rational thought and scientific enquiry!
>>
>> I am not religious. I don't have "faith".
>>
>
> Then what has led you to believe there is no god? What proof can you
> offer? If you have no proof of the existence of god and therefore reject
> that notion, you must also, if you have no proof for the nonexistence of
> god, by the same logic reject that notion as well. If that is the case,
> then you are agnostic, not atheistic. Atheism requires faith that there
> is no god simply because their is no proof there is a god.
I wouldn't go as far as to call it "faith" in any, even loosely, religious
sense. Purely because all atheists that I know, including myself, have
arrived at that particular viewpoint through deductive, logical reasoning.
The Gods that are on offer at the moment, if taken at their 'word', have
proven themselves to be non-existent through a series of bizarre
contradictions, the most obvious of which being the Christian 'God' who does
a sudden u-turn when transiting from Old to New Testament, going from being
a jealous and vengeful God, to a loving and friendly one. There are many
other contradictions within Christianity, Islam & Judaism to name the 'Big
Three'.
I won't go into the many contradictions here for reasons I will outline but
logical reasoning would suggest strongly that since the Gods which are on
offer to us at this moment do not and, in fact, cannot prove that they exist
(conveniently) it does not take a leap of faith to surmise that no Gods
exist at all.
If there is a God, or Gods, whcih do exist and have created us but who
is/are not any of the ones on offer (which would seem to be the agnostic
outlook)then they are exceptionally good at hiding from us. Unless, of
course they exist 'spiritually' and not physically. Yeah, that'll be right.
But, in conclusion, to suggest that atheism requires faith of any kind
contradicts the very essence of atheism itself. A-Theism. Lack of faith.
Also, unlike the majority of religious people I have personally experienced,
any atheists I know do not try to 'convert' people to the 'one true way'.
And I certainly wouldn't die for the cause either. That would be silly.
To go back to why I won't go into all the contradictions here; the reasons
are twofold:
1. It would be an exceptionally long and, to most people, dull piece of
prose. If you're interested I suggest "The Blind Wathcmaker" by R. Dawkins.
That's how I started.
2. As previously stated, I am not trying to convert anyone.
My reason for going into the topic so much here is that I take offence at
the suggestion that I have faith of any kind. Yes, I do have a belief but,
in contrast to religious faith which is based upon zero evidence of any kind
and is contrary to evidence that does exist, my atheism, and those of my
colleagues is based on logical, deductive reasoning based on scientific
evidence.
There, I've sad it now.
Time for a large cup of tea, methinks.
Jamie Yardley
*whose .sig is still asleep, dreaming of female .sigs playing around in mud*
> Lack of proof, as has been noted elsewhere, does not constitute proof of
> lack.
>
> This is why I consider myself agnostic and not atheistic. I simply do not
> know since there is no evidence for either assertion.
|
|
|
| Re: DNA - Atheist - Secular Novelist [message #217282 ] |
Do, 09 Februar 2006 10:10 |
|
> 1. Atheism is a religion because a religion is a particular system of
> faith, faith is a strong belief in anything ( or in this case the
> belief in the non-existence of the Christian God).
Faith, in a religious context, means believing in one or more Gods
(depending on variety of religion) despite a complete lack of proof in
the existence of such God or Gods. Why you pick on the Christian God
in particular, I don't know. It may have been the one with which Adams
was most familiar, having been brought up in England in the 50s, hence
the one he tended to refer to the most. Atheism, in my opinion, is not
a belief in the way that religion is. Religion specifically requires no
proof - as Adams put it: "Proof denies faith". If you had proof, you
wouldn't need faith. Atheism comes from looking at scientific evidence
and seeing that there is no need for a God to explain things that
previously weren't explicable. Science has moved on a lot in the last
two thousand years, despite the efforts of the Church.
Try reading "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins. That author was one
of the main influencing factors in pushing Adams from agnosticism to
atheism.
Simon Kempster
|
|
|
| Re: DNA - Atheist - Secular Novelist [message #217283 ] |
Do, 09 Februar 2006 10:16 |
|
<simon.kempster [at] talk21.com> wrote in message
<snip>
>"Science has moved on a lot in the last two thousand years, despite the
>efforts of the Church.
>Simon Kempster
><snip>
I like that, can I use it sometime
Jamie Yardley
*who really should set up a new .sig and stop making stuff up*
|
|
|
| Re: DNA - Atheist - Secular Novelist [message #217284 ] |
Do, 09 Februar 2006 10:26 |
|
Dark Monk's Diary <darkmonksdiary [at] nothanksspam.co.uk> wrote:
> <kimberly.rowles [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1139350641.352094.68610 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>> So far I have -
>> 1. Atheism is a religion because a religion is a particular system
>> of faith, faith is a strong belief in anything ( or in this case the
>> belief in the non-existence of the Christian God).
>
>
> That's offensive to atheists who have arrived at their present
> philosophy through rational thought and scientific enquiry!
>
> I am not religious. I don't have "faith".
(*delurks*)
It's only offensive to people like you, who aren't TRUE atheists!
Atheism is the *belief* in the non-existance of god. If you're
motivated by facts, not belief, you shouldn't be allowed to call
yourself an atheist.
Unlike you, I DO have faith in the non-existance of all gods, and this
is PURE BELIEF, totally uncontaminated by any rational thought and
scientific enquiry. Yes, it can nice to know that some scientists just
happen agree with my beliefs, but it's not really important. After all,
scientists have been wrong before, and they'll probably be wrong again.
But my faith in atheism is strong enough and pure enough that I would
continue to believe in the gods' non-existance *even* *if* all the
scientific evidence pointed the other way.
It's scum like you and that shit Dawkins who have polluted atheism and
dragged it down with all your science crap. You are the ones to blame
for preventing my faith from rising up to take its place alongside the
other religions as an equal. Instead, you keep holding atheism down and
making it no more than just another branch of science.
Just because you don't have the strength of character to let you know
true and pure faith, you want to try and drag the true atheists down to
your level and make us no better than you. Well, it's not going to
work. It's time the true atheists spoke out against the scientists.
Kimberley, if you're reading this, I'm glad Dark Monk found your post
offensive. Shits like him *deserve* to be offended for their heresies
against true atheism.
(*retreats back into lurkdom, so I don't have to speak to heretics any
more*)
--
___ _ ___ _
/ __| ___ | | __ _ _ _ | _ \ ___ _ _ __ _ _ _ (_) _ _
\__ \/ _ \| |/ _` || '_| | _// -_)| ' \ / _` || || || || ' \
|___/\___/|_|\__,_||_| |_| \___||_||_|\__, | \_,_||_||_||_|
|___/
http://www.freewebs.com/solar_penguin/
** But now they're giving their brains to make it too risky for
practical gain.
** Night elves are a couple.
|
|
|
| Re: DNA - Atheist - Secular Novelist [message #217285 ] |
Do, 09 Februar 2006 17:03 |
|
"solar penguin" <solar.penguin [at] tiscali.co.THANKS.FOR.NOT.SENDING.SPAM.uk>
wrote in message news:43eb0af8_2 [at] mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> Atheism is the *belief* in the non-existance of god.
One could say that it is the state of being convinced that there is no God.
That formulation leaves 'belief' right out of question.
|
|
|
| Re: DNA - Atheist - Secular Novelist [message #217287 ] |
Do, 09 Februar 2006 17:07 |
|
"Dave Adalian" <dpalta AT comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XIudnVx2b5NgQ3feRVn-pQ [at] comcast.com...
> "Dark Monk's Diary" <darkmonksdiary [at] nothanksspam.co.uk> wrote in message
> Then what has led you to believe there is no god?
I think it was DNA himself who said something like: "I don't *believe* there
is no God. Rather, I am *convinced* there is not a god."
|
|
|
| Re: DNA - Atheist - Secular Novelist [message #217288 ] |
Do, 09 Februar 2006 17:32 |
|
In response to the Atheism not a religion comments-
Faith - is a strong belief in something
Faith does not have to be religious, however I am of the school of
thought that considers all systems of belief to have a notion of
religious feeling ingrained in them.
If you want to understand more about where I am coming from perhaps you
should read Paul Tillich's "Dynamics of Faith" its a short concise book
and it makes a lot of common sense (you don't have to call god god to
believe in something that might be god)- I am not so eloquent as
Thillich but that pretty much sums it up.
Atheism and Science do not necessarily add up. If you base your non
belief on science then you better start saying you are something other
than an atheistic because science is a matter of observation and since
it is impossible to observe nothing then being an atheist based on the
imperical evidence is impossible.
So far this has been a very interesting discussion but you guys aren't
really helping me get further - kind of just helping me get my mind
around atheism as a religion with is post-Christian in Western society
but thanks for that
LRPgrl
|
|
|
| Re: DNA - Atheist - Secular Novelist [message #217289 ] |
Do, 09 Februar 2006 21:05 |
|
simon.kempster [at] talk21.com wrote:
<snip>
> Try reading "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins. That author was one
> of the main influencing factors in pushing Adams from agnosticism to
> atheism.
Also, please note that most of HHG was written while Douglas Adams
declared himself _agnostic_ not atheist! It was rather late that Douglas
Adams declared himself an atheist, but I can't quite recall when in the
timeline compared to his authorship. Those sorts of details you can find
in "Hitchhiker", the unofficial Douglas Adams biography by M.J. Simpson.
Actually I just looked up a few parts. In 1984 he is quoted saying:
"I am firmly agnostic. I have terrible rows with my girlfriend who is a
convinced atheist. This seems to me to be irrational. There's no
evidence either way."
I'm not sure about the exact time he changed his views, but it seems to
be around 1987 after he got to know Dawkins.
Best
Kåre
Best
Kåre
|
|
|
| Re: DNA - Atheist - Secular Novelist [message #217290 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 09:48 |
|
<kimberly.rowles [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139502742.474187.8990 [at] g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> In response to the Atheism not a religion comments-
>
> Faith - is a strong belief in something
> Faith does not have to be religious, however I am of the school of
> thought that considers all systems of belief to have a notion of
> religious feeling ingrained in them.
Faith, in the modern sense, is a belief in something without any evidence or
fact for the basis of this belief, sometimes even flying in the face of
evidence to the contrary.
I firmly refute the idea that my atheism is based on faith. I have studied
the subject for nearly 15 years so to label my views as 'faith' based is
wholly insulting.
> If you want to understand more about where I am coming from perhaps you
> should read Paul Tillich's "Dynamics of Faith" its a short concise book
> and it makes a lot of common sense (you don't have to call god god to
> believe in something that might be god)- I am not so eloquent as
> Thillich but that pretty much sums it up.
I have read the book in question and personally disagree with the author's
viewpoint that 'faith' can be viewed as anyhting other than religious. As I
have previously stated, the modern usage of faith now leans almost
exclusively toward religous faith esp when discussing any religious concept.
>
> Atheism and Science do not necessarily add up. If you base your non
> belief on science then you better start saying you are something other
> than an atheistic because science is a matter of observation and since
> it is impossible to observe nothing then being an atheist based on the
> imperical evidence is impossible.
The above statement is clearly nonsense of the highest order. Surely by
observing 'nothing', as you put it, you are stating yourself that God, in
his/her/it's many guises does not, in fact, exist. (You did say 'nothing').
The very fact that there is nothing to observe surely makes it plainly
obvious that there is no such thing. There may be many things that we cannot
explain yet with science but that's no reason to deify the unexplained.
Also, the many things that we have observed and understood, which have
contradicted many aspects of religion, and have, in fact, caused modern
religion to adapt so that it is almost unrecognisable fom the way it was a
couple of thousand years ago, tells us that, without wishing to sound trite,
that the theists are just "making it up as they go along"?
I rest my case.
>
> So far this has been a very interesting discussion but you guys aren't
> really helping me get further - kind of just helping me get my mind
> around atheism as a religion with is post-Christian in Western society
> but thanks for that
Anytime
Jamie Yardley
Who really needs a cup of tea now, and possibly a large biscuit or two...
|
|
|
| Re: DNA - Atheist - Secular Novelist [message #217291 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 11:56 |
|
okay so aparently we are arguing semantics.
this is what I mean by faith - perhaps you can provide an alternative
vocabulary for this word because for the past 200 years roughly
theologeans, philosophers and scientist have been having this same
debate.
all of our understanding of the world, whether based on scientific
evidence, religious scripture, or something joe-shmoe says on the
street corner comes back to an element of trust, this element of trust
is what I consider a leap of faith. There is no evidence that
concretely will determine that the big bang created the world or that
God did or that I didn't just wake up today and I am the only one who
is alive and the rest of what i experience isn't an element in someone
else's dream.
Science and religion are aiming towards the same goals answering the
unanswerable questions. (who am I, why am i here, where did I come from
....) I am therefore theorizing that science and religion are
fundamentally the same as in that trust which individuals place in them
come from the same quest, perhaps I need to find a new phrase for what
I mean by religion, based on this explaination.
any ideas?
|
|
|
| Re: DNA - Atheist - Secular Novelist [message #217292 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 12:58 |
|
Fine by me, but don't put my name on it. Try reading Angels & Demons
and The Da Vince Code by Dan Brown, for some interesting details.
Simon Kempster
|
|
|
| Re: DNA - Atheist - Secular Novelist [message #217295 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 22:39 |
|
"Jamie Yardley" <jamie [at] yardley00.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dsf0jk$puq$1 [at] newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Dave Adalian" <dpalta AT comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:XIudnVx2b5NgQ3feRVn-pQ [at] comcast.com...
>> "Dark Monk's Diary" <darkmonksdiary [at] nothanksspam.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:dsegd1$jg6$1 [at] news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>>
>>> <kimberly.rowles [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1139350641.352094.68610 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>> I am currently working towards my masters of arts at University of
>>>> Sussex in Brighton. I am working on a course which is all about the
>>>> Novel as Secular Scripture. What I want to know is if any one would
>>>> know of sources to support my thesis which is essentially that HG2G is
>>>> the quintesential Atheistic secular novel.
>>>> I have to prove that 1. atheism is a religion, 2. that atheism has
>>>> scripture, 3. that the atheistic scripture is secularized in HG2G.
>>>>
>>>> So far I have -
>>>> 1. Atheism is a religion because a religion is a particular system of
>>>> faith, faith is a strong belief in anything ( or in this case the
>>>> belief in the non-existence of the Christian God).
>>>
>>>
>>> That's offensive to atheists who have arrived at their present
>>> philosophy through rational thought and scientific enquiry!
>>>
>>> I am not religious. I don't have "faith".
>>>
>>
>> Then what has led you to believe there is no god? What proof can you
>> offer? If you have no proof of the existence of god and therefore reject
>> that notion, you must also, if you have no proof for the nonexistence of
>> god, by the same logic reject that notion as well. If that is the case,
>> then you are agnostic, not atheistic. Atheism requires faith that there
>> is no god simply because their is no proof there is a god.
>
>
>
> I wouldn't go as far as to call it "faith" in any, even loosely, religious
> sense. Purely because all atheists that I know, including myself, have
> arrived at that particular viewpoint through deductive, logical reasoning.
> The Gods that are on offer at the moment, if taken at their 'word', have
> proven themselves to be non-existent through a series of bizarre
> contradictions, the most obvious of which being the Christian 'God' who
> does a sudden u-turn when transiting from Old to New Testament, going from
> being a jealous and vengeful God, to a loving and friendly one. There are
> many other contradictions within Christianity, Islam & Judaism to name the
> 'Big Three'.
> I won't go into the many contradictions here for reasons I will outline
> but logical reasoning would suggest strongly that since the Gods which are
> on offer to us at this moment do not and, in fact, cannot prove that they
> exist (conveniently) it does not take a leap of faith to surmise that no
> Gods exist at all.
> If there is a God, or Gods, whcih do exist and have created us but who
> is/are not any of the ones on offer (which would seem to be the agnostic
> outlook)then they are exceptionally good at hiding from us. Unless, of
> course they exist 'spiritually' and not physically. Yeah, that'll be
> right.
> But, in conclusion, to suggest that atheism requires faith of any kind
> contradicts the very essence of atheism itself. A-Theism. Lack of faith.
> Also, unlike the majority of religious people I have personally
> experienced, any atheists I know do not try to 'convert' people to the
> 'one true way'. And I certainly wouldn't die for the cause either. That
> would be silly.
> To go back to why I won't go into all the contradictions here; the reasons
> are twofold:
> 1. It would be an exceptionally long and, to most people, dull piece of
> prose. If you're interested I suggest "The Blind Wathcmaker" by R.
> Dawkins. That's how I started.
> 2. As previously stated, I am not trying to convert anyone.
> My reason for going into the topic so much here is that I take offence at
> the suggestion that I have faith of any kind. Yes, I do have a belief but,
> in contrast to religious faith which is based upon zero evidence of any
> kind and is contrary to evidence that does exist, my atheism, and those of
> my colleagues is based on logical, deductive reasoning based on scientific
> evidence.
>
> There, I've sad it now.
> Time for a large cup of tea, methinks.
>
>
Still, the total lack of proof for the existence of gods does not equate to
proof of the nonexistence of gods. It is, in fact, impossible to prove the
negative statement. All we are left with is a lack of proof for gods and
uncertainty about the non-existence thereof.
To believe anything without empirical evidence is to take it on faith.
-- Dave
http://starry-starry-nights.blogspot.com/
P.S.: One lump or two? Lemon?
|
|
|
| Re: DNA - Atheist - Secular Novelist [message #217301 ] |
Sa, 11 Februar 2006 04:03 |
|
<kimberly.rowles [at] gmail.com> wrote
> What I want to know is if any one would
> know of sources to support my thesis which is essentially that HG2G is
> the quintesential Atheistic secular novel.
DNA wasn't an atheist at the time he wrote the original.
> I have to prove that 1. atheism is a religion,
Why do you have to prove that ?
> 2. that atheism has
> scripture,
'Scripture' suggests a dogma-like text which isn't apparent.
3. that the atheistic scripture is secularized in HG2G.
Gibberish !
>
> So far I have -
> 1. Atheism is a religion because a religion is a particular system of
> faith, faith is a strong belief in anything ( or in this case the
> belief in the non-existence of the Christian God).
Incorrect.
> 2. Atheism's scripture is the negation of Christian scripture because
> atheism in this context is the negation of the Christian God.
Incorrect. Besides, HHGG has gods in it at various points.
> 3. HG2G is the secularized version because DNA knew what he was doing
> as both an English Major and an Atheist and wrote according to his own
> educational background and personal beliefs.
DNA wrote about absurdity. It was later that he realised how absurd
believing in god was.
>
> Please help- I am looking for academic sources, so philosophers,
> theologeans, critics, journalists and interviews would be great.
Look on his website and in books such as 'Don't Panic'.
Steve M
|
|
|
| Re: DNA - Atheist - Secular Novelist [message #217302 ] |
Sa, 11 Februar 2006 04:22 |
|
"Dave Adalian" <dpalta AT comcast.net> wrote
> Then what has led you to believe there is no god? What proof can you
offer?
It is for those making the claim that there is a god to provide proof of
it's existence. There is just a claim one which atheists don't accept.
> If that is the case, then you
> are agnostic, not atheistic.
Whilst an atheist may not accept the god of Christianity some may admit to
the vague posibility of there being 'a creator' at some point, though there
is no reason to suppose this exists still. In some ways an atheist may be
agnostic, but agnostics say we can not know the nature of the Universe
whereas most atheist acknowledge science and the bits we do know.
> Atheism requires faith that there is no god
> simply because their is no proof there is a god.
I don't buy that. Most people do not believe in gods. There are a great many
and the religious almost always subscribe to one - or one group of gods.
Muslims don't accept Jesus, for example. Atheists just go one god more, to
quote Dawkins.
I would cite a history of belief where humans can be demonstrated as
inventing a whole series of deity. Proclaiming trees, stones and the sun as
gods. Proclaiming Kings as gods. It is a concept created by man - an
invention to try and make sense of how the world works. With science
philosophy and reasoning there is no need for inventing gods and the
realisation the gods are inventions shows the unliklihood of any showing up.
> Lack of proof, as has been
> noted elsewhere, does not constitute proof of lack.
It is difficult to prove something doesn't exist. Some consider it
impossible. It is therefore far better for those making the claim to come up
with some evidence to back their claim. Evidence may not constitute proof
either but it would help.
> This is why I consider myself agnostic and not atheistic. I simply do not
> know since there is no evidence for either assertion.
Don't you think that the lack of evidence for any of these is pretty
damning ? Where'd the names come from ?
Allah, Aphrodite, Ares, Athena, Apollo, Artemis, Babaluaye, Bacchus,
Baldur, Bast, Bellona, Brahma, Brigid, Ceres, Cupid, Cerridwen,
Demeter, Diana, Dione, Dionysus, Eris, Eos, Eleggua, , El Shaddai, Elohim
Eshu, Ereshkigal,
Frigga, Frey, Freya, Gaea, Lord Genesa, Hades, Hebe, Hera, Helios, Hel,
Hephaestus,
Hermes, Hestia, Horus, Ibeji, Ifa, Inanna, Indra, Ishana, Ishtar,
Isis, Janus, Juno, Jehovah, Jove, Jupiter, Kali. Krishna Kronos, Korravai,
Loki, Lugh, Lord Indra, Manitou, Mars, Mercury, Minerva, Mercurius,
Morrigan,
Nahuiquiahuitl, Nanahuatzin, Nephthys, Neptune, Obatala, Odin, Ogun,
Oshosi, Oshun, Osiris, Oya, Orunmila, Olokun, Olodumare, Pluto,
Persephone, Poseidon, Proserpina, Quetzalcoatl, Ra, Lord Rama, Rhea, Saturn,
Set,
Selene, Shango, Lord Siva, Tammuz, Thor, Tir, Tiw, Uranus, Venus, Vesta,
Vishnu,
Vesta, Vulcan, Wotan, Yahweh, Yemaya, Zeus.
African gods:
[Note under 'African Gods' the number devoted to 'Supremacy']
Abassi [Sky]
Abonsam [Evil]
Abora [Supreme]
Abzu [Water]
Acoran [Supreme]
Adaheli [Sun]
Adro [Sky]
Adroa [Sky]
Agassou [Panther]
Agbe-Naete [Water]
Age [Animals]
Aigamuxa [Monster]
Ajalamo[Unborn Children]
Aje [Wealth]
Ajok [Supreme]
Akonadi [Oracle]
Akongo [Supreme]
Akuj [Supreme]
Ala [Earth/Fertility]
Alatangana [Creator]
Amma [Creator]
Anansi [Trickster]
Anyiewo [Snake]
Aondo [Creator]
Apa [Creator]
Apedemak [War]
Arawa [Moon]
Arebati [Sky]
Arom [Contracts]
Arsan Duolai [Underworld]
Asase Ya [Earth]
Ashiakle [Wealth]
Asis [Sun]
Astar [Sky]
Ataa Naa
Nyongmo
[Creator]
Ataokoloinona [Supreme]
Atete [Fertility]
Avrikiti [Fishermen]
Ayabba
[Ayaba] [Hearth]
Bacax [Cave]
Bagba [Wind]
Balubaal [Earth+]
Bandara [Superior Gods]
Banga [Clear water]
Behanzin [Fish]
Beher [Sea]
Bera Pennu [Vegetation]
Bo [Warriors]
Bomazi[Ancestors]
Buadza [WInd]
Buck[River]
Buku [Sky]
Bumba [Creator]
Cagn [Creator]
(!Kaggen)
Cghene [Creator]
Chiuke
(Chuku) [Creator]
Chiata [Supreme]
Chwezi [Hero]
Col [Rain]
Chikara [Sky]
Danh
(Dan Ayido Hwedo) [Snake]
Deng [Sky]
Deohako [Beans+]
Dii Mauri [Moorish Gods]
Dongo [Outer Space]
Dugbo [Earth]
Dxui [Creator]
Emeli-hi [Supreme]
Eranoranhan [Protector]
Eshu (Elegba) [Trickster]
Fa [Destiny]
Famien [Fertility]
Faro [Sky/Water]
Fidi Mukullu [Creator]
Garang and Abuk [First Humans]
Gbeni [Chief]
Gei (Gou) [Moon]
Gu [War/Smiths]
Gua [Sky]
Gulu [Supreme]
Gunab [Evil]
Guruhi [Evil]
Gurzil [Bull]
Gwalu [Rain]
Hammon [Setting Sun]
Harun and Haruna [Water Spirits]
Heitsi-Eibib [Sorcerer]
Hevioss [Thunder]
Huntin [Tree]
Huvean [Creator]
Ifa [Oracul]
Ikenga [Supreme]
Imana [Creator]
Iruwa [Sun]
Juok [Creator]
Kalumba [Creator]
Kalunga Supreme]
Katavi [Demonic]
Ka Tyeleo [Supreme]
Khebieso [Lightening]
Kho-dumo-dumo [Demon]
Kholomodumo [Monster]
Khuzwane [Creator]
Kibuka [War]
Kokola [Guardian]
Kwammang-a [Supreme]
Kwoth [Spirit]
Kyala [Creator]
Legba [Trickster]
Leza [Chief]
Libanza [Supreme]
Lisa [Chameleon]
Lyangombe[Chief]
Macardit [Demon]
Mantis [Creator]
Massim-Biambe [Creator]
Mawu [Sky]
Mawu-Lisa [Supreme Couple]
Mbotumbo [Supreme]
Medr [Earth]
Moomb [Creator]
Mon [?]
Mugasa
Mugu [Sky]
Mujaji [Rain]
Mukasa [Supreme]
Mula Djadi [Creator]
Muluku [Supreme]
Mulungu
Mungu [Creator]
Mungo (Mungu) [?]
Musa (Teaching]
Musisi [Supreme]
Mwari [Supreme]
Nampa [Personal]
Nana-Bouclou [First Gods]
Nana Buluk [Creator]
Ndjambi [Sky]
Ndriananahary [Supreme]
Nduru [Jungle]
Nenaunir [Storm]
Nesshoue [River]
Ngai ('Ngai) [Creator]
Ngewo-wa [Creator]
Ngworekara [Demon]
Niamye [Supreme]
Nkosi Yama'kosi [Supreme]
Nommo [Elemental]
Nommo [Spirit]
Nyama [Animal]
Nyambe [Supreme]
Nyambi (Nyambe) [Supreme]
Nyame
Nyami-Nyami [Guardian]
Nyankopon (Ashanti:Nyame) [Supreme]
Nyamia Ama [Supreme]
Nyasaye [Supeme]
Nzambi (Nzambi)
Mpunguo) [Supreme]
Nzame [Supreme]
Obassi Osaw [Supreme]
Obatala [Sky]
Oduduwa (Odudua) [Earth]
Ogun (Ogoun) War]
Olokula [Sea]
Olorun [Supreme]
Omumbo-Rombonga [Tree of Life]
Orahan [Supreme]
Orisa Nla [Creator]
Orishako [Agriculture]
Orunjan [Midday Sun]
Orunmila [Compassion]
Oshalla [?]
Osun [Beauty and Love]
Oya [Passion and Power]
Pemba (Bemba) Mother]
Qandisa [Demon]
Qamata[Quamta] Supreme]
Rock-Sene [Supreme]
Ruwa [Supreme]
Sagbata [Smallpox]
Sakarabru [Medicine]
Sakpata [Smallpox]
Sango [Thunder]
Shango [Thunder]
So [Lightening]
Tano [River]
Tore [Forest]
Trowu[Spirits]
Tsui'goab [Rain]
Twe [Lake]
Umvelinqangi [Creator]
Unkulunkulu [Supreme]
Unumbotte [Creator]
Waka [Rain]
Wele [Supreme]
Wulbari [Supreme]
Wuni [Supreme]
Xewioso [Thunder]
Yemaja [Creation]
Yo [Impersonal]
Zin [Water]
Table of Asian Gods:
BUDDHIST
Abhijnaraja [Physician]
Abhimukhi [One of the Bhumis]
Acala [?]
Adhimukticarya [One of the Bhumis]
Adhimuktivasita [One of the Bhumis]
Adibuddha [First]
Adidharma [Primeval]
Aizen Myo-o [Protective]
Ajaya [?]
Akasagarbha(Tibetan Nam-mkhai
Aksayajnana-Karmanda [Literature]
Aksobhya (Japanese Ashuku, Chinese A-Chu'u) [One of the Dhyani]
Amida [Savior]
Amitabha [A Dhyani]
Amitayus [Longevity]
Amoghapasa [see Avalokitesvara]
Amoghasiddhi [A Dhyani]
Anantamukhi [Literature]
Arapacana [Book and Sword]
Arcismati [Bhumis]
Arhat [A Saint]
Arthapratisamvit [Logical Analysis]
Arya-Tara [Sakti]
Asokakanta [avatar Marici]
Asokottamasri [Physician]
Astabhuja-Kurukulla [avatar Kurukulla]
Asura [Group of Demons]
Avalokitesvara(Avalokita, Lokesvara) [Dhyani Present Age]
Ayurvasita[One vasitas]
Balaparamita [Philosophy]
Bhaisajyaguru(Sman-bla, Otaci,Yao-shih-fo, Yakushi)[Physician]
Bhima[Attendant]
Bhrkuti[Female]
Bhrkuti-Tara [Mother]
Bhumi [Spiritual Spheres]
Bhutadarma [Demon Controller]
Bi-har [Protector]
Bodhidharma [Monk]
Bodhisattva (Chinese Pu-sa) [Born to be Englightened]
Buddhabodhiprabhavasita [Vasitas]
Buddhalocana [Female Buddha]
Budha [Mercury]
Butcho [?]
Chandarosana [Mahayana]
Charcika (Carcika) [Mahayana]
Chakravartin [World Ruler]
Chattrosnisa [An Usnisa]
Chaturmaharajas (Caturmaharajas) [Four Great Kings]
Chittavista [Vashitas]
Citipati [Graveyard Demons]
Cunda [Literature]
Da-shi-zhi [Bodhisattva]
Dadimunda [Temples]
Dainichi' [Purity/Wisdom]
Dakini [Demons]
Dala Kadavara [Demon]
Devaputra [Gods of Lower Rank]
Dhanada [avatar Amoghasiddhi]
Dharani [Mystical Texts]
Dharmadhatuvagisvara [Dharma]
Dharmakirtisagaraghosa [Physician]
Dharmamegha [Bhumis]
Dharmapala ,Chinese Fu Ha [Protective Dieties]
Dharmapratisamvit [Nature Analysis]
Dharmavasita [Vasitas]
Dhritarashtra (Pali Dhatarattha) [One of the 4 World Guardians]
Dhupa [Mother]
Dhupatara [Mahayana]
Dhvajagrakeyura [avatar Aksobhya]
Dhyanaparamita [Philosophy]
Dhyani-Bodhisattvas [Five Bodhisattvas]
Dhyani-Buddhas [Five Meditators]
Di-zang [Bodhisattvas of Hell]
Dvarapala [?]
Ekajata [Terrible]
Emma-o [Judges the Dead]
Fudo [WIsdom]
Guan Yin [bodhisattva]
Hariti [Ate Children]
Hayagriva [Protection]
Heruka [Protection]
Hevajra [Protection]
Ida-Ten [Law/Monestaries]
Jambhala [avatar Vausravana]
Janguli [Snakebite cure]
Jian Lao [Earth/Permanence]
Jizo [Compassion]
Juichimen [Mercy]
Kali devia [avatar Lha-mo]
Kannon [Japanese bodhisattva]
Khasarpana(Khasarpana-Lokesvara) [Indian bodhisattva]
Ki Fudo [avatar Fudo-Myo-o]
Krodhadevatas [Inspire Terror]
Ksitigarbha [One of 8 bodhisattva]
Kuan-yin (Kwannon) [Mercy]
Kujaku Myoo [Esoteric]
Kurukulla [?]
Locana [?]
Mahasthamaprata [Chinese bodhisattva]
Maitreya [Future]
Manjughosa [Nepalese bodhisattva]
Manjusri [bodhisattva]
Mara [Evil]
Marici [Sun]
Mi-lo Fo (Pu-Sa) [Chinese bodhisattva
Miroku [Japanese bodhisattva
Mo-Li [Protects Temples]
Padmanartesvara [avatar Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara]
Pancaraksa[5 Goddesses]
Pandara [?]
Paramasva [?]
Parnasavari [?]
Prajna [Femaleness]
Prajnaparamita [Buddhist Text]
Ran-deng [Beggar and Future Buddha]
Ratnapani [Dhyani-Bodhisattva]
Ratnasambhava [Dhyani-Buddha]
Remanta [King of the Horse gods]
Sakyamuni [Japanese]
Samantabhadra [Bodhisattvas]
Saptaksara [avatar Heruka]
Shakra [King of the Gods]
Ssu Ta T'ien Wang [Kings of Heaven]
Sumbharaja [Buddhist Krodhadevata]
Tennin (Tennyo) [angels]
Usnisavijaya [?]
Vairocana [Dhyani-Buddhas]
Vaisravana (Pali Vessavana, Chinese Do Wen) [Guards World]
Vajrabhairava [?]
Vajrapani [Bodhisattvas]
Vajrasattva [Nepal Dhyani-Buddha]
Vajravarahi [?]
Vajrayogini [Initiation]
Vajrayogini [Riches]
Vidyadharas [?]
Vidyujjvalakarali [?]
Vighnantaka [?]
Virudhaka (Pali Virulha, Chinese Zheng Zhang) [Guards World]
Virupaksa (Pali Virupakkha, Chinese Guand Mu) [Guards Western Heaven]
Visvapani [Dhyani-Bodhisattva]
We-to [Divine General]
Yakushi Nyorai [Healing]
Yama [?]
Yamantaka [Krodhadevatas]
Zhu Dian (Zhu Tian) [Chinese Buddhist gods]
CHINESE GODS
Ao [Sea]
Awun [Destruction]
Ba [Drought]
Ba Gua [Basis of Divination]
Bo Hsian [Taoist]
Cai-Shen [Riches]
Can Cong [Silkworms]
Cao Guo-jiu [Actors]
Chang Fei [War]
Chang Hs'ien [Children]
Chang Kuo-lao [?]
Ch'ang E (Ch'ang-o Huang E) [Moon]
Chang Tao Ling [Afterlife]
Cheng-huang (Ch'eng Huang) [Guardians]
Chen Jen [Spiritual Beings]
Cheng San-Kung [Fishermen]
Cheng Yuan Ho (Ch'ang-o Huang E) [Buskers]
Chih Nu [Weavers]
Chih Sung-Tzu (Chi Sung Tzu) [Rain]
Chih-Yu [Inventor]
Ch'in-Shu-Pao [Guardian]
Chou Wang [Sodomy]
Chu-Chuan Shen [Pigsties]
Chu Jung [Fire]
Chu Lung [Day/Night]
Chung K'uei [Afterlife]
Chung-li Ch'uan [Immortal]
Confucius [Philosopher]
Di Zhang Xia [?]
Dong-yo Da-di [Helps Sky God]
Erh-Lang [Guardian]
Fan-K'uei [Butchers]
Fei Lien (Fei Lian) [Wind]
Feng-Huang (Hoang-female Phuong-male) [Many Meanings]
Feng Po (Feng-Po) [Human form of the wind]
Feng P'o-p'o (Feng-Po-Po) [Female wind]
Fo [Buddha]
Fu His [Taught Humanity]
Fu Hsing [Happiness]
Fu Shen [Happiness]
Fu-Shou-Lu [Collection of Gods]
Fu-xi [Hero]
Gao Yao (Ting-jian) [Judgement]
Gong Gong [Common Workers]
Gou Mang and Ru Shou [Messengers]
Guan Di (Kuan Ti) [War/Fortune Telling]
Gui Xian [Demon]
Han Hsiang [Immortal]
Han Xiang-zi [Immortal]
He Bo (Bing-yi) [Rivers]
Heng E (Change-e) [Moon]
He Xian-gu [Immortal]
Heng-Ha-Erh-Chiang [Temples]
Heng-o [Moon]
Ho Hsien-ku [Immortal]
Ho Po [River]
Hou Chi [Harvest]
Hou I [Archer]
Hou T'u [Earth]
Hsien [Taoists]
Hsi Ho [Sun's Creator]
Hsi Wang Mu [Guardian]
Hsuan-T'ien-Shang-Ti [Dark Heaven]
Hua Hsien [Flower]
Huang-di (Huang Ti) (Shun) [Hero]
Huang Fei-hu (Fei) [Mountain]
Hu-Shen [Hail]
I [Bowmen]
Infoniwoo [Generation]
I-Ti [Wine]
K'ai Lu Shen [Purges Evil]
Kuan Yu [War]
K'uei Hsing [Examinations]
Lan Cai-he [Immortal]
Lao T'ien Yeh [Supreme]
Lao-Tzu (Lao-zi) [Philosopher]
Lei Kung [Storm]
Lei-zi [Thunder]
Li [Fire]
Li Tie-guai [Immortal]
Liu [Crops]
Lu Dong-bin (Lu Yan) [Immortal]
Lu-Hsing [Salaries/Employees]
Lung Wang [Dragon King]
Lupan [Carpenters]
Ma-Mien [Bureaucrat]
Meng (Meng P'o) [Underworld]
Meng-T'ien [Writing Brush]
Men Shen [Doors, includes sometimes Wei Cheng]
Mu Gong [Immortals]
Niu-Y'oun [Police]
Nu Gua (Nu Kua, Nu Wa) [Creator and Marriage]
O-Mi-T'o Fo [Amitabha]
Pa [Drought]
Pa-Cha [Anti-locusts]
Pa-Hsien [Eight Immortals]
P'an-Chin-Lien [Prostitues]
'P'an Ku (Panku, Pangu) [Cosmos]
Pi-Hsia-Yuan-Chun [Childbirth]
Puhsien [Sun]
Ran-deng [Future Buddha]
San Ch'inga [Three Taos]
Shang Di (Shang Ti) [Supreme]
She Chi (Thu) [Earth]
Shen [Spirit]
Sheng Jen [Holy]
Shen-nong(Shen Nung) [Hero]
Shen-T'u [Guardian]
Shen Yi [Sun]
Shiang Ku [Magician]
Shih-Tien Yen-Wang [Committe of Ten]
Shou-Hsing [Longevity]
Shou Lao (Shou Xing Lao Tou-zi) [Long Life]
Shou-Ts'ang [Servant]
Shui-Fu [Water]
Shui-Kuan [Defender]
Ssu Ming [Life and Death]
Sung-Chiang [Theives]
Sun Hou-Tzu [Monkey]
Sun Hou-zi [Apes]
Sun-Pin [Cobblers]
T'ai I [High]
Tai-sui-xing [Time]
Tai-yi [Sky]
T'ai Yueh Ta Ti (Tung-Yueh-Ta-Ti, T'ai-Yo, Ta-Ti) [Peak]
Thu [Earth]
Tian [Sky]
Tian-zhu [Catholic]
Tien (T'ien) [Sky]
Tien-Hou (T'ien Fei) [Heaven]
T'ien-Kuan [Happiness]
T'ien Lung [Dragon]
Tien Mu [Lightening]
Tien-Wang (Mo-Li) [Kings]
Ti-Kuan [Foregiveness]
Ti Nu (Ti-ya) [Earth]
Ti-Tsang-Wang-Pu-Sa [Mercy]
Ti Yu [Afterlife]
Tou Nu [North Star]
Ts'ai-Lun [Stationers]
Ts'ai Shen [Wealth]
Tsan [Demons]
Ts'ang Chien [Hearth]
Tsao Shen [?]
Tsao-Wang [Hearth]
Tu [Earth]
Tung Wang Kung [Ruled Male Immortals]
T'u-ti (Ti-Ti) [Locality]
Wang [Palace Door]
Wang-Mu-Niang-Niang [Guardian]
Wen Ch'ang (Wen-Chang-Ta-Ti) [Literature]
Wen-Shu Yen-K'ung [Manjushri]
Wen Pu [Epidemics]
Wu Ti [Myth]
Xian [Spirits]
Xi-Wang-mu [Immortality]
Yama [Seventh hell]
Yan-lo (Yan Wang) [Underworld Prince]
Yao [Wind Conqueror]
Yao-shi-fo [Physician]
Yao Wang [Medicine]
Yeng-Wang-Yeh [Death]
Yen Wang (Yen Lo) [Underworld Judge]
Yin and Yang [Male and Female]
Yo Fei [War]
Yu-Chiang [Ocean Winds]
Yu-di (Yu Huang) [Supreme]
Yueh Fei [War]
Yu Huang (Yu-Huang-Shang-Ti) [High]
Yun T'ung [Clouds]
Yu-qiang [Sea]
Yu Shih [Rain]
Yu-tzu [Rain]
Zao Jun [Kitchen]
Zhang Guo-lao [Immortal]
Zhong-Kui [Literature and Examinations]
Zhong-li Quan [Immortal]
[Sources: Brief History of Ancient Chinese Mythology]
Finnish Gods:
Ahto [Water]
Akka [Harvest]
Egres [Vegetation/Fertility]
Hiisi [Forest/Evil]
Ilma [Air]
Ilmarinen [Sky]
Inmar [Sky]
Juma [Sky]
Jumala (Mader-Atcha, Ukk) [Thunder+]
Kalevanpojat [Demons]
Kalma [Death]
Kekri [Fertility Feast]
Kipu-Tytto [Illness]
Kondos [Sowing Crops]
Kuu [Moon]
Lemminkainen [Hero]
Louhi [Sorcery/Evil]
Loviatar [Disease]
Luonnotar [Creator]
Madderakka [Dwarves]
Maahiset [Dwarves]
Naaki [Water]
Nyrckes [?]
Olmai (Olmay) [Divine properties]
Pajainen [?]
Pajonn [Thunder]
Para [Goblin Like]
Pellonpekko [Barley]
Raudna [?]
Rutu [Devil]
Sampsa [Vegetation]
Seides [Stones]
Rauni [?]
Tapio [Forest]
Tiermes [Thunder]
Tuoni [Underworld
Tursas [Monster]
Ukko (Isainen) [Thunder]
Vainamoinen [Hero]
Veralden-radien [World Pillars]
Waralden Olmai [World]
JAPANESE GODS
Aji-Suki-Taka-Hi-Kone (Aji-Shiki-Taka-Hiko-Ne) [Thunder]
Ama-No-Minakanushi-No-Kumi [Pole Star]
Ame-No-Oshido-Mimi [Refusal]
Ama-No-Uzume [Fertility]
Ama-Tsu-Kami [Heavenly Gods]
Amatsu Mikaboshi [Evil]
Ame-No-Hohi [Disappeared]
Ame-No-Wakahiko [Ruled Earth]
Bimbo-Gami [Poverty]
Bishamon [War]
Chimata-No-Kami [Rain/Sea]
Daikoku [Wealth]
Ebisu [Labor]
Fuchi [Fire]
Fukurokuju (Fukuro kuju) [Wisdom]
Futsunushi [Lightening]
Gozu-Tenno [Plague]
Haya-Ji (Haya-Tsu-Muji-No-Kami) [Whirlwind]
Hikohohodemi [Hero]
Hinokagutsuchi [Fire]
Hiruko [Morning Sun]
Hoderi [?]
Hisa-Me [Devils]
Ho-Masubi (Kagu Zuchi) [Fire]
Hosuseri [?]
Hotei [Laughter]
Inari [Prosperity]
Izanagi [Creator]
Izanami [Mother]
Jikoku [Guardians]
Jimmu Tenno [Founder]
Jurojin (Jorojin) [Longevity]
Kagu-tsuchi [Fire]
Kamado-gami [Hearth]
Kami [Divinities]
Kami-Musubi (Kami-mi-masubi) [?]
Kami-Nari [Thunder]
Kamui [Sky]
Kappa [Water]
Kawa-No-Kami [Rivers]
Kishijoten [Luck]
Kishimojin [Demon]
Komoku [South]
Kompira [Wealth]
Kono-Hana-Sakuya-Hime (Kono-no-hana-saku-ya-hime) [?]
Kono-Hana-Sakuya-Hime Kuni-Toko-tachi [First]
Kuni-Tsu-Kami [Earth]
Kura-Okami [Rain/Snow]
Nai-No-Kami [Earthquakes]
Naka-Yama-Tsu-Mi [Mountain Slopes]
Ningyo [Mermaid]
Ninigi [Ruler Earth]
O-Kuni-Nushi (Okuninushi) [Medicine/Sorcery]
Onamuji [Earth]
Omiwa [Protective]
Oni [Demons]
O-Wata-Tsumi [Sea]
O-Yama-Tsu-Mi (O-yama-tsuni) [Mountain]
Raiden [Thunder]
Ryo-Wo [Sea]
Ryujin (Ryugin) [Thunder/Rain]
Sae-No-Kami [Roads]
Sengen-Sama [Guarded Holy Moutain]
Sennin [Immortals]
Shichi-Fukujin [Luck]
Shiko-Me [Devils]
Shine-Tsu-Hiko [Wind]
Shitatera-Hime [?]
Shi-tenno [Cardinal Direction Guardians]
Shojo [Satyrs]
Soko-No-Kuni [Underworld]
Suitengu [Sea]
Sukuna-bikone (Suku-na-biko) [Hot Springs]
Shoki [Enemy of Devils]
Susanowo (Susanoo, Susa-no-wo) [Storms]
Takamimusubi (Taka-mi-masubi) [Royal Family]
Takemikadzuchi [Thunder]
Take-Mi-Musubi [Sun]
Taki-Tsu-Hiko [Rain]
Tatsuta-hime [Autumn]
Ten-gu (Tengu) [Mountain/Forest]
Tenjin (Temmangu) [Learning/Calligraphy]
Tsuki-Yomi (Tsukiyomi) [Moon]
Uji-gami [Ancestors]
Uke-Mochi-No-Kami (Ukemochi, Waka-Uke-Nomi, Toyo-Uke-Bime) [Fertility and
Food]
Uzume [Mirth]
Wakahiru-me [Rising Sun]\
Wata-tsu-mi [Sea]
Yabune [House]
Zocho [South]
Shinto Amaterasu [Sun]
Ama-Tsu-Mara [Smiths]
Ame-No-Kagase-Wo [Astral]
Ame-No-Mi-Kumari-No-Kami [Water]
Amenominakanushi (Ame-No-Minaka-Nushi-No-Kami) [Supreme]
Am-No-Tanabata-Hime-No-Mikoto [Weavers]
Ame-No-Toko-Tachi-No-Kami [Elemental]
Ame-no-uzume [Dancers]
Benten (Benten-San, Benzaiten, Benzaiten) [Eloquence+]
Fujin [Wind]
Hachiman [War]
Ho-musubi [Fire]
Kami [Idols]
SOUTH ASIAN GODS
Cao Dai(Chinese: Gao-Tai) [Supreme]
Debata [?]
Empung Luminuut [?]
Hainuwele [?]
Hananim [Sky]
Hmin [Ague]
Karei [Supreme]
Kinharingan [Creator]
Kud [Evil]
Laseo [Sun]
Lature Dano [Supreme]
Lowalangi(Lowalani) [World Above]
Mahatala (Mahataral) [Supreme?]
Ma-zu [?]
Nanmata (Namite) [Primeval]
Narbrooi [Woodlands]
Nemu [Primodial]
Palk [Sun]
Puang Matowa [Sky]
Pulug [Thunder]
Reahu [Dark Demon]
Rigenmucha [Supreme]
Silewe Nazarata [?]
Sirao [First]
Ta Pedn [?]
Tnong [Sun]
Tumbrenjak [Original Man]
Upulevo [Sun]
Wunekau [Sun]
CENRAL AND WEST ASIAN GODS
Abyrga [Snake]
Afi [Rain/Thunderstorms]
Aitvaras [Evil]
Alardi [Spirit]
Aralo [Agriculutre]
Armaz [Supreme]
Auseklis (Ausrine) [Stellar]
Baba [Spirit]
Baba Yaga (Jezi-Baba) [Ogress]
Bagvarti [?]
Bangputys [Sea]
Bannik [Baths]
Bagisht [Flood/Prosperity]
Barastir (Barastaer) [Underworld]
Bardha [Elves]
Beg-tse (Cam-srin) [War]
Beng [Satan]
Biegg-Olmai [Wind]
Bogatyri [Heroes]
Boldogasszony (Kisboldogasszony) [Protector Women/Children]
Bolla (Bullar) [Demon]
Buga [Supreme]
Bukura e dheut
[Good Spirit]
Bukuri e qiellit [Jehovah]
Byelobog (Bielbog) [?]
Byelun [?]
Chernobo(Czarnobog, Czerneboch, Cernobog) [?]
Chors [Sun]
Dabog [Sun]
Deive [Stone Spirits]
Dieva deli [?]
Dievini [Less Known Gods]
Dievs [Sky]
Djall [Devil]
Domovoi (Domovoy) [Household]
Donbittir [Water/Fish]
Drag-gshed [Eight Terrible Gods]
Dud [Heavenly Spirit]
Dvorovoi [Courtyard]
Dyavo [Demons]
En [?]
Erlik [King of the Dead]
Es [Sky]
Fatit [Destiny]
Fene [Demon]
Gabija (Gabieta, Gabeta) [Fire]
Gabjauja [Corn]
Giltine [Death]
Guta [Demon]
Hadur [War]
Himavat [Himalayas]
Horagalles [War]
Isdustaya and Papaya [Fate]
Isten [Supreme]
Jagaubis [Fire]
Jarovit (Gerovitus) [War]
Jessis [avatar Jupiter]
Jumis [Fertility]
Juras Mate [Water]
Kaka-Guia [Funerary]
Kalvis [Smith]
Karta [Fate]
Kaukas [?]
Khors [Health/Hunting]
Khyung-gai mGo-can [?]
Kikimora [Household]
K'op'ala [Protective]
Kukuth (Kukudhi) [Sickness]
Kulshedra (Kucedre) [Demon]
Kun-tu-bzan-po [Chief Bon]
Kupala [Water/Magic/Herbs]
Kurdalaegon [Blacksmiths]
Laima [Fate]
Lamaria [Hearth]
Laskowice (Leshcia) [Forest]
Lauka Mate [Fields/Fertility]
Laume [Fairy]
Leshy [Forest]
Lha [Bon Gods]
Lhamo [?]
Ljeschi (Lychie) [Fauns and Satyrs]
Ljubi [Demon]
Manzasiri [Primeval]
Mate [Mother]
Mati Syra Zemlya [Earth]
Medeine (Mejdejn) [Woods]
Meness [Moon]
Menulis [Moon]
Meza Mate [Nature]
Mirsa [Light]
Mokos [Fertility]
Mu (rMu) [Heavenly]
Muma Padura [Wood]
Myesyats (Czarnobog, Czerneboch, Cernobog) [Moon]
Nang Lha [Household]
Nari [Demon]
Nari [Sky]
Num [Sky]
Odqan [Fire]
Ora [Protective]
Ordog [Dark]
Pekar (Pehar) [Demon]
Peko [Barley]
Perendi [Jehovah]
Perit [Mountain Spirits]
Perkons [Thunder]
Perkunas [Thunder]
Perun (Peroun) [Thunder]
Polevik [Field]
Poludnitsa [Field]
Pon [Sky]
Porenutius (Porevit) [?]
Preas Eyn [?]
Preas Eyssaur [Destructive]
Preas Prohm [Primeval]
Prende (Prenne) [Love]
Psezpolnica (Polish Poludnica) [Midday]
Pugu [Sun]
Qormusta (Chormusta) [High]
Rugievit [War]
Rusalki (Rusalka) [Water/Woodlands]
Safa [Weapens]
Sanda [?]
Sarkany [Weather]
Saule [Sun]
Saules meitas [?]
Selardi [Moon]
Shen-Lha-od-dkar [Bon]
Shen-rab [Founder Bon]
Sipe Gyalmo [Bon]
Shiwini [Sun]
Shosshu [Smiths]
Siwini [Sun]
Srat [Demon]
Sri [Demon]
Sridevi [?]
Stribog [Winds]
Svantevit (Svantoveit, Svantovitus) [War/Agriculture]
Svarog [Sky]
Syen [Guardian]
Stihi [Demon]
Teljavelik [Heavenly Smith]
Telyaveli [Smiths]
Tengri [Heavenly Beings]
Tesheba [Weather]
Thab-lha [Hearth]
Triglav (Trigelawus) [War]
Uacilla [Thunder/Rain]
Ulgen [Creator]
Urme [Fate]
Usins [?]
Vadatajs [Evil]
Vampire [Soul of Dead]
Veela [Kindess]
Veja mate [Winds]
Veles (Volos) [Underworld]
Velnias [Devil]
Velu mate [Dead]
Verbti [Fire/North Wind]
Vila [Water]
Vilkacis (Lithuanian Vilkatas) [Werewolf]
Vlkodlaks (Vookodlaks) [Werewolf]
Vodnik [Demon]
Vodyanoi [Water]
Volos (Volusu) [Cattle]
We [Supreme]
Xhindi [Spirits]
Yarilo [Love]
Zaltys [Grass Snake]
Zemepatis (Zemempatis) [Supreme]
Zemes mate [Mother]
Zemyna (Zemyneles) [Earth]
Zorya [Guardian]
Zvezda Dennitsa and Zvezda Vechernyaya [Morning and Evening Star]
SIBERIAN GODS
Ai Tojon [Light]
Ajysyt [Mother]
Anky-Kele [Sea]
Ayi [Creator]
Hittavainen, Hittauanin [Hare-Hunters]
Hinkon [Death Demon]
K'daai [Fire Demon]
Kaltes [The Goddess]
Ke'lets [Death Demon]
Kurkil [Creator]
Kutkinnaku [Good Spirit]
Mayin [Supreme]
Picvu'cin [Hunting/Wild Animals]
Shurdi [Thunderstorms]
Tomam [Bird]
Tomor(Tomorr) [Father Creator]
Xucau [Supreme]
Ye'loje (Pugu) [Sun]
|
|
|
| Re: DNA - Atheist - Secular Novelist [message #217303 ] |
Sa, 11 Februar 2006 04:28 |
|
"solar penguin" <solar.penguin [at] tiscali.co.THANKS.FOR.NOT.SENDING.SPAM.uk>
wrote
> It's only offensive to people like you, who aren't TRUE atheists!
> Atheism is the *belief* in the non-existance of god. If you're
> motivated by facts, not belief, you shouldn't be allowed to call
> yourself an atheist.
This is factually inaccurate. Atheism is the lack of belief in god. You
don't have to 'believe there isn't a god'.
Steve M
|
|
|
| Re: DNA - Atheist - Secular Novelist [message #217304 ] |
Sa, 11 Februar 2006 07:51 |
|
"Steve Marshall" <sdm [at] atmosBlockA.plus.com> wrote in message
news:43ed587a$0$82641$ed2619ec [at] ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
>
> "Dave Adalian" <dpalta AT comcast.net> wrote
>
>> Then what has led you to believe there is no god? What proof can you
> offer?
>
> It is for those making the claim that there is a god to provide proof of
> it's existence. There is just a claim one which atheists don't accept.
>
An atheist makes the claim there are no gods. Why is he not to be held
responsible for this belief? Only an agnostic, who admits his ignorance, is
under no burden of proof.
>> If that is the case, then you
>> are agnostic, not atheistic.
>
> Whilst an atheist may not accept the god of Christianity some may admit to
> the vague posibility of there being 'a creator' at some point, though
> there
> is no reason to suppose this exists still. In some ways an atheist may be
> agnostic, but agnostics say we can not know the nature of the Universe
> whereas most atheist acknowledge science and the bits we do know.
>
I'm agnostic and I don't think the nature of the universe is unknowable. In
fact, the more we study it empirically the more we believe we know. An
agnostic doesn't dismiss the acquisition of knowledge, per se, but the
ability to know if there are or are not gods bases on the nonavailablity of
evidence for either supposition.
>> Atheism requires faith that there is no god
>> simply because there is no proof there is a god.
>
> I don't buy that. Most people do not believe in gods. There are a great
> many
> and the religious almost always subscribe to one - or one group of gods.
> Muslims don't accept Jesus, for example. Atheists just go one god more, to
> quote Dawkins.
>
Atheism requires faith since there is no proof on which to base the belief
there are no gods, just as the is no proof on which to base a belief in
gods.
> I would cite a history of belief where humans can be demonstrated as
> inventing a whole series of deity. Proclaiming trees, stones and the sun
> as
> gods. Proclaiming Kings as gods. It is a concept created by man - an
> invention to try and make sense of how the world works. With science
> philosophy and reasoning there is no need for inventing gods and the
> realisation the gods are inventions shows the unliklihood of any showing
> up.
>
This is supposition. It is very reasonable, but still does not constitute
proof.
>> Lack of proof, as has been
>> noted elsewhere, does not constitute proof of lack.
>
> It is difficult to prove something doesn't exist. Some consider it
> impossible. It is therefore far better for those making the claim to come
> up
> with some evidence to back their claim. Evidence may not constitute proof
> either but it would help.
>
It is impossible to prove the negative statement, yes. But a lack of proof
does not prove something does not exist. It merely means that if there is
proof it has yet to be discovered, leaving open a possibility, however slim.
>> This is why I consider myself agnostic and not atheistic. I simply do
>> not
>> know since there is no evidence for either assertion.
>
> Don't you think that the lack of evidence for any of these is pretty
> damning ? Where'd the names come from ?
>
<snipped the list of gods>
No, I don't find them damning (an interesting choice of words, BTW). I find
them simplistic, but I don't see them as anything other than wishful
thinking and artifacts of culture. And, one cannot prove that none of those
gods you listed does not exist, since this is an impossible task.
One can make a similar argument about the existence of extraterrestrial
life. We've never seen any nor are we ever likely to, at least not in our
lifetimes. Does this mean it does not exist? In a universe of this size
and complexity, I would bet it does exist elsewhere, but I cannot know it as
a certainty. Therefore, I must conclude that I don't know. I strongly
believe there is other life in the universe, but wanting it that way does
not make it so, and so I remain "agnostic" in that sense, as well. But, the
lack of evidence for the existence of extraterrestrial life is not evidence
of a lack of said E.T.s.
-- Dave
http://starry-starry-nights.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
| Re: DNA - Atheist - Secular Novelist [message #217305 ] |
Sa, 11 Februar 2006 09:07 |
|
<snip>
> Don't you think that the lack of evidence for any of these is pretty
> damning ? Where'd the names come from ?
>
<snipped lists of Deities>
Can I ask where you got this list?
I've been ignoring this conversation (being Pagan) but I can't help but
get curious when somebody posts such a list of gods.
BTW, just to nitpick, the list included several Orisha, which
technically aren't gods. The Ifa religions are mono-theistic, but their
supreme god created the Orisha to interact with humans.
--
Other
Don't Panic
|
|
|
| Re: DNA - Atheist - Secular Novelist [message #217307 ] |
Sa, 11 Februar 2006 14:45 |
|
Dave Adalian wrote:
<snip>
> To believe anything without empirical evidence is to take it on faith.
Well, in principle, maybe. But that statement means you can't trust any
law of physics, for instance. All you can say is that so far, and in the
cases where someone has observed, it seems the law of physics hold. For
all we know, the laws of physics are a temporary annomaly that stops in
3 seconds. But that kind of thinking will get you absolutely nowhere...
Best
Kåre
|
|
|
| Re: DNA - Atheist - Secular Novelist [message #217308 ] |
Sa, 11 Februar 2006 16:14 |
|
"Dave Adalian" <dpalta AT comcast.net> wrote in
> To believe anything without empirical evidence is to take it on faith.
I believe in pie.
Sid
|
|
|
| Re: DNA - Atheist - Secular Novelist [message #217311 ] |
Sa, 11 Februar 2006 23:37 |
|
"Other" <gonzo106 [at] yahoo.com> wrote
> Can I ask where you got this list?
Why'd you ask ?
It was posted in an atheist group IIRC.
Steve M
|
|
|
| Re: DNA - Atheist - Secular Novelist [message #217313 ] |
So, 12 Februar 2006 00:00 |
|
"Dave Adalian" <dpalta AT comcast.net> wrote
> > It is for those making the claim that there is a god to provide proof of
> > it's existence. There is just a claim one which atheists don't accept.
> >
>
> An atheist makes the claim there are no gods. Why is he not to be held
> responsible for this belief?
This is inaccurate. Atheism is the lack of belief in god. There is no claim
as such although the stance leads to such an assumption. I do not believe in
any gods, though I willing to kick one in the nuts if he ever shows up.
> Only an agnostic, who admits his ignorance, is
> under no burden of proof.
Atheists do admit they can't prove a negative.
>> I'm agnostic and I don't think the nature of the universe is unknowable.
Well you find if you get a group of people they often don't agree.
Christians can't agree with each other and have split off into different
denominations and so on.
The agnostic stance is explained to me as being that of lacking knowledge,
as you've already indicated.
> In
> fact, the more we study it empirically the more we believe we know. An
> agnostic doesn't dismiss the acquisition of knowledge, per se, but the
> ability to know if there are or are not gods bases on the nonavailablity
of
> evidence for either supposition.
The descriptions I find go beyond just deity. Here's what my dictionary says
for example
1 a person who believes that nothing is known, or can be known, of the
existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena.
2 a person who is uncertain or non-committal about a certain thing.
Science is full of things we can't see. There should be some means of
detection. If there is no means of detecting a god, doesn't it suggest that
there isn't one ?
> Atheism requires faith since there is no proof on which to base the belief
> there are no gods, just as the is no proof on which to base a belief in
> gods.
Again, atheism is the lack of belief in god. I don't accept there are any
and I acknowledge there isn't actual proof. Prove there are no green
unicorns !
> > I would cite a history of belief where humans can be demonstrated as
> > inventing a whole series of deity. Proclaiming trees, stones and the sun
> > as
> > gods. Proclaiming Kings as gods. It is a concept created by man - an
> > invention to try and make sense of how the world works. With science
> > philosophy and reasoning there is no need for inventing gods and the
> > realisation the gods are inventions shows the unliklihood of any showing
> > up.
>
> This is supposition. It is very reasonable, but still does not constitute
> proof.
What would ? It is a ridiculous situation trying to prove something doesnt'
exist as DNA points out with the Babel fish argument.
> It is impossible to prove the negative statement, yes. But a lack of
proof
> does not prove something does not exist.
No, but it does show no reason to believe that a thing exists. Atheist do
not believe in god(s).
> No, I don't find them damning (an interesting choice of words, BTW). I
find
> them simplistic, but I don't see them as anything other than wishful
> thinking and artifacts of culture. And, one cannot prove that none of
those
> gods you listed does not exist, since this is an impossible task.
Aren't you admitting these are, in effect, stories. The proof being asked
for is to prove Harry Potter doesn't exist or James Bond, or Spider-Man.
Kind of odd.
In science you look for evidence and if you can't find any you start to
consider that you might be wrong.
> One can make a similar argument about the existence of extraterrestrial
> life. We've never seen any nor are we ever likely to, at least not in our
> lifetimes. Does this mean it does not exist?
We don't know of any existing. I don't believe that there are little green
men buzzing around in spaceships, just as I dont' believe in god, but that
doesn't effect whether or not there are little green men.
> In a universe of this size
> and complexity, I would bet it does exist elsewhere, but I cannot know it
as
> a certainty. Therefore, I must conclude that I don't know. I strongly
> believe there is other life in the universe, but wanting it that way does
> not make it so, and so I remain "agnostic" in that sense, as well.
Well a religious view is to believe that there is life. An atheist, in this
context doesn't not believe that there is. But an atheist would be swayed by
evidence.
Steve M
|
|
|
| Re: DNA - Atheist - Secular Novelist [message #217314 ] |
So, 12 Februar 2006 00:09 |
|
<kimberly.rowles [at] gmail.com> wrote
> all of our understanding of the world, whether based on scientific
> evidence, religious scripture, or something joe-shmoe says on the
> street corner comes back to an element of trust, this element of trust
> is what I consider a leap of faith.
Science is open to examination. There are peer reviews and others will
perform experiments done by others to ascertain the validity of claims.
Science should be sceptical.
> There is no evidence that
> concretely will determine that the big bang created the world
Well, you can hear it.
> Science and religion are aiming towards the same goals answering the
> unanswerable questions.
Religion attempts to make sense of the world. People have veiwed the motion
of the sun and decided someone must be pushing it round. Science looks at
the sun and tries to establish what is happening instead of making guesses.
Religion fails because it demands acceptance of it's claims. Science is open
to challenge.
> (who am I, why am i here, where did I come from
> ...)
These are the sorts of questions which are answered by philosophy rather
than science.
> I am therefore theorizing that science and religion are
> fundamentally the same as in that trust which individuals place in them
> come from the same quest, perhaps I need to find a new phrase for what
> I mean by religion, based on this explaination.
Because they both have a similar basis does not make them the same.
Steve M
|
|
|
| Re: DNA - Atheist - Secular Novelist [message #217315 ] |
So, 12 Februar 2006 03:16 |
|
Sid wrote:
> "Dave Adalian" <dpalta AT comcast.net> wrote in
>
>
>>To believe anything without empirical evidence is to take it on faith.
>
>
> I believe in pie.
>
>
I remember a time I was sitting and I heard somebody going by
say "wait one nanosecond". It wasnt until much more recently
that I realized it took much longer to ask for the wait than
they got out of the experience.
--
Tian
http://tian.greens.org
Latest change: Added my pictures from Aimee Allisons kickoff event.
|
|
|
| characters from both HHGG and DG [message #217319 ] |
So, 12 Februar 2006 05:08 |
|
"Steve Marshall" <sdm [at] atmosBlockA.plus.com> wrote in message
news:43ed5410$0$3609$ed2e19e4 [at] ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...
> Incorrect. Besides, HHGG has gods in it at various points.
Yeah. Coming back on topic temporarily, is Thor the Thunder God the only
character who appeared in both the Hitchhiker books and the Dirk Gently
books?
|
|
|
| Re: DNA - Atheist - Secular Novelist [message #217320 ] |
So, 12 Februar 2006 08:56 |
|
"Kaare Fiedler Christiansen" <news [at] kaarefc.dk> wrote in message
news:43edea5d$0$2106$edfadb0f [at] dtext02.news.tele.dk...
> Dave Adalian wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> To believe anything without empirical evidence is to take it on faith.
>
> Well, in principle, maybe. But that statement means you can't trust any
> law of physics, for instance. All you can say is that so far, and in the
> cases where someone has observed, it seems the law of physics hold. For
> all we know, the laws of physics are a temporary annomaly that stops in 3
> seconds. But that kind of thinking will get you absolutely nowhere...
>
Not so, because the "laws" of physics as we understand them are based on
empirical evidence, unlike atheism, which is based on a lack of evidence.
There always exists the possibility, however slim, that we simply have not
asked the right questions, looked in the right place or do not yet possess
technology sophisticated enough to allow us to make the correct
measurements. This is much like someone from the a previous era not
believing in atoms since they did not yet have adequate technology for their
direct detection.
Further, we know that laws of physics are not consistent depending on scale,
hence the use of quantum theory to describe the very small. Allowing in our
thinking for possibilities like this are the only thing that gets us
anywhere.
-- Dave
http://starry-starry-nights.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
| Re: DNA - Atheist - Secular Novelist [message #217322 ] |
So, 12 Februar 2006 09:56 |
|
"Steve Marshall" <sdm [at] atmosBlockA.plus.com> wrote in message
news:43ee6c77$0$6969$ed2619ec [at] ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
>
> "Dave Adalian" <dpalta AT comcast.net> wrote
>
>> > It is for those making the claim that there is a god to provide proof
>> > of
>> > it's existence. There is just a claim one which atheists don't accept.
>> >
>>
>> An atheist makes the claim there are no gods. Why is he not to be held
>> responsible for this belief?
>
> This is inaccurate. Atheism is the lack of belief in god. There is no
> claim
> as such although the stance leads to such an assumption. I do not believe
> in
> any gods, though I willing to kick one in the nuts if he ever shows up.
>
The dictionary definition of "atheism" is the belief there are no gods:
"a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no
deity"
Call it disbelief if you like, but it's still an act of faith, however mild,
and impure reasoning since there is no evidentiary basis for this stance.
>> Only an agnostic, who admits his ignorance, is
>> under no burden of proof.
>
> Atheists do admit they can't prove a negative.
>
A belief without proof requires some other basis: faith. Reason requires
some evidence, at least as a starting point.
>>> I'm agnostic and I don't think the nature of the universe is unknowable.
>
> Well you find if you get a group of people they often don't agree.
> Christians can't agree with each other and have split off into different
> denominations and so on.
> The agnostic stance is explained to me as being that of lacking knowledge,
> as you've already indicated.
>
Yes, a very specific lack of knowledge about the nature of deity, not about
the nature of the universe.
>> In
>> fact, the more we study it empirically the more we believe we know. An
>> agnostic doesn't dismiss the acquisition of knowledge, per se, but the
>> ability to know if there are or are not gods bases on the nonavailablity
> of
>> evidence for either supposition.
>
> The descriptions I find go beyond just deity. Here's what my dictionary
> says
> for example
>
> 1 a person who believes that nothing is known, or can be known, of the
> existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena.
> 2 a person who is uncertain or non-committal about a certain thing.
>
From Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
"broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or
the nonexistence of God or a god"
> Science is full of things we can't see. There should be some means of
> detection. If there is no means of detecting a god, doesn't it suggest
> that
> there isn't one ?
>
Mathematical reasoning indicates the likelihood gravitational waves exist,
yet they have yet to be detected. Does this mean they do not exist? No.
It means we do not possess the technology to detect them or have not learned
the proper technique to detect them using the technology we already possess.
The point here is, again, a lack of proof is not a proof of lack. To state
otherwise is to make a conclusion on incomplete evidence.
>> Atheism requires faith since there is no proof on which to base the
>> belief
>> there are no gods, just as the is no proof on which to base a belief in
>> gods.
>
> Again, atheism is the lack of belief in god. I don't accept there are any
> and I acknowledge there isn't actual proof. Prove there are no green
> unicorns !
>
I cannot, and neither can you. But, in a universe of this size and
complexity, there is a genuine possibility they exist somewhere beyond my
ability to detect them, so I cannot say they do or do not exist. Would you
like to sing to my cat?
>> > I would cite a history of belief where humans can be demonstrated as
>> > inventing a whole series of deity. Proclaiming trees, stones and the
>> > sun
>> > as
>> > gods. Proclaiming Kings as gods. It is a concept created by man - an
>> > invention to try and make sense of how the world works. With science
>> > philosophy and reasoning there is no need for inventing gods and the
>> > realisation the gods are inventions shows the unliklihood of any
>> > showing
>> > up.
>>
>> This is supposition. It is very reasonable, but still does not
>> constitute
>> proof.
>
> What would ? It is a ridiculous situation trying to prove something
> doesnt'
> exist as DNA points out with the Babel fish argument.
>
By this logic an atheist believes something that cannot be proven. This is
the definition of faith (M-W again; 2b(1)):
"2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the
traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for
which there is no proof (2) : complete trust"
>
>> It is impossible to prove the negative statement, yes. But a lack of
> proof
>> does not prove something does not exist.
>
> No, but it does show no reason to believe that a thing exists. Atheist do
> not believe in god(s).
>
See above. I believe I'll have another whisky. Yes, this seems more
likely.
>> No, I don't find them damning (an interesting choice of words, BTW). I
> find
>> them simplistic, but I don't see them as anything other than wishful
>> thinking and artifacts of culture. And, one cannot prove that none of
> those
>> gods you listed does not exist, since this is an impossible task.
>
> Aren't you admitting these are, in effect, stories. The proof being asked
> for is to prove Harry Potter doesn't exist or James Bond, or Spider-Man.
> Kind of odd.
>
Yes, religious myth is a series of simplistic stories, attempts to describe
a creating and governing essence for a misunderstood universe, told by
primitive peoples. In this way they are much like the Ptolemaic or
Copernican view of the Solar System.
However, they are unlike fiction in that they are attempts to combine
cultural tradition with spirituality, and not stories made up from whole
cloth. And, no, it isn't odd. It actually presents me with a chance to
illustrate what I am trying to get across: Prove there is no Harry Potter,
James Bond or Spiderman. You cannot, just as you cannot prove there are no
gods.
> In science you look for evidence and if you can't find any you start to
> consider that you might be wrong.
>
In science one makes observations and uses them to formulate an hypothesis.
One then gathers additional observational data from double-blind experiments
designed to test the validity of the hypothesis and then refines the
hypothesis based on experimental results. The process is continued until a
formal theory can be stated which others can then test with their own
replication of your experiments. No matter how right a theory seems, even
to the point of being stated as a physical "law," it is still in a very real
sense only a stringently tested hypothesis that will be further refined or
discarded the moment contrary evidence is presented. There being no
measurable evidence for or against the existence of gods, science cannot be
used to describe them.
But, using your definintion of the scientific process, since there is no
evidence for the nonexistence of deity we should discard atheism as wrong.
>> One can make a similar argument about the existence of extraterrestrial
>> life. We've never seen any nor are we ever likely to, at least not in
>> our
>> lifetimes. Does this mean it does not exist?
>
> We don't know of any existing. I don't believe that there are little green
> men buzzing around in spaceships, just as I dont' believe in god, but that
> doesn't effect whether or not there are little green men.
>
And, if there is a God with a long white beard sitting among his heavenly
host, I'm sure he doesn't care a fetid dingo's kidney what either of us
think about him. He'll go right on existing and enjoying the harp music.
>> In a universe of this size
>> and complexity, I would bet it does exist elsewhere, but I cannot know it
> as
>> a certainty. Therefore, I must conclude that I don't know. I strongly
>> believe there is other life in the universe, but wanting it that way does
>> not make it so, and so I remain "agnostic" in that sense, as well.
>
> Well a religious view is to believe that there is life. An atheist, in
> this
> context doesn't not believe that there is. But an atheist would be swayed
> by
> evidence.
>
Any rational person, regardless of stripe, would be swayed by evidence. The
point here is that there is no evidence for any conclusion, positive or
negative, so the most logical stance is one of admitting or denying nothing.
Lack of evidence is not evidence. It is in fact the opposite of evidence.
More I cannot say.
-- Dave
http://starry-starry-nights.blogspot.com/
P.S.: Puss, puss, puss. Pussy want a nice piece of fish. Pussy should eat
his fish. If he does not eat his fish, pussy will waste away and die. At
least I think he might, but then I think rain is wet, so what do I know?
The Lord knows I am a simple man.
|
|
|
| Re: DNA - Atheist - Secular Novelist [message #217323 ] |
So, 12 Februar 2006 13:24 |
|
Dave Adalian wrote:
> "Kaare Fiedler Christiansen" <news [at] kaarefc.dk> wrote in message
> news:43edea5d$0$2106$edfadb0f [at] dtext02.news.tele.dk...
>
>>Dave Adalian wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>To believe anything without empirical evidence is to take it on faith.
>>
>>Well, in principle, maybe. But that statement means you can't trust any
>>law of physics, for instance. All you can say is that so far, and in the
>>cases where someone has observed, it seems the law of physics hold. For
>>all we know, the laws of physics are a temporary annomaly that stops in 3
>>seconds. But that kind of thinking will get you absolutely nowhere...
>>
>
>
> Not so, because the "laws" of physics as we understand them are based on
> empirical evidence, unlike atheism, which is based on a lack of evidence.
> There always exists the possibility, however slim, that we simply have not
> asked the right questions, looked in the right place or do not yet possess
> technology sophisticated enough to allow us to make the correct
> measurements. This is much like someone from the a previous era not
> believing in atoms since they did not yet have adequate technology for their
> direct detection.
>
> Further, we know that laws of physics are not consistent depending on scale,
> hence the use of quantum theory to describe the very small. Allowing in our
> thinking for possibilities like this are the only thing that gets us
> anywhere.
All true, but still doesn't change the fact that you can't have
empirical evidence of what will happen tomorrow. All you can do is hope
(with good reason, of course) that the things do stuff more or less the
same way as today.
What I was trying to say is that by your definition that's faith, and I
disagree. And that's the kind of thinking I meant would get you nowhere.
On the whole, I think I agree with you more or less, I was just trying
to point out what could be considered a flaw in your definition.
Then, I can't discuss the finer points of the English language, since it
isn't my native language. The Danish word for faith, "tro", also means
trust and belief. Thus "tro" in the Danish language is much less bound
to religion than faith is in English.
On the whole this discussion seems to boil down to whether belief and
faith are synonyms.
Best
Kåre
|
|
|
| Re: DNA - Atheist - Secular Novelist [message #217324 ] |
Mo, 13 Februar 2006 00:06 |
|
Alright....so....I suppose I'm not really replaying to anything
specific. Just my general meditations on the ideas that have been
bouncing around here....
Regarding not believing vs. believing there is not....I'm going to set
up a nice little scale here and make what I'm thinking all really nice
and visual. Here I go.
--------|----------------------------|---------------------- ----|--------------------------|--------------------------|- ----------
Gnostic Theist Agnostic Thiest Agnosticism Agnostic
Athiest Gnostic Thiest
Alright, so here I use the words gnostic and agnostic (with a little
"a" as opposed to the capitol one in Agnosticism) to mean absolutely
sure for whatever reason (gnostic) and no quite sure but feels it's one
way or the other (agnostic. Sticking an "a" in front of it makes it not
exist, see). This way, we can avoid the faith, belief and are they
synonyms question.
At the far left of the scale, we have the gnostic thiests, who are
absolutly devoted, with or without any shred of evidence either way,
convinced beyong any reasoning, arguement, or shadow of a doubt that
their particular brand of belief in God is the right one. This is the
"I believe God exists" category.
Then the agnostic thiests, who are pretty darned sure that there is a
God, but they're open to seeing things in other ways. When DNA was very
young, I hear he was here. Here the more accurate statement would be "I
think that God exists."
In the middle, we have agnostics who don't have an opinion either way.
They're not an agnostic anything, they're /just/ Agnostic. Later, in
his young adult life, this was DNA's point of view. Agnostics say "I
neither believe nor disbelieve in the existsance of God."
Then second from the right, we have agnostic athiests, who really don't
much think there is a God, but aren't sure the essential thesis can be
disproven. Their view is "I don't think there is a God."
Then we have the hardline gnostic athiests. I think this might have
been where DNA ended up. They believe, beyond human capacity to
convince them otherwise, that there isn't, wasn't and will not be a
God. They find religion absurd and have trouble understanding the
viewpoint of the religious. Their statement is a resounding "I believe
there is no God."
As you can see, sometimes the differences are subtle, but they are
differences. There are, of course, people who fall between the
categories, just like on a numberline: between 1 and 2, you can have
1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc. I myself stand somewhere between agnostic and
gnostic atheism, though in an arguement, I often come off agnostic
because of my argueing style: poke, prod, investigate the other
person's POV by asking them questions I know the answers to, find the
boundaries of their knowledge of the topic, where their logic frays,
angles they're never considered and facts they have wrong, how well
they're thought what things out, anywhere where I'd know more than
them, and when I've found places to strike their arguement where they
have little or no armour, then I start picking it apart, in escalating
ferocity, untill I've taken apart enough of it that they barely have a
leg to stand on. Untill there, I've just been pointing out what's
wrong with their side, and then only at the end do I actually state
what I believe. Of course, such a Socratic strateggy demands a
considerable knowledge base in almost every subject, but....whatever.
But back to my original point. There's not just one "true" athiest.
Agnostic or gnostic antheism isn't the only "denomination" (to use the
term loosely) of atheism. That's just as narrowminded as saying
Pentacostalism (a gnostic thiest group) is the only "true" form of
thiesm, discounting all others.
If I think of anything else, I'll add it to the thread. Until then,
I'll just achknowledge that I might just be a git because I'm only
seventeen, and most people figure I don't know squat.
|
|
|
| Re: DNA - Atheist - Secular Novelist [message #217325 ] |
Mo, 13 Februar 2006 01:40 |
|
Okay -
I fully appreciate the entire thread however I want to just give the
rough outline of my essay and maybe it will make more sense to all of
you . Sorry about the lack of indentation- I hope this make sense.
Perhaps it is utter gibberish but hopefully it is comprehendable
gibberish none the less.
LRP grl
Novel as Secular Scripture Essay Topic Outline.
The course objectives are as follows :
To learn about the history of the mid 19th century through its coming
of age and the exploration of the interaction of literature, religion
and philosophy. In the course we have read works spanning from Adam
Bede (first published in ____) Nick Hornby's How to Be Good (2001). In
reading these texts and discussing them in class the intent was to
understand the quest for a post-Christian authority. I propose that
much in the same manner that these texts show the post- Christian quest
for authority that the work of Douglas Adams' Hitchhikers Guide to the
Galaxy "Trilogy" (aka HG2G) answers the question "God is dead, now
what?"
Basic outline-
1. How is hg2g like the 19th century novelists?
a. Adams was a "radical atheist"
b. Adams was also a student of English at St Johns College, Cambridge
(he earned both his BA and his MA)
c. Adams drowns his text with social commentary as his predecesors did
2. How does hg2g address the question of God is dead now what?
a. Guide Entries - proving the non existence of god
b. providing an alternative creation myth - (the earth is a computer
created by an alien race to answer find the question to which the
answer is 42)
c. first book concludes as new Eden is provided for Arthur Dent and
Trillian the only remaining human life forms however they decide to
abandon earth for adventures in space.
3. Is the hg2g series then a post christian novel or an atheistic
secular novel?
a. Atheism as a religion
1. atheism is a belief that there is no God (for our sake no Christian
God)
2. because atheism is a strong belief (which is the definition of
faith)
3. and because the definition of religion is a particular system of
faith (Atheism is a religion)
b. Atheism growing out of Agnosticism as a post-Christian religion
1. Neitzsche view in the 19th century " They [the English] are rid of
the Christian God and therefore think it all the more incumbent upon
them to hold tight to Christian morality; This is an English way of
reasoning... When we renounce the Christian faith, we abandon all right
to Christian morality... Christianity is a system, a complete outlook
upon the world, conceived as a whole. If its leading concept, the
belief in God, is wrenched from it, the whole is destroyed; nothing
vital remains in our grasp." (Twilight of the Idols 63)
2. Shelley's view on Atheism- quoting Lord Bacon - "atheism leaves to
man reason, philosophy, natural piety, laws, reputation, and everything
that can serve to conduct him to virtue; but superstition destroys all
these, and erects itself into a tyranny over the understandings of men:
hence atheism never disturbs the government, but renders man more
clear- sighted, since he sees nothing beyond the boundaries of the
present life." (The Necessity of Atheism)
3. Bertrand Russel- On Agnoticism-" I never know whether I should say
"Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult
question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a
philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I
should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do
not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that
there is not a God.
On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the
ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist,
because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought
to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.
" (Am I an Atheist Or An Agnostic)
4. Adam's view in the 21st century "In England we seem to have drifted
from vague wishy-washy Anglicanism to vague wishy-washy Agnosticism -
both of which I think betoken a desire not to have to think about
things too much. " (interview in Winter 98-99)
|
|
|
| Re: DNA - Atheist - Secular Novelist [message #217326 ] |
Mo, 13 Februar 2006 03:55 |
|
"solar penguin" <solar.penguin [at] tiscali.co.THANKS.FOR.NOT.SENDING.SPAM.uk>
wrote in message news:43eb0af8_2 [at] mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> It's scum like you and that shit Dawkins who have polluted atheism and
> dragged it down
This is humour is it? I ask merely for information...
|
|
|
| Re: DNA - Atheist - Secular Novelist [message #217327 ] |
Mo, 13 Februar 2006 03:55 |
|
<simon.kempster [at] talk21.com> wrote in message
news:1139572713.496827.269200 [at] g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Fine by me, but don't put my name on it. Try reading Angels & Demons
> and The Da Vince Code by Dan Brown, for some interesting details.
A load of stuff from the Baigent, Haisman and Lincoln scam, more like....
|
|
|
| Re: DNA - Atheist - Secular Novelist [message #217328 ] |
Mo, 13 Februar 2006 03:56 |
|
"Other" <gonzo106 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:11ur7ijqq16uj8b [at] corp.supernews.com...
> <snip>
>> Don't you think that the lack of evidence for any of these is pretty
>> damning ? Where'd the names come from ?
>>
>
> <snipped lists of Deities>
>
> Can I ask where you got this list?
> I've been ignoring this conversation (being Pagan) but I can't help but
> get curious when somebody posts such a list of gods.
>
> BTW, just to nitpick, the list included several Orisha, which
> technically aren't gods. The Ifa religions are mono-theistic, but their
> supreme god created the Orisha to interact with humans.
>
> --
> Other
Confucius wasn't a god either...
|
|
|
| Re: DNA - Atheist - Secular Novelist [message #221104 ] |
Mo, 13 Februar 2006 13:51 |
|
On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 22:17:21 GMT, kimberly.rowles [at] gmail.com wrote the
following in alt.fan.douglas-adams:
> 2. Atheism's scripture is the negation of Christian scripture because
> atheism in this context is the negation of the Christian God.
Definately working backwards here. What happend to the Jewish God, the
Islmaic God, the Hindi Gods, etc?
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Do Mai 24 20:48:44 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,13456 Sekunden |
