I know what your point was. Unfortunately, you must analyze an atheist’s viewpoint successfully to use it as proof for God. Misinterpreting Pullman’s ironic fantasy novels does not qualify as successful analysis of an atheist’s viewpoint, and thus, does not qualify as a successful proof of God’s existence.

I would love to debate the specifics of why you think atheism is untenable, and why I think it is entirely reasonable, but obviously, this is not the place to do it. Would you be willing to continue the discussion via email (jwdink@sjcsf.edu) or via a forum (http://forums.philosophyforums.com)?

Let me know. Thanks!

My point from the last post was if I can argue that analyzing an atheist can prove God’s existence, that shows how futile atheism is. You should be questioning your viewpoint, not dogmatically ignoring what I stated. Your argument of God being irrelevant in the mind of an atheist, has nothing to do with CONSISTANCY and logical deduction. So, your statement does not nullify my argument.

I am also from Indiana, as John here is, and people here often take the idea of God for granted. I find it humorous that he claims to have been a Deacon, yet he did not know that Esther is a book of the Hebrew Tanach (Jewish Scriptures). Or, perhaps, John didn’t want to make Matt Serra look like an idiot for saying ‘jews’ would be offended at reading Esther.

Either way, the fact still remains, Esther is a JEWISH book. And the 3 large religions which are based on God coming to man (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) ALL are literally different branches of interpretation on what happened after the Old Testament. So, they are just literally dissagreeing on who Jesus is.

Other than these three religions, all the other major religions are man trying to reach God or spirituality, such as Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism, etc.

So, only 3 religions have God reaching to man and they are all arguing over the same story.. One is right, the other two are wrong..

And it would make sense, if there is a God, that he would try to make himself known to man in some manner. And as we all know, man is not perfect, so man reaching for God will never get it exactly right, so on the face, no philosophy of man can be completely right, due to man’s erroneous nature. Atheism would be in that boat also, for it is based on philosophy of man trying to figure it all out himself. Good luck with that one.

Sincerely
Tony

God, to an atheist, is entirely irrelevant. The only thing that makes him relevant is theists’ constant enforcement of their attempted interpretations of his perverse will. If theists left atheists alone, then Pullman wouldn’t have to write books in which the characters ultimately kill God. But a world in which the Pope says things like “AIDS may be bad, but condoms are worse”, then ironic and acerbic attacks of theology will necessarily exist.

To bring a little truth to this situation, it should be noted that the book of the Tanach (Jewish Bible or Old Testament) that Matt Hughes had everyone read was ‘Esther’.

Meaning, it was a JEWISH STORY about a JEWISH WOMAN who saved JEWS.

It appears people are not fully familiar with what the Old Testament is or how it relates to the three major religions, which all embrace it.

So, I don’t think a Jew would be offended at reading the Old Testament, as that is the equivelant to the Hebrew Tanach, which is the same book in Hebrew.

Further, Muslims would likely not be offended either.

Muslims also believe in the Old Testament, however a few of their stories deviate from the Old Testament, as Mohammad, for some reason, did not want to verify his retellings prior to writing them in the Koran. So he has a few of his retellings incorrect, yet he reveres the Old Testament and claims the Jews and Christians changed the Bible some.

So, Christians, Jews and Muslims would not be offended at reading ‘Esther’ from the Old Testament.

I just want to put that out there, as no one seems to realize or have noted this.

Regarding John being an atheist, I guess I have to give you credit for having great faith. For I find atheism to take great faith to believe there is no God. There are way too many arguments for the existence of God that make atheism look very weak at best.

I actually believe atheism, once analyzed, actually proves the existence of God. Take for example Philip Pullman.

He creates a movie about killing God and it is actually a childrens movie that just came out yesterday, called ‘The Golden Compass’.

His story is essentially taking the Garden of Edena and flipping it on its head. He literally takes the position of the Devil by saying the forbidden fruit truly does give knowledge and that knowledge is that God is weak and evil.

Now, ask yourself, if a person is a true atheist, why would he make a movie about killing God?

For if God does not exist, there would be no need to kill him, would there?

Considering also people I have known, I have seen the same pattern with atheists I have known personally.

A little background, I used to be a Mechanical Engineer. I worked with one man (about the only atheist I knew) who was a devout atheist.

Not too surprisingly, he listened to music that was talking about killing God and even had a picture on the back of it where God was being dissected.

Again, same question. If atheists do not believe in God, why do they have to ‘kill God’ in their minds.

Perhaps it is because the idea of God is somehow in their minds and they need to get it out of their minds to be atheist.

Well, how could that be? Perhaps God created them and put this knowledge internally within them?

Now, that would make more logical sense considering the situation, seeing if there was no God, there would be no need for atheist to continually ‘kill God’ in their minds..

For what would be the point? God don’t exist, right?

Sincerely
Tony

Anyways, I’ll be rooting for ya.