patrick.net

I think the point of the thread is that Christopher Hitchens was making it more difficult for Kevin to believe in eternal life/Jesus/some other religious idea.

People tend to believe more easily when "everyone else" believes. A very loud non-believer is an impediment to untroubled belief.

He definitely could have been more polite and sympathetic though. Might have helped his cause.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/doKkOSMaTk4

Terrible loss. Definitely someone I greatly admired and enjoyed reading and listening to.

He cut through a lot of crap, especially with his Mother Theresa book.

Everybody who is a communicator about what their believe in is an Evangelical, which means "Messenger". Michio Kaku is an evangelist also, communicating current ideas from physics to the masses.

I can't find it now, but he wrote a great piece from his hospital bed about fighting cancer and the reality of pain in the last few days.

Sadly, there will be no more Hitch Slaps administered.

Hitch was great when he agreed with you and infuriating when he didn't. My wife found him to be a boring drunk. I will miss him.

Some great Hitch moments:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/iq939cZv2Uc

http://www.youtube.com/embed/OpMuH0FYmCk
http://www.youtube.com/embed/4wYR6e9Z6es

Well do you think you're never going to die? We're all going to meet the Grim Reaper some day, so how would you like for someone to relish your demise? Christopher Hitchens never hurt anyone with his atheism and he had as much right to his beliefs as Christians to theirs. I'm sure he has family and friends who loved him and are missing him right now.

Here's a incredible article he wrote about his impending death after his last round of Chemo.

No bullshit, and drilling down straight to the heart of things, right until the end.

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2012/01/hitchens-201201

Dan8267 says

When an atheist advocates rational disbelief, he's a jerk.

Like I said in the original post, he wasn't a jerk for being an atheist, he was just a jerk in general.

Any talk show that he was on, any forum he was given, he was nothing but a condescending asshole to anyone else there.

His support for the Iraq war was what really turned me off the guy though.

I think the point of the thread is that Christopher Hitchens was making it more difficult for Kevin to believe in eternal life/Jesus/some other religious idea.

Uh, what? Religion is one of the things I actually agreed with Hitchens on.

Hitchens certainly made it more difficult for me to be an atheist though, since everyone assumes that all atheists are condescending assholes. I went through a whole phase where I told everyone I was "agnostic" (which is a real bullshit stance) to avoid being lumped in with people like that.

P N Dr Lo R says

Well do you think you're never going to die?

Well, sure, we'll all die eventually.

We're all going to meet the Grim Reaper some day, so how would you like for someone to relish your demise?

After I'm dead, I really won't give a shit what people say about me.

Christopher Hitchens never hurt anyone with his atheism

Absolutely agree. That's NOT why I called him a jerk. He certainly advocated for hurting people (specifically, Muslims) though, and he was a big ol' dick to a lot of other people.

and he had as much right to his beliefs as Christians to theirs.

Yes, and?

I'm sure he has family and friends who loved him and are missing him right now.

So? Here's a guy who said shitty things about dead people ALL THE TIME. Why should anyone feel any restraint in pointing out the shitty things that he did in life?

http://imgur.com/MP167

If Atheists were discussing politics or policy, nobody would think them jerks. It's the subject matter, that tears right into people's core beliefs, that pisses them off.

Almost everybody who ever met him said he was a class act, even if they were opposed to every position he stood for. He sponsored the careers of countless writers and journalists, even when he was on the opposite side of the fence.

In debate, though, he was ruthless. Nobody says to a hockey player, "You ought to have held back a little and saved the opposing teams feelings."

thunderlips11 says

If Atheists were discussing politics or policy, nobody would think them jerks. It's the subject matter, that tears right into people's core beliefs, that pisses them off.

If theists were practicing their voodoo without waging wars, passing unjust laws, electing racist gay-bashers, destroying the environment, and undermining the Constitution, nobody would think they are jerks. It's the real harm theist do that tears right into people's core beliefs and rights that pisses them off.

Some religious nut's core belief may be an all-powerful sky daddy, but my core belief is in the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If those two core beliefs come into conflict, then fuck the sky daddy. In America, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness takes priority. If anyone wants the sky daddy to take priority, move to a country in which that belief is more important like Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia.

It's the extreme polarizing nature of the debate that gets me, or maybe it's the recurring need to generalize or oversimplify. For example militant atheists often condemn all religion as inherently evil, but their arguments are centered on bashing a childs view of a all powerful man-like being ( Sky Daddy ).

The very fact that that atheists typically frame their arguments around the "sky daddy" notion of God tells you how ill equipped they are to discuss the question of the existence (or not) of something that is far beyond our comprehension if it does exist. If cornered, they might tell you the the personal god supernatural being is the God they take issue with, not other more subtle or vague definitions of God. But then they use their arguments to condemn all religion.

While still a child, I too rejected much of the religious dogma I had been taught, but I can't relate to absolute generalizations about the evil of religion. I don't believe I can be convinced that religion and spirituality don't have their place in human life. (Not saying that all humans need to be religious).

Humans sometimes do evil. The fact that they sometimes or even often use religion as a rationale is not a proof that therefore religion is evil. I'm sure that even more often evil has been done with the rationale "I did it to provide for my family." Does this mean that the concept of family needs to be condemned ?

I think I'm digressing.

Maybe I could share my point of view best with a question, but it requires some set up. Suppose you agree with the following:

1) Humans are still evolving

2) There are respectable admirable religious groups with what might be
called relatively enlightened or New Age views of God (not talking about Chakras or crystals - not that there's anything wrong with that). Take for example unitarians. Or this guy http://reddit.tv/#/r/atheism/nszvn - I don't know what denomination he's from, maybe Unitarian.

My question is this: As we continue to evolve, where do you hope that evolution takes us ? Do you hope it takes us to a place where we have religion for those who wish to practice, but that the religions are far more sophisticated and less dogmatic than many religions are today ? OR do you wish that we evolve to where we are all atheists with no spiritual beliefs whatsoever ?

Do you claim to know which evolutionary path would be better?

I feel sort of like the moderate in a political discussion. Maybe there is a place for the extremist zealot, but I can't relate to the extremist position.

marcus says

militant atheists

marcus says

For example militant atheists often condemn all religion as inherently evil, but their arguments are centered on bashing a childs view of a all powerful man-like being ( Sky Daddy ).

I have repeatedly disproved any monotheistic "god" that people pray to. Feel free to browse my posting history.

As for too-vague-to-talk-about gods, no one prays to them. No one attributes commandments to them. No one writes legislation to please them. Those gods, designed only to avoid rational discussion, are no gods at all.

As I've said several times, you give me a definition of god, any definition, and one of the following is true:

1. I can disprove it's existence.

2. No one worships or prays to that god.

The sad fact is, when people go shopping for a god, they have a laundry list of must-have qualities, at least of which is something impossible like everlasting life in Utopia and seeing dead loved ones again. Put simply, no human-made god can exist, because humans want their gods to do the impossible, and that's the whole purpose of having a god. It is fundamentally, self-delusion.

I was where you are when I was 15.

What a difference 40 years makes.

News flash: There are deeply religious people in the world, who believe in "God," who can not define him/her or it to you and who attach minimal dogma to their beliefs. These people when they meditate or pray it is not asking anything for themselves or worshiping as you think of it.

Your limited childlike view of what God is (that is, if she exists) limits your perception and your ability to make an argument that is in the same conversation with me.

Only if you try on (for size) other more adult perceptions of God, and then reject that as you have your child's view, only then would you possibly be capable of making a grown up argument on the subject.

And at that point, you would at least have the respect for believers not to try.

Please listen to this. This guy is a retired bishop. Try to get a clue as to where he's at, that is if you possibly can.Even if you can't relate to his beliefs, I guarantee you will learn a few things and that you will respect him as a theologian.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/uIyVWACkii0&feature=related

A longer and very interesting discussion with the same Episcopalian Bishop.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&NR=1&v=6AfFcAmx-Ro

I saw the video, and it's a bishop explaining not to take the Bible literally. No big deal, most Christians, including Fundies, don't. They all pick and choose what is literal and what is figurative. I see a fundy who thinks abortion is a terrible sin munching down on shellfish after schtuping his menstruating wife when he returns from work Saturday and Sunday night. Same picking and choosing as a Unitarian who preaches God is Love after jizzing on the floor because his homosexual life partner is away at a Planned Parenthood conference.

Whether something exists or not is a key factor in just about every argument, from Economics to Quantum Physics to Sociology. I would hardly call insisting on evidence for the existence of something a "Child View".

If anything, the Child View is insisting on believing in something in the absence of evidence.

I also don't buy that lessening the emphasis on the Koran or Bible is going to help, since they were oral traditions that were later put into writing to begin with.

You don't need a Monotheistic Holy Book to commit religious based atrocities, or to have organized religion. Look at the wars involving Buddhist or Hindus, both between sects and against other religions. While they have texts, they have never been held to the standard of the Koran or OT or NT. Consider the Flower Wars of the Aztecs; the Sun must be nourished with blood and still beating hearts! Or the bog sacrifices of ancient Danes. Or druids burning people up in wicker men. No literal fundamentalism there.

All the vileness of modern religion grew out of primitive impulses of superstition.

I'd like to hear a definition of Spiritual. Starting with, what is a Spirit, how much does it weigh, where is it found, etc.

The arguments and justification for doing good things is covered by Ethics, and Neuroscience. Epicurus didn't need a Deity to justify his concept of ethical living and neither do I.

thunderlips11 says

I would hardly call insisting on evidence for the existence of something a "Child View".

That's not what I was calling a childs view. It's everything he says that convinces me that the only definition of God that he will consider is a child's view. He's not alone. It's what Spong calls the Christiian alumni association.

Dan8267 says

As for too-vague-to-talk-about gods, no one prays to them. No one attributes commandments to them. No one writes legislation to please them. Those gods, designed only to avoid rational discussion, are no gods at all.

Dan8267 says

As I've said several times, you give me a definition of god, any definition, and one of the following is true:

1. I can disprove it's existence.

2. No one worships or prays to that god.

Dan8267 says

The sad fact is, when people go shopping for a god, they have a laundry list of must-have qualities, at least of which is something impossible like everlasting life in Utopia and seeing dead loved ones again.

Dan8267 says

Put simply, no human-made god can exist, because humans want their gods to do the impossible, and that's the whole purpose of having a god. It is fundamentally, self-delusion.

thunderlips11 says

Epicurus didn't need a Deity to justify his concept of ethical living and neither do I.

I don't either.

That's fine. But if you take it a step further, and insist that what is true for you, is absolutely true, and that therefore you KNOW that religion is evil and bad for everyone and so on,....

Then I say that is nothing more than a shallow leap of ego.

It's not even about ethics, although it is related.

It's about some of the deepest ways that we experience the ontological and other mysteries of this life. Its about individual experience.

I am arrogant at times. In fact my calling Dan's view of God childlike was arrogant of me (but also true - you know - speaking his language, so to speak) . AS arrogant as I am though, you won't see me trying to push my spiritual views on to others, at least not any more than I have by suggesting people view the Bishop Spong videos above.

And my only point there is that a person can be a religious Christian, without being anything like what Dan says it means. Spong refers to himself as so deeply involved in his "walk in to the mystery" that he is nearly a mystic.

marcus says

That's fine. But if you take it a step further, and insist that what is true for you, is absolutely true, and that therefore you KNOW that religion is evil and bad for everyone and so on,....

Okay, but there is a difference between what I experienced when I took 4 Mickey Mouse tabs at the Rave, and what is actually verifiable and what is not.

We impose our beliefs all the time on each other. Cutting taxes on the rich to stimulate growth vs. Raising taxes to pay for public goods. Have to choose one or the other.

I will insist that my child receives vaccinations for polio, smallpox, measles, mumps and rubella. I would like a law criminalizing refusal to vaccinate except when deemed medically necessary.

When it comes to religion I would gladly sponsor the banning of it all. Only the potential collateral damage to free speech, free assembly and freedom of conscience holds me back, so I put up with it. Think religious orgs should pay corporate taxes though, or at the very least, have to justify each and every asset they hold as necessary for the function of their religion.

marcus says

And my only point there is that a person can be a religious Christian, without being anything like what Dan says it means. Spong refers to himself as so deeply involved in his "walk in to the mystery" that he is nearly a mystic.

Well, I agree. There are religious people who do no harm, even good. However, there is the strong chance that eventually the most liberal belief will turn back into fundamentalism over time, since "Spirituality" is the origin:

For example, Muslims gather around a Meteor, and non-Muslims are prohibited from even approaching anywhere near it.

thunderlips11 says

We impose our beliefs all the time on each other. Cutting taxes on the rich to stimulate growth vs. Raising taxes to pay for public goods. Have to choose one or the other.

Those are regarding choices that affect us all. Not really comparable to our own private spiritual or religious choices.

I've said before, I usually consider myself an agnostic, although listening to the likes of Dan has made me realize that i'm somewhat on the believer side of agnostic.

As a child I was Catholic. Being a boomer, sort of ex hippie type, I experimented with drugs, and meditation and and martial arts and was interested in learning about alternate belief systems in my youth (especially between age 15 and 35). But I always considered myself an agnostic.

There are many things that inform our biases. It's not at all surprising, given the history of religions, and specifically the history of Christianity that many people would get "stuck" in a state of rejection.

marcus says

Those are regarding choices that affect us all. Not really comparable to our own private spiritual or religious choices.

They are, because personal beliefs inform other decisions.

It doesn't have to be even believing that "Life begins at Conception".

Believing that "Every Human Has Dignity" has an impact on say, voting for the Death Penalty. Should Hitler, if he was captured, have been executed?

marcus says

I was where you are when I was 15.

This might be an excellent argument if I couldn't truthfully say the exact same thing. When I was 15, I was "agnostic". Took years of critical thinking to get rid of all that religious crap.

marcus says

Your limited childlike view of what God is (that is, if she exists) limits your perception and your ability to make an argument that is in the same conversation with me.

I suppose this was meant to be an insult, comparing my mind to a child's. After all, the typical child can solve differential equations, write massively mutlithreaded and distributed applications, and understand RSA encryption. Children do that all the time.

However, what I really find repugnant is your complete misunderstanding of the difference between a child's mind an an adults and how ironically incorrect your assumption is.

Children tend to attribute purpose to the way things are even when there is none. This point is wonderfully demonstrated by the Richard Dawkins series Faith School Menace.

Particularly look at the video from 03:00 to 07:00. This clip clearly shows that religious thinking is childlike and atheist thinking is not. But hey, don't let inconvenient facts get in the way of your beliefs.

This serious makes a good argument that children should not be exposed to religion. It's as responsible as exposing them to drugs and alcohol. Religion, not atheism, limits understanding.

marcus says

you would at least have the respect for believers not to try.

Respect is something that has to be earned. It cannot be given. Courtesy should be given freely to all at first, and continued for as long as it is returned.

Dan8267 says

I suppose this was meant to be an insult, comparing my mind to a child's.

For someone so smart, you missed the point.

marcus says

Your limited childlike view of what God is (that is, if she exists) limits your perception and your ability to make an argument that is in the same conversation with me.

Your atheism may be product of an adult mind. But every argument and explanation I hear from you or from Dawkins is a rejection of a childs view of God.

Good for you. I reject that too, and have since I was a child.

But I tried on other views, ones that you define as no beilief in God at all. Does Bishop Spong above not believe in God ?

{Comment: the rejection of a childs view is embedded in your adult athiest view.}

marcus says

Please listen to this. This guy is a retired bishop.

Well, the dear bishop isn't off to a good start on his facts when he says "which would put discrimitation into the Constitution for the first time in history".

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 2 - The House

(Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.)

Those three fifths of "other Persons" meant black slaves.

But I'll continue since I'm nursing a flu and have nothing better to do.

Open minded much ?

marcus says

Open minded much ?

You got it backwards Marcus. I'm an atheist because I'm open-minded and listen to evidence, whereas theists are not because they refuse to listen to any evidence.

As I've said many times before, you are free to disprove the roundness of the Earth, Evolution, or Relativity if you can. I'll listen, but you'll have to explain why all existing evidence is wrong.

Open mindedness does not mean accepting any bullshit assertion as fact. It means accepting what the evidence says even if you have strong emotional motives not to.

For example, I'm pro-gun rights but anti-gun. I, emotionally, hate the idea of people running around with guns, but the evidence has shown that anti-gun laws do not make people safer and that criminals ignore such laws anyway.

So, you see, Marcus, I am more than willing to accept a truth I find displeasant. When was the last time you did that? By the way, do you think I actually want to be mortal instead of being assured eternal life in Utopia? Please, how childish is your perception of me? Backwards, completely backwards.

Bishop John Spong makes one good point. Islam in the Middle East today is a reflection of what Christianity was in the Middle Ages, a tribal, xenophobic culture. What the bishop neglects is that Christianity was exactly the same thing before the Middle Ages as well. Christianity was barbaric, sexists, tribal, and xenophobic at the time it was founded and at the time that the holy texts were written and gathered into the Bible. Granted, the Old Testament pre-dates Christ, but the culture that wrote the Old Testament was also primitive and barbaric.

John Paul II on one occasion said, "The Church will never ordain women because Jesus had no female disciples." Well, in the first century, a woman was so circumscribed that she couldn't go out in public, so there was no way Jesus could have had female disciples. - Spong

Yes, this shows that Jesus Christ, the real man, not the b.s. god figure, was a product of his time. He was a sexist, a xenophobe, a gay basher, a religious nut that wanted people to leave the dedicate city and live in the desert with only bare essentials. In other words, he was a typical cult leader of his time and his attitudes and political ideology was remarkably similar to a poor, Middle Eastern, Muslim's today. Jesus, if he were alive today, would be screaming "Death to America".

And as for sexism, yeah, the fact that the early Christians turned the wife of Jesus into a whore to discredit her, says a lot.

Next Bishop John Spong tries to whitewash the gaybashing in the Bible by stating that it only a few verses talk about homosexuality. And, yes, that is true. But when a book is used as the basis of law, enforced with violence, it only takes a few, often-repeated verses expecially when those verses are:

Levitcus 20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

That's pretty clear. And don't give me any bullshit that the above is not supposed to be taken literally. What is the metaphor behind "they must be put to death"? Does that mean we shouldn't give them cookies? The bishop acknowledges this passage, but refuses to make the correct conclusion: that part of the Bible was written by a despicable, hateful, bigot who should not be listened to, and furthermore, we shouldn't be listening to a book that would include such nonsense.

Throughout Christian history, homosexual men have been murdered by mobs and by the state because of this verse. Couldn't Christ had said, "Whatever you do to the least of my people, that you do unto me -- oh, yeah, and this includes the fags, lay off them."? The very word "faggot" as meaning homosexual came from the Middle Ages. The sick joke being that the only good gay man is one being burned alive like a faggot (kindling of firewood). So, yes, Christianity has always been a gay-bashing cult and no amount of whitewashing can undo that history.

[Side note to Bishop Spong: In the story of Lot and his two daughters, Lot offers to let the townsfolk gang rape his daughters instead of the two angels disguised as men. Maybe that story wasn't meant to be taken literally, but what the fuck is the moral lesson suppose to be? Let townsfolk rape your daughters so that they don't have gay sex instead? And why do the townsfolk of Lot's era sound an awfully lot like townsfolk in the Bible belt today? Deliverance?]

http://www.youtube.com/embed/9gLN3QoN-q8

So Bishop John Spong's point in the video Marcus linked is that the Bible should not be taken literally. Surely, as an atheist, I'm not going to argue for the literal truth of the Bible. But as a person who respects history and does not white wash it, I will argue that the Bishop is only half-right in his position.

Some parts of the Bible were written metaphorically. For example, the story of the Garden of Eden and the story of Cain and Abel was clearly meant as an allegory. It supposes that mankind started off innocent and pure and fell from grace when eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge. This is a metaphor for humans being born innocent, but losing that innocence as they age and become knowledgeable.

In America, we glorify the farmer to the level of mythology, but in the Bronze Age, the farmer was hated by the hunter-gatherers because it was a new way of life that challenged the old ways, and the new way of life was very successful. So Cain, the evil farmer, murders God's favorite human Abel, the hunter. Agriculture and city-building bad, nomadic hunter-gathering good. Pretty basic symbolism.

However, there are many sections of the Bible, including plagiarized areas, that were meant to be taken literally. For example, the Ten Commandments are not the Ten Symbols. The death and resurrection of Jesus is pretty much literal dogma or there is not reason to be a Christian.

In fact, if you take the Bible as just metaphor, then why use it as
1. A religious text.
2. The word of God.
3. A moral standard.
4. A basis of law.

It doesn't really serve any purpose if it's all fiction. At best, the Bible would be just one small collection of fiction dealing with fairytales and moral codes out of literally millions of others. It would be at most a footnote if you didn't take it seriously as Bishop Spong proposes.

And don't we have much better material for dealing with complex issues of morality that are far more relevant to the modern world? Material which doesn't require whitewashing and lying about something that was written to be taken literally during a bat-shit crazy era, but can no longer be taken seriously unless you pretend it's symbolic.

Sure, Bishop Spong is certainly a more reasonable person than a fundamentalist of any religion. But Bishop Spong still gives his allegiance to a cult that was founded on a lie, promoted a lot of evil ideas, and has still not completely reformed after two thousand years. Why not just try to reform Nazism? Why not just state that the Nazis didn't mean "the Jews" literally when they opened the ovens up for business. They meant any banker or financial manipulator who disrupted commerce with schemes.

I suppose if you got to whitewash Nazism for two thousand years, you could come up with a pretty good religion too. Just make sure you re-interpret Mein Kampf enough times that its original meaning is lost.

And yes, it's fair to compare Christianity to Nazism because when Christianity started out it was just as evil and violent as Nazism, and it killed just as many people and had the same attitudes towards the Jews. And if Nazism had been left to flourish, eventually it would become more "moderate" after going through it's share of dark ages and inquisitions.

The fact that Christianity today is less dangerous than it was a thousand years ago does not make me accept it. The reason Christianity is less dangerous is that people like me were burned at the stack as heretics for hundreds of years. We paid for the moderation of that religion in blood. But the ultimate answer is to abandon the cult all together just like we abandoned the cult of Nazism. For no organization rooted in evil can ever truly serve the purpose of good.

marcus says

My question is this: As we continue to evolve, where do you hope that evolution takes us ? Do you hope it takes us to a place where we have religion for those who wish to practice, but that the religions are far more sophisticated and less dogmatic than many religions are today ? OR do you wish that we evolve to where we are all atheists with no spiritual beliefs whatsoever ?

Do you claim to know which evolutionary path would be better?

marcus says

For someone so smart, you missed the point.

If I had, then it's your fault for not being clear. It's not difficult to convey a point clearly to someone who is actually listening to you despite the repeated references to him being a child. I've given you a lot of opportunity to make a cohesive argument for belief in a god, any god, and yet you haven't.

And unlike you, I actually don't care whether or not there is a god just like I don't care that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old instead of 6,000.

What I do care about is the truth, whatever the fuck it it, and that we establish our understanding of the truth on rational, verifiable means instead of "the priest said that is so, agree or die".

I believe that man is descendent from monkeys because the fossil and genetic evidence proves this. I have no more desire for this to be true than for man to be descendant from unicorns as leprechauns. I do think it's important that we know the lineage of man in as much as this understanding allows us to deal with evolutionary baggage and understand how life works. There are practical implications of humans being descendant from monkeys rather than giraffes or from being spontaneously created. But I have no emotional attachment to the particularities of the descent of man or whether or not a god exists.

That's something you just don't seem to get. I'd be more than willing to believe in your god, the day your god gives me a damn good reason to. The entire history of mankind, though, has given me great reasons to reject the claims of any gods, particularly the ones that defy the laws of physics, which every monotheistic god has.

But hey, have your god give me a call at 212-660-2245. I am more than willing to discuss his existence with him personally. And if he can't even drop a line, how the hell is he a god?

Maybe your view is more like this, than the total antithiest you portray yourself to be.

If not, that's okay. Please know that I know where you're coming from and I have totally understood what you have been trying to communicate.

Dan8267 says

And unlike you, I actually don't care whether or not there is a god

You could have fooled me.

marcus says

Does Bishop Spong above not believe in God ?

The video clip you provided does not show Bishop Spong defining god. However, since he is a Bishop, and I know what the Catholic definition of god is, I can still address your question.

The Catholic god is simply the Standard Monotheist God (SMG) that I disproved on other threads -- look them up -- with a few dogmas added.

1. SMG is the god of Abraham.
2. SMG is a trinity of individuals that includes god of Abraham, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.
3. SMG created the whole universe and sat back for 13.8 billion years.
4. Then suddenly, SMG created humans and ignored them for 200,000+ years (98% of their existence).
5. Then SMG literally gave Moses 10 Commandments that is the foundation of morality even though it doesn't address slavery and rape, the two most prominent evils of the time.
6. SMG talked a lot to people, but only the choosen people, the rest he ignored.
7. SMG finally got tired of talking to people and instead had his one and only son, also part of SMG, commit suicide via cop in order to earn forgiveness for the sins of man that came from a metaphoric, not literal, story of the Garden of Eden. Because that just makes sense.
8. SMG, via Jesus, then rose from the dead thus proving his existence beyond any doubt even letting that doubting Thomas put in fingers in Jesus's various new holes -- kinky!. Yet, SMG only wanted to prove its existence to these few people, and pretty much ignored everyone else in the world.

Yes, I could easily disprove the deity of Christianity and Jesus in particular. I think Bill Maher already did that to death in his wonderful movie Religulous in the part where he compares Jesus to Horus.

However, as I have already disproved any SMG, I don't see how that is necessary.

So yes, Bishop Spong does believe in SMG, but he's wrong and there's no justification for his beliefs. Had he been born in Saudi Arabia, he would probably believe in Allah and Mohammed. Had he been born in Thailand, he would probably be Buddhist.

If your point is that Christians can range from bat-shit crazy to mostly harmless, then I would agree. However, even Bishop Spong is still promoting membership in what was always and continues to be a cult founded upon lies and evil ideals. And there is something wrong about that in itself.

marcus says

Dan8267 says

And unlike you, I actually don't care whether or not there is a god

You could have fooled me.

That's not very hard.

marcus says

Maybe your view is more like this, than the total antithiest you portray yourself to be.

As all gods are fictitious, I can no more "have something against them" than I could against Lord Voldermort. Now, I'm not a big fan of Voldermort. I was rooting for Harry. But I can't say that I spend my life in pursuit of attacking Voldermort.

Granted, I think his ideas are bad, after all he's the bad guy in a children's book. But it's not like there is a nefarious group of Voldermort followers -- oh wait, who am I kidding, in the Internet age, there probably is -- but if there were hordes of Death Eaters actually roaming our streets and getting Congress to pass shit like the USA Patriot Act, then I would be going after Death Eaters.

marcus says

As we continue to evolve, where do you hope that evolution takes us ? Do you hope it takes us to a place where we have religion for those who wish to practice, but that the religions are far more sophisticated and less dogmatic than many religions are today ? OR do you wish that we evolve to where we are all atheists with no spiritual beliefs whatsoever ?

Do you claim to know which evolutionary path would be better?

- As we continue to evolve, where do you hope that evolution takes us ?

Evolution is a process incorporating random mutations. It is pointless to hope evolution to take one path versus another. Now, genetic engineering is another matter. We could certainly discuss the ethics and rights of genetic engineering. But I'd leave that to another thread as it's a huge discussion in itself.

- Do you hope it takes us to a place where we have religion for those who wish to practice, but that the religions are far more sophisticated and less dogmatic than many religions are today ? OR

Evolution may be the cause of mysticism, but it's not the solution. Our culture should adapt to being more reasonable and educated, as it is doing. It is already nearly inevitable that all ancient religions will die and modern ones will not be created to take their place. This is already happening in the developed world. The only question is how long it will take and how much death and destruction will mankind have to endure in the meantime.

- OR do you wish that we evolve to where we are all atheists with no spiritual beliefs whatsoever ?

I certainly wish we were all without spiritual / mystical beliefs whether those beliefs are about gods, unicorns, walking under ladders, black cats, astrology, tarot card reading. It would make the masses much harder for evil politicians to manipulate. I also hope that people will become more educated about the real way the universe works. It's pathetic that the vast majority of Americans couldn't even explain how a Microwave Oven cooks food. That's just something you should know in the modern age.

Most importantly, I believe that an educated, skeptical, and rational public is the greatest defense against war, tyranny, ecological collapse, and social and economic injustice. A democracy of stupid people has no advantage over despotism.

Quotes from Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel:

God is not a hypothesis derived from logical assumptions, but an immediate insight, self-evident as light. He is not something to be sought in the darkness with the light of reason. He is the light.

.
.

Just to be is a blessing. Just to live is holy.

.
.

Man is a messenger who forgot the message.

.
.

Wonder rather than doubt is the root of all knowledge.

marcus says

God is not a hypothesis derived from logical assumptions, but an immediate insight, self-evident as light. He is not something to be sought in the darkness with the light of reason. He is the light

Meaningless bullshit. I could just as easily claim that I am God, I am the light, and you should not try to use reason to prove or disprove my claim. You should just accept that I am God and the light as this truth is self-evident. Now, start worshiping me you cretins!

marcus says

Just to be is a blessing. Just to live is holy.

Sentience is great in of itself. The fact that we exist is to be celebrated, but it is no gift from a fictitious god, but a most fortunate accident.

marcus says

Man is a messenger who forgot the message.

A trite and meaningless statement mascaraing as something deep to those easily fooled. If you don't bait your master, master bait will you. I've heard more profound things in Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace.

marcus says

Wonder rather than doubt is the root of all knowledge.

Bullshit. Neither wonder nor doubt is the root of knowledge. You get some basic knowledge from your genetic code, which builds your body and brain, allowing you to sense your environment.

From there, you slowly build around the periphery of your existing knowledge, incorporating new understanding bit by bit. Knowledge is built from experimentation, verification, exchange of ideas, critical and skeptical thinking, mathematics, and the scientific method.

Wonder, or better yet, curiosity can drive the expansion of knowledge, but it is no root.

The problem with trite phrases is that although they may sound convincing, they typically are either meaningless or down right misleading.

Quotes from Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel:

God is not a hypothesis derived from logical assumptions, but an immediate insight, self-evident as light. He is not something to be sought in the darkness with the light of reason. He is the light.

.
.

Just to be is a blessing. Just to live is holy.

.
.

Man is a messenger who forgot the message.

.
.

Wonder rather than doubt is the root of all knowledge.