The one theology book all atheists really should read

[cbayer]

http://www.theguardian.com/news/oliver-burkeman-s-blog/2014/jan/14/the-theology-book-atheists-should-read

What if most modern arguments against religious belief have been attacking the wrong God all along?

Posted by
Oliver Burkeman
Tuesday 14 January 2014 16.50 GMT


A digital billboard, sponsored by the American Atheists organization, on display in New York. Photograph: Richard Levine/Demotix/Corbis

One reason that modern-day debates between atheists and religious believers are so bad-tempered, tedious and infuriating is that neither side invests much effort in figuring out what the other actually means when they use the word 'God'. This is an embarrassing oversight, especially for the atheist side (on which my sympathies generally lie). After all, scientific rationalists are supposed to care deeply about evidence. So you might imagine they'd want to be sure that the God they're denying is the one in which most believers really believe. No 'case against God', however watertight, means much if it's directed at the wrong target.

Yet prominent atheists display an almost aggressive lack of curiosity when it comes to the facts about belief. In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins expertly demolishes what he calls 'the God hypothesis', but devotes only a few sketchy anecdotes to establishing that this God hypothesis is the one that has defined religious belief through history, or defines it around the world today. AC Grayling insists that atheists are excused the bother of actually reading theology – where they might catch up on debates among believers about what they believe – because atheism "rejects the premise" of theology. And when The Atlantic ran a piece last year entitled Study theology, even if you don't believe in God, Jerry Coyne, the atheist blogosphere's Victor Meldrew, called it "the world's worst advice." And on and on it goes.

My modest New Year's wish for 2014, then, is that atheists who care about honest argument – and about maybe actually getting somewhere in these otherwise mind-numbingly circular debates – might consider reading just one book by a theologian, David Bentley Hart's The Experience of God, published recently by Yale University Press. Not because I think they'll be completely convinced by it. (I'm not, and I'm certainly not convinced by Hart's other publicly expressed views, which tend towards the implacably socially conservative.) They should read it because Hart marshals powerful historical evidence and philosophical argument to suggest that atheists – if they want to attack the opposition's strongest case – badly need to up their game.

The God attacked by most modern atheists, Hart argues, is a sort of superhero, a "cosmic craftsman" – the technical term is "demiurge" – whose defining quality is that he's by far the most powerful being in the universe, or perhaps outside the universe (though it's never quite clear what that might mean). The superhero God can do anything he likes to the universe, including creating it to begin with. Demolishing this God is pretty straightforward: all you need to do is point to the lack of scientific evidence for his existence, and the fact that we don't need to postulate him in order to explain how the universe works.

more at link

[el_bryanto]

1. That sounds too much like work; and at any rate taking believers seriously is just

anathema to many of our friendly Atheists.

Bryant

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. Today's one article no atheist should bother reading (or anyone, for that matter)

Seriously, save yourself the effort and time. You've seen it before. It's an idiotic "ignore the overwhelming beliefs of religious people, and read this book that claims 'God' is 'the ground of being', despite the author (being Eastern Orthodox) believing in the 'superhero God' that it claims is not what is really meant by 'God'".

Christians recite the Lord's Prayer. They recite a version of the Creed. They call themselves 'Christian'. You can't get from "there is a ground of all being" to "Jesus was anointed by God" without using the beliefs that Hart, and it seems Burkeman, claim aren't the basic beliefs of Christians. It's a complete waste of time to read a man who says "OK, forget what I actually believe, let's pretend I'm a pantheist who makes no claims at all about ethics or intervention in the universe by a God - why aren't you arguing against this imaginary belief?".

The same argument can be made against any Muslim who still calls themselves a 'Muslim' but pretends it's about a 'ground of being'. If they're not honest enough to call themselves a deist, you know they're being hypocritical.

[trotsky]

4. Very well put, m_v. n/t

[Scuba]

5. Bingo. Most American Christians believe in an old man with a white beard God, rewarding ...

... good and punishing evil.

The "why shit exists" god argument is silly.

[cbayer]

7. The author says that there is no evidence to back up your contention.

Do you have some that he does not?

[trotsky]

10. Yeah, a bit.

CBS Poll: Prayer Can Heal
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-poll-prayer-can-heal/
Most Americans believe in the power of prayer to speed their medical recovery, and they want their doctors to join them in prayer if asked. A CBS This Morning poll shows more than three quarters of people pray for the health of others.

FOX Poll: 77 Percent Believe Prayer Can 'Literally Help Someone Heal From An Injury Or Illness'
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/fox-poll-77-percent-believe-prayer-can-literally-help-someone-heal-from-an-injury-or-illness
The news network's recent national survey included a question asking if respondents "personally believe prayers can literally help someone heal from an injury or illness." 77 percent of respondents said yes, against 20 percent who did not, and a perhaps surprisingly low 3 percent that admitted they were unsure.

Harris Poll:
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/447/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/mid/1508/ArticleId/1353/Default.aspx
Do you believe in...
God? Yes: 74%, No: 12%
Miracles? Yes: 72%, No: 15%
Heaven? Yes: 68%, No: 16%
Jesus is God or the Son of God? Yes: 68%, No: 18%
Angels? Yes: 68%, No: 18%
The resurrection of Jesus Christ? Yes: 65%, No: 19%

[struggle4progress]

20. Polling results are often rather crude, since the questions typically force respondents

to choose between a small number of options, none of which accurately reflect their views

In the CBS poll, for example, 80% answered yes to "Does Prayer Help Healing?" but 55% answered no to "Should Prayer Be Standard?"

It is really not immediately clear what such conflicting results mean

There are about 62 million children in the US under the age of fifteen; and the death rate for this population is somewhere around 18 per 100K, which corresponds to about 11K child deaths annually for the age group; but only a dozen or so child deaths annually are due to lack of medical treatment associated with faith-healing beliefs of the parents -- which does not at all suggest (say) thatt 80% of parents prefer prayer to medical treatment when confronted with a sick child.

[trotsky]

22. It means that people think prayer works, but only THEIR kind of prayer.

They don't want just anyone doing it for them.

I realize it's difficult when believers like yourself are forced to confront what the reality of belief truly is, but these surveys aren't outliers. The same answers have been consistently collected (though, thankfully, the numbers have shown a slow but steady decline) for decades.

Feel free to continue ignoring what the majority of people believe - but I don't think it does anyone any favors.

[struggle4progress]

26. Do you have a link to support any of your claims about people's actual beliefs?

When I was a kid, everybody I knew had a smallpox vaccination scar. I remember people lining up to take the Sabin vaccine, too: a little pink spot on a sugar cube

I never ever heard anybody say, "My parents don't want me vaccinated: when we get sick, we just all pray"

And part of my childhood was spent in a very conservative community, where I did regularly hear people filled with hatred towards Madalyn Murry O'Hair and furious about evolution being taught in the schools. So there was no shortage of folk I considered religious whackjobs. There were lots of the usual more-righteous-than-thou fundamentalists around, who screeched about god-driven-from-our-schools and who thought everyone who disagreed with them was on the highway-to-hell. They prayed a lot about all kinds of stuff -- and especially about the outcome of football games! -- but as far as I could tell, they all went to the doctor when they got sick

[Brettongarcia]

28. In other words: all of them were hypocrites, who didn't really believe in the God they claimed to?

Many claim that they believe in the God who heals people by miracles.

[trotsky]

29. I see what you're not understanding now.

It's not that people are choosing "prayer" vs "medical treatment." This is not a binary position.

It's whether people believe in a god who answers prayers and intervenes in the universe. That's the god the author in the OP says few people believe in, but surveys consistently show that's exactly the god most theists DO believe in. Yes, most of them still go to the doctor and use medical treatments. But they DO believe in a god who could intervene and heal them as well.

[Act_of_Reparation]

44. There's a big difference between believing prayer helps and believing prayer is a cure...

The point trotsky has been trying to raise isn't that believers are all batshit crazy medicine deniers, but that many believe in a deity concerned with their well-being who, if properly petitioned, can affect change in the physical world, not the abstract "binding that holds the universe together."

[edhopper]

23. Boy is that a red herring

it's about the God that believers believe in. In this case the one that answers personal prayers, as opposed to the vague concept the author refers to. How would you reconcile "God is what grounds the existence of all things" with belief in angels, Satan, heaven and hell, which the majority seem to do.

[struggle4progress]

27. If you think the polls are off-topic, perhaps you could direct your complaint to trotsky,

who introduced the subject into the thread: I merely observed that polling doesn't yield fine-grained information about people's beliefs

[Brettongarcia]

30. Still, we can read the dogmatic statements of their churches, to see what they SAY they believe

[skepticscott]

35. Now there's an idea!

Are we supposed to believe that some of the very disingenuous posters here never thought of that?

[edhopper]

42. They weren't off topic at all

they showed that people do believe in the type of God that the article says they don't.
Whether they seek medical treatment or not, they think praying to a personal God is valid.

Your reply had nothing to do with that.

[edhopper]

12. As with almost everything he says

the author is wrong.

[cbayer]

13. Burkeman or Hart? Or both?

[edhopper]

18. I guess Hart

if Burkeman agrees, than both.

[cbayer]

8. I didn't read this as saying much about the basic beliefs of christians.

I read it as talking about religious believers concept of their god.

[trotsky]

3. Ugh, this has been re-hashed so many times it's just pathetic to see someone try it again.

Why, PZ Myers even coined a term for it. The Courtier's Reply.

But to address the main point:

The God attacked by most modern atheists, Hart argues, is a sort of superhero, a "cosmic craftsman" – the technical term is "demiurge" – whose defining quality is that he's by far the most powerful being in the universe, or perhaps outside the universe (though it's never quite clear what that might mean). The superhero God can do anything he likes to the universe, including creating it to begin with. Demolishing this God is pretty straightforward: all you need to do is point to the lack of scientific evidence for his existence, and the fact that we don't need to postulate him in order to explain how the universe works.

That god also happens to be the god worshiped by a large majority of the world's theists, and by nearly ALL of the ones who are trying to shape public policy to make us all have to live by their religious rules.

THAT'S why atheists generally address that god. It's not because they haven't read any theology.

[Brainstormy]

54. Well, of course!

that's exactly the god that the theists worship. And you don't need to read theology. You can read the news.

[SamKnause]

6. Book

Attacking the wrong "God" ???

[cbayer]

9. That's the case he makes. What do you think?

[edhopper]

11. This God

which contrary to what the author says, has been addressed by atheists.
It lays an unnecessary layer into the natural history of the Universe. Cosmology doesn't need to insert some vague supernatural grounding for the universe to form in it's present state.
And if he is just talking about the Einsteinian idea of God being the physical laws of the Universe. Well that's not really a God that need believers or any religion. It would be a colossal waste of time if you are going to church or temple or the mosque to pray to the laws of thermodynamics or the general theory of relativity.

He is also completely wrong if he thinks atheists don't ask believer to describe the god they believ in. It can be a frustrsting excersize at times, but it is part of the debate. We have had those discussions here.

[cbayer]

14. I'm not so sure.

I don't think I have ever seen a non-believer ask a believer to describe their god in this group.

But I have seen lots of attacks on a very particular concept of god and I have also seen some responses from believers that say that it doesn't jibe with their personal concept of god.

Not sure why this article is creating such a negative response. What do you make of that?

[edhopper]

16. Because it's bullshit.

As I have said, it is the diversionary tactic that atheist are not addressing the God that believers believe in. When in fact they do.
He postulates a God that is so vague, that maybe not even sentient or conscious that it can be answered by Epicurus' query, "Why call it God?"

[cbayer]

19. Okey, dokey.

What is he trying to divert from?

I think all the arguments about whether god exists or not are circular and useless, but when I read this, I though is could lead to a better understanding from both ends.

Apparently I was wrong.

[edhopper]

21. If the billions of believers actually believed

in this amorphous, ill defined God, maybe. But they don't. They believe in the God described in their holy books. And that is the one atheists usually reference. Atheists have also addressed this vague concept of God. As i said bullshit.

[cbayer]

24. I again ask where the data is to support that billions of believers hold some strict definition.

I think there are as many conceptions of god as there are believers in god.

Isn't that the author's point? To describe something so rigidly that is actually so much more personalized and individual misses the point.

The god described in holy books is all over the place. And that's precisely because the various books were written by human individuals with entirely different ideas.

It would be the same if anyone ascribed certain strict criteria to non-believers or the spiritual but not religious crowd.

It's easier to dismiss something if one strictly codifies it into a single mold. Much more difficult, but possibly more effective, to see that there are vast differences in the way people experience their god and their religion.

[skepticscott]

31. Sheesh, go to the web sites

of every major Xstian denomination in the world, for fuck's sake! They ALL have sections about WHAT WE BELIEVE. READ THEM. There's your damned evidence, if you weren't being so dishonest and deliberately obtuse in pretending that it doesn't exist. NONE of them believe in the kind of wishi-washy "god" these jokers (or any other of the idiot "new" theologians) are describing.

Really, cbayer.. You've outdone yourself in intellectual dishonesty this time.

[el_bryanto]

38. But aren't all believers intellectually dishonest according to you? nt

[skepticscott]

41. Show me that you're not being intellectually dishonest

in attributing that to me.

Then we'll talk.

[el_bryanto]

43. My mistake - i attributed an argument Cleanhippie made to you. nt.

[skepticscott]

45. Hey, good try, anyway

Maybe I should have said that, even though I didn't

[cleanhippie]

52. QED

[Brettongarcia]

32. One problem is that many claim IN CHURCH to believe in God, as therein dogmatically defined

1) If they don't really believe in what they often affirm in church, if they believe in the amorphous God, then they are being inconsistent and hypocritical.

In biblical language, they are "hypocrites" or perhaps "wolves in sheep's clothing."

2) I've spent lots of time arguing with Hart, and/or his doppelganger, in the discussion section of First Things, where he was once a regular columnist. And that's always been the problem with Hart: he likes to pretend to be a good Christian; so as to get along with his neighbors. But he's hypocritical; deeper down, he really follows another god entirely.

So that's the first problem with those who follow the liberal/amorphous god; hypocrisy.

So Hart is wrong; there are problems even with Liberal Theology, and its god too. Hypocrisy being the first problem.

[cbayer]

34. I don't think that's hypocrisy, necessarily.

When celebrating or worshipping together, they may agree to a single thing that helps them communicate.

But individually, their concepts may be different. This is to be expected as everyone's concept is likely to be further defined by their own experiences and personalities.

The "wolf in sheep's clothing" is a reference to false prophets and doesn't seem to have any correlation to what you are describing, unless you see Hart as a false prophet.

I'm not nearly as familiar with Hart as you are, but if he is saying what he believes to be true, how is that hypocrisy?

[Brettongarcia]

36. As you know, at times I discuss liberal theology. But? I believe there are problems with it

Hart especially, plays the game of "high" theology: he pretends on the surface to believe and follow the same god as fundamentalists (or in First Things, conservative Catholics). But deeper down, you can hear the criticisms of the position he often pretends to follow.

He may sincerely believe in the amorphous God. But only in private; in public he pretends to support the traditional "God."

I can see lots of practical reasons for liberals posing in this way. Still? Particularly Hart's posing is objectionable, when he decides to very, very militantly oppose atheists. The very atheists with whom, deeper down I submit, he at least partially agrees. In many ways, Hart himself is a non-believer; relative to the fundamentalist God he often pretends to support.

My suggestion? Liberal "Christians" should be more accepting of atheism; in many ways they are nonbelievers, themselves.

[cbayer]

37. I appreciate the insight.

I looked for, but could not find, a previous discussion about Hart in this group. I had hoped it would help me understand the reaction.

You have helped me understand it to an extent.

I was not aware of his militant opposition to atheists. The issue of liberal religionists be more accepting of atheism is one I share with you, but not for the reason you suggest.

Not being aware of some of the history of this particular writer, I missed the sub-story.

Still, I do agree that when anyone paints a rigid picture of a particular group, they are more likely to approach them with a more prejudiced eye.

And when it comes to religion, I think the differences are vast and that recognition of that fact would lead to more understanding and tolerance.

[Brettongarcia]

39. I think liberal Christians and atheists can meet halfway.

Even fundamentalists. If all were more tolerant - or say, in the case of Hart. less polemical. Than writing about atheist "delusions," say.

Thank you for your own moderation.

[struggle4progress]

15. "... The question isn't a scientific one ... It's a philosophical one ..."

[Goblinmonger]

17. If that's what you want to call god...fine.

But most Christian sects adhere to things like the Lord's Prayer, some version of the Nicene Creed, and the Bible which SERIOUSLY cut against god being what this book seems to indicate it is.

I'm trying to give people the benefit of the doubt and not just assume this is some bullshit moving the goalpost tactic. And if it isn't that tactic, then why continue to be part of a sect that doesn't hold the beliefs about God that you hold if you believe what this book seems to be saying?

[Leontius]

50. Define the God of Christianity in your words based on your understanding of

The Lord's Prayer and the Creed. It might start a helpful dialog.

[cleanhippie]

53. How about you describe the god you believe in.

That would be more helpful than a nonbeliever describing a god that they don't believe in.

Can you? Will you?

[cleanhippie]

25. At first glance, I thought this was written by our currently-absentee Serious Theologian.

After reading the article, it could have been written by him. But hey, that's my opinion.

[skepticscott]

33. It's standard "new theologian" pap

from ivory tower academics like our friend. They can't NOT be "religious" in some way, but they know deep down that the god concept embraced by most Christians and Jews is not defensible to their non-religious colleagues without getting them laughed at, so they had to invent a new one that they think will be immune to rational criticism and inquiry, in order to try to maintain some semblance of intellectual legitimacy.

[drokhole]

40. Should also read The Archives of Scientists' Transcendent Experiences

The Archives of Scientists' Transcendent Experiences

Allan Smith (real name) is trained in medicine and anesthesiology, in which he earned an M.D. degree. He has worked as a basic scientific researcher on the nature of anesthesia before his experience and at many professions, including medical ethicist, since then. He had received a national award for his research just before the experience and was one of the most promising young researchers in his field.

This experience occurred in Oakland, California when Dr. Smith was 38 years old and sitting quietly at home.

My Experience of Cosmic Consciousness
Allan Smith

My Cosmic Consciousness event occurred unexpectedly while I was alone one evening and was watching a particularly beautiful sunset. I was sitting in an easy chair placed next to floor-to-ceiling windows that faced northwest. The sun was above the horizon and was partially veiled by scattered clouds, so that it was not uncomfortably bright. I had not used any marijuana for about a week previously. On the previous evening I probably had wine with dinner; I do not remember the quantity, but two glasses would have been typical. Thus, we would not have expected any residual drug effects.

The Cosmic Consciousness experience began with some mild tingling in the perineal area, the region between the genitals and anus. The feeling was unusual, but was neither particularly pleasant nor unpleasant. After the initial few minutes, I either ceased to notice the tingling or did not remember it. I then noticed that the level of light in the room as well as that of the sky outside seemed to be increasing slowly. The light seemed to be coming from everywhere, not only from the waning sun. In fact, the sun itself did not give off a strong glare. The light gave the air a bright thickened quality that slightly obscured perception rather than sharpened it. It soon became extremely bright, but the light was not in the least unpleasant.

Along with the light came an alteration in mood. I began to feel very good, then still better, then elated. While this was happening, the passage of time seemed to become slower and slower. The brightness, mood-elevation, and time-slowing all progressed together. It is difficult to estimate the time period over which these changes occurred, since the sense of time was itself affected. However, there was a feeling of continuous change, rather than a discrete jump or jumps to a new state. Eventually, the sense of time passing stopped entirely. It is difficult to describe this feeling, but perhaps it would be better to say that there was no time, or no sense of time. Only the present moment existed. My elation proceeded to an ecstatic state, the intensity of which I had never even imagined could be possible. The white light around me merged with the reddish light of the sunset to become one all enveloping, intense undifferentiated light field. Perception of other things faded. Again, the changes seemed to be continuous.

At this point, I merged with the light and everything, including myself, became one unified whole. There was no separation between myself and the rest of the universe. In fact, to say that there was a universe, a self, or any ‘thing’ would be misleading — it would be an equally correct description to say that there was ‘nothing’ as to say that there was ‘everything’. To say that subject merged with object might be almost adequate as a description of the entrance into Cosmic Consciousness, but during Cosmic Consciousness there was neither ‘subject’ nor ‘object’. All words or discursive thinking had stopped and there was no sense of an ‘observer’ to comment or to categorize what was ‘happening’. In fact, there were no discrete events to ‘happen’ — just a timeless, unitary state of being.

Cosmic Consciousness is impossible to describe, partly because describing involves words and the state is one in which there were no words. My attempts at description here originated from reflecting on Cosmic Consciousness soon after it had passed and while there was still some ‘taste’ of the event remaining.

Perhaps the most significant element of Cosmic Consciousness was the absolute knowingness that it involves. This knowingness is a deep understanding that occurs without words. I was certain that the universe was one whole and that it was benign and loving at its ground. Bucke’s experience was similar. He knew, ‘... that the universe is so built and ordered that without any peradventure all things work together for the good of each and all, that the foundation principle of the world is what we call love and that the happiness of every one is in the long run absolutely certain’ (Bucke, R. M., 1961. Cosmic Consciousness. New Hyde Park, New York: University Books. p. 8. Originally published 1901.).

The benign nature and ground of being, with which I was united, was God. However, there is little relation between my experience of God as ground of being and the anthropomorphic God of the Bible. That God is separate from the world and has many human characteristics. ‘He’ demonstrates love, anger and vengeance, makes demands, gives rewards, punishes, forgives, etc. God as experienced in Cosmic Consciousness is the very ground or ‘beingness’ of the universe and has no human characteristics in the usual sense of the word. The universe could no more be separate from God than my body could be separate from its cells. Moreover, the only emotion that I would associate with God is love, but it would be more accurate to say that God is love than God is loving. Again, even characterizing God as love and the ground of being is only a metaphor, but it is the best that I can do to describe an indescribable experience.

The knowingness of Cosmic Consciousness permanently convinced me about the true nature of the universe. However, it did not answer many of the questions that (quite rightly) seem so important to us in our usual state of consciousness. From the perspective of Cosmic Consciousness, questions like, ‘What is the purpose of life?’ or ‘Is there an afterlife?’ are not answered because they are not relevant. That is, during Cosmic Consciousness ontologic questions are fully answered by one’s state of being and verbal questions are not to the point.

Eventually, the Cosmic Consciousness faded. The time-changes, light, and mood-elevation passed off. When I was able to think again, the sun had set and I estimate that the event must have lasted about twenty minutes. Immediately following return to usual consciousness, I cried uncontrollably for about a half hour. I cried both for joy and for sadness, because I knew that my life would never be the same.

Further comments by contributor:

By that time religion had no place in my life at all. I was an academic researcher, scientist and materialist. I was not interested in nor was I searching for any sort of transcendent or supernatural experience. I had no idea of what a mystical experience was.

Plenty more found on that site, including:

THE DARKNESS OF GOD

John Wren-Lewis (real name) was originally trained as a mathematical physicist in wartime England. He came to humanistic psychology from an industrial research career in which he was one of the world pioneers of scientific futures studies. In the 1950s and 1960s he became well-known on both sides of the Atlantic for his writings urging a humanistic faith capable of transcending the limitations of both dogmatic religion and materialistic scientism, and he is often cited as one of the initiators of the "death of God" movement.

I am not trying to push any particular theological or metaphysical conclusions when I use the word “God” here. On the contrary, my readings in theology and metaphysics in earlier years never conjured up to my mind anything remotely like this experience. I am simply saying that since the experience, Vaughan’s line and a whole host of other statements made by mystics in all religious traditions seem to make sense as word-straining attempts to describe the strange state in which I found myself

Cosmic Consciousness Experience at Age 16

Determinist (pseudonym) has a Ph.D. in Chemistry and was a government researcher who authored some 60 publications in his field during the 50s and 60s. He is now 89 years old and retired.

I was listening to the music and looking through the open window at a tree in the garden, when something strange happened. I felt that I had left my body and had become one with the tree in the garden, with the pebbles on the garden paths and with everything else in the universe. I felt some mild amusement seeing my body sitting there in the living room. I had a feeling of indescribable bliss, a feeling that everything was, is, and forever will be as it should be, and could not be any other way, and that time did not pass, that the future was contained in the past and the past contained in the future, and there was only one time, time present.

Along with Aldous Huxley's The Perennial Philosophy and John White's anthology What is Enlightenment? (featuring essays by Huxley, Richard Bucke, Alan Watts and Huston Smith, among others).

[AtheistCrusader]

46. "Rommel, you magnificent bastard.... I READ YOUR BOOK"

I read Christian source material from cover to cover. I'm familiar with the material, and some theological interpretations besides.

I make effort to note exactly which sect of Christianity I am arguing with (because for the most part, I encounter only Christians on western message boards like this one, where English is the predominant language used) because they all interpret the source material differently, and place emphasis in different concepts conveyed in the bible.

You have to ignore large components of the OT to arrive at a non-superhero deity, and that's an approach most Christians refuse to do. So I don't know where Hart got this idea, but he's generally barking up the wrong tree, about something that doesn't get to the heart of the singular proposition that constitutes all of atheism; is there a supernatural deity or not?

I don't need to actually delve into the specific-sect variants of Christianity, to wrangle with the revealed truth claims of that religion that god exists at all. (Even though I am willing to examine such details, it doesn't change the core issue; is there a god at all, regardless of specific paint job applied to the concept of 'god'?)

[cbayer]

47. You make a really good point.

The only objective here is to set up "better" arguments for the existence or non-existence of god(s).

Since that is a purely rhetorical exercise, it's only academic and of no other value.

[skepticscott]

48. Why do you keep repeating the same false notion over and over?

It is NOT impossible to evaluate the likelihood that a god of a certain description actually exists, but you seem determined to cling to ridiculous intellectual nihilism in that regard.

The reasons have been explained to you many times, but you persist in the same delusional position. Why?

[dimbear]

49. Let me tell you about the brand new 2014 god, and our special short time only offer of two, yes

two for the price of one, just pay separate shipping. Operators are standing by.

[djean111]

51. As an atheist, I don't believe in any sort of god. Pantheistic, subtle, all-powerful, whatever.

The word "atheist" pretty much covers everything, for me.
On the other hand, I see no point whatsoever in arguing about it with theists.
Ridiculous waste of my time. A person either believes or does not believe. Period.
There is no LOGICAL way to start believing in a god of any sort. There is no argument that could possibly convince me that I do believe, or I should believe, or whatever the hell is wanted by theists.
So - that's that. Finis.
Just keep any and all religion out of my life. Thanks!