But only a start. A new poll finds an encouraging level of doubt among Americans.
Nearly half of Americans are not sure God exists, according to a poll that also found divisions among the public on whether God is male or female or whether God has a human form and has control over events.
The survey conducted by Harris Poll found that 42 percent of US adults are not “absolutely certain” there is a God compared to 34 percent who felt that way when asked the same question three years ago.
Among the various religious groups, 76 percent of Protestants, 64 percent of Catholics and 30 percent of Jews said they are “absolutely certain” there is a God while 93 percent of Christians who describe themselves as “Born Again” feel certain God exists.
When questioned on whether God is male or female, 36 percent of respondents said they think God is male, 37 percent said neither male nor female and 10 percent said “both male and female.”
Only one percent think of God as a female, according to the poll.
Asked whether God has a human form, 41 percent said they think of God as “a spirit or power than can take on human form but is not inherently human.”
As to whether God controls events on Earth, 29 percent believe that to be the case while 44 percent said God “observes but does not control what happens on Earth”.
Rising levels of uncertainty about such a silly entity is good news. Next we should start hammering on those 36% who think God is male, for instance, and get them to explain their belief. How do they know he’s male? Does he he have a penis? How big is it? What does he use it for? I suspect that most of the people who responded in the affirmative have no idea where their dogma originates—they just assume—and haven’t thought through the implications of their assertions at all.
It would also be good to wake up and mobilize all those doubters. Muriel Gray has some suggestions for unifying principles, although I’m not too keen on her term for this group (“Enlightenists”?):
Enlightenists believe in the awe-inspiring, wonder, beauty and complexity of the universe, and aspire to unpick its mysteries by reason, constant questioning, observation, experiment, and analysis of evidence. The bedrock of our morality is empathy, from which logically springs love, forgiveness, tolerance and a profound desire to make a just, egalitarian society and reduce suffering. The more knowledge a person has, the more they question and understand the real world, and the more they are required to analyse what is true then the greater the increase in empathy. Enlightenists care and wish to do good not because a vengeful God tells them to, but because intelligence suggests it is the only and the right thing to do.
She also wants state-funded Enlightenist schools to oppose those crappy superstition (i.e., religious) schools. I’m not enthused about that—anything that takes resources away from the public schools is not a good thing in my book—but the idea that we freethinkers ought to be lobbying more is a good one. Richard Dawkins made a similar point, that even in the US freethinkers outnumber Jews, but the political difference is that only one of us has an effective lobby.
Once we got our schools and started churning out multiracial youngsters free from any kind of manipulation, save that of being taught to question everything, we could start our political lobbying. Why should religious concerns be put above ours? Why shouldn’t we have the right to be appeased when we are offended by religion, the way the religious whine like toddlers when someone shakes a stick at their myths? Why shouldn’t we be consulted and treated with respect as a community? Why are the sincerely held beliefs I’ve outlined inferior to those of a Christian, Jew or a Muslim? You think I’m joking. I’m not. I pay my tax. I want representation too.
All we need are a few charismatic freethinkers bold enough to state their views and rally all the people disgusted with the Christianists. I think there’s a solid constituency there, but no one is exploiting it.
He did father a child.
Does anyone wonder why we haven’t heard from God in a while? I mean, he talked to all those people a long time ago, and now he’s as mute as a stone. What’s up with that?
Could he be… dead!?
Encouraging? This demonstrates that the majority of Americans are stark raving mad.
Just mentally replace the word ‘God’ with ‘Tooth Fairy’, then look at that survey again.
OK, how? Was it the ol’ in-and-out, knowwhatImean, knowwhatImean? If it was, how come Mary was still a virgin, and why did she have to be told what happened? Is god’s winkie very, very tiny?
And if he did ‘father a child’, let’s get on the cases of the 48% who think god is a hermaphrodite, asexual, or female. Those people darn well better be supportive of alternative sexual lifestyles, because their god set an example.
Is God circumsised? If so, who circumsised him?
My guess is that the Holy Ghost circumsised God, the discarded foreskin landed on earth, and it’s decay caused the spontaneous generation of organic life.
Either we should be frightened that religion is on the upswing, or relieved that it is on the wane. Different polls are inconsistent on this matter, and both results are regularly reported here. All that really can be concluded is that different people were asked. In this case, only about 2,000. Sure, that would be fine *if* they were truly a representative sample, but the fact that different polls give different values suggests that finding such samples is not that feasible. Aren’t there more objective numbers out there (such as numbers of formal members of various churches in different years? Are they even available? Or when they say the “Church of Foobah” is growing, is *that* just based on a poll?)
He still talks to the Chosen Few. He told W to fabricate a case for invading Iraq. He told Deanna Laney to kill her children.
Does he he have a penis? And if so, what does he use it for?
Writing his name in the clouds? Knocking-up Mrs. God? If there is no Mrs. God, then I’ll bet God is blind or has hairy palms by now. Eternity is a long time without getting some.
Here’s my deal: have you ever seen this God? Ever heard him? Why expect that one exists then? Oh yeah, he “works in mysterious ways.” What if he isn’t working in mysterious ways? Maybe he just ain’t there?
The scariest thing would be: If he does exist, then what if we take his ‘ways’ at face value, and not as ‘mysterious?’ Then my friends, we are well and truly screwed, because he is as evil and random as all get-out.
It’s interesting and scary to listen to a fundamentalist preacher address the essential maleness of the Christian god. What becomes clear is that the preacher has a notion of “male” that has nothing at all to do with biology, but that instead is tied to notions of aggression and authority.
“Enlightenists” is slightly less condescending than “Brights”, at least, so I suppose we’re making progress. The whole thing is a pretty clear example of why nicknames are bestowed and not asserted, though.
Besides, what’s wrong with “Freethinkers”? Or “Atheists”? Or “Humanists”? Or any of the ten billion existing terms that basically mean the same thing. I wonder if there’s a lot of overlap between the atheist/freethinker and electronic music communities.
A decision tree should be set up for the confused:
Q. Is god male?
A. Yes.
Q. Does he have a penis?
A. No.
Q. Is he a eunuch?
A. uh, er, er…. I don’t know?
Q. YES OR NO!
A. wuh, er, YES!
Q. Does he speak in a high voice?
A. I don’t….
Q. What about breasts! Eunuchs grow breasts. YES OR NO?
A. Small breasts?
etc.
“Enlightenists” is just another word for “brights”, isn’t it?
A decision tree should be set up for the confused:
Q. Is god male?
A. Yes.
Q. Does he have a penis?
A. No.
Q. Is he a eunuch?
A. uh, er, er…. I don’t know?
Q. YES OR NO!
A. wuh, er, YES!
Q. Does he speak in a high voice?
A. I don’t….
Q. What about breasts! Eunuchs grow breasts. YES OR NO?
A. Small breasts?
etc.
What Caledonian said.
Yes, yes, I know it’s a matter of perspective. I suppose if you’re living in the burbs of the bible belt under the glare of the moveable letter signs of the megachurches, you and your entire family harried to distraction by the loud hosannas of the agonizingly tacky Jesus freak rock band doing the accompaniment for the now hourly services, these results probably do seem encouraging. But I’m afraid my first reaction to a whole survey on the niceties of what sex is the all-powerful magical muffin what moves da clouds, and how certain the respondents are or aren’t that there is such an entity, I can’t help but laugh out loud.
(Yes, I really laughed out loud. My colleagues are starting to worry.)
Yes. On the bright side, they’re not sure the bearded guy in the sky is really there anymore.
Well, great. I suppose we’ll be advancing to the iron age any day now.
Ginger Yellow said, “”Enlightenists” is just another word for “brights”, isn’t it?”
Yup. But with our new name and our new logo, atheism is sure to win!!!
Of course, this blog post kind of undermines the earlier “idiotification” post. Makes me wonder if PZ has the guts to stay the course….
The God character really is portrayed as evil and random (as Occam says above) in some of the bible books.
In Exodus the god Yahweh orders Moses to demand that the Pharoah let the Hebrews leave Egypt. Then Yahweh, we’re told, ‘hardens the Pharoah’s heart’ so that the Pharoah decides not to allow this. Then Yahweh kills all the first-born children of Egypt.
The only reason given for Yahweh’s murder of these children is that Yahweh wants to prove he’s more of a badass than the gods the Egyptians worship.
That doesn’t even get into how many Hebrews he kills during the 40 years in the desert and how many Egyptian soldiers he drowns in the Red Sea.
Yahweh. The Dick Cheney of gods.
“She also wants state-funded Enlightenist schools to oppose those crappy superstition (i.e., religious) schools. I’m not enthused about that–anything that takes resources away from the public schools is not a good thing in my book”
Gray is addressing the situation in the UK, where we have state-funded religious schools; and in the state-funded “non-religious” schools we still have near-compulsory christianity. Albeit usually pretty bland christianity except where enthusiasts get involved.
Obviously the politics of this are rather different in the US.
“God works in mysterious, inefficient and breathtakingly cruel ways.” — Penn Jillette
Between this poll and the whole “gigachurch” phenomenon discussed a few posts ago, we seem to be confusing means and extremes. Maybe the fraction of the population with secular attitudes is increasing, while the fanatics are growing more fervent?
“How do they know he’s male? Does he he have a penis? How big is it? What does he use it for?”
Remember that revolt in heaven? Let’s just say Lucifer got tired of Yahweh using him like Mark Foley used his pages.
He did father a child.
Apparently out of wedlock too. Not setting a very good example there. He should have at least used a condom.
He did father a child.
But Mary remained a virgin. If God has a penis, it wasn’t used – Mary must have said:
“I refuse to have that thing inside me – if you really want this child, ejaculate into that little cup over there, and I’ll artificially inseminate myself after you’re gone.”
I appear to have somehow lost the initial [blockquote] tag from my previous post. This is what I intended:
But Mary remained a virgin. If God has a penis, it wasn’t used – Mary must have said:
“I refuse to have that thing inside me – if you really want this child, ejaculate into that little cup over there, and I’ll artificially inseminate myself after you’re gone.”
Actually I like “Explorers”, which I’ve seen bandied around a few times. It’s got all the sense needed, is easy to pronounce, and is petty inclusive to boot.
The entire ‘penis question’ reminds me of an exchange in James Morrow’s novel “Towing Jehovah”, where a cadre of dying angels convince a lapsed Catholic oil tanker captain to put together a crew and get a tanker to tow the [i]corpus dei[/i], floating in the Atlantic, to a prepared bier in the Arctic Circle.
The ship locates the [i]corpus dei[/i], and as they approach, a man and a woman are standing together on the deck, looking at the dead body of God.
“He’s smiling,” says the woman.
“If I was hung like that,” says the man, “I’d be smiling, too.”
Here’s a link to the poll.
Good point. He should have had the union approved by – … never mind.
How do they know he’s male? Does he he have a penis? How big is it? What does he use it for?
Russell nailed it. When people speak of God as “male” they’re talking about the nice power rush that they get when they denigrate women, form clubs that exclude women, write laws that oppress women, etc. For them, “maleness” is in the mind, which they think they have to the exclusion of women (we’re about feelings, relationships, etc.).
Names, schmames. I don’t want to be called a bright or enlightenist, or have a secret handshake.
According to the poll, 2% of born-again christians are absolutely certain, that there is no god… WT … ?
Nix on the names, but I am not giving up the secret handshake!
Enlightenists, brights… I don’t know about everyone else, but I’ve always favored illuminati.
Fnord.
I’m surprised this question doesn’t get asked more: “Okay, so you propose that your god exists. Please explain to me how the world would be different if your god winked out of existence right now. Would the planets cease in their orbits? Sun cease to shine? Plants and flowers cease to blossom? Man cease his endless cruelty to man?” I haven’t heard a good one yet.
And anyway, why are we even having this conversation? I thought this was called secular humanism, and I’m told it’s what public schools already teach.
Apparently out of wedlock too.
Good point. He should have had the union approved by…
You meanl like one of those one-night drive-by vegas marriages? Quick divorce too, unless there was a polyandry thing going on…
“Enlightenists” sounds like it’s trying to suggest devotion to Enlightenment values. The description given is similar to definitions of secular humanism I’ve heard.
The dinosaurs.
It’s quite interesting that the percentage of believers with an absolute certainty in the existence of God goes up as the balance of the religion moves closer to the “faith” side of the “faith + works = salvation” scale, and down as it moves closer to the “works” side. The unstated extrapolation from that trend makes sense, too, because in a very real sense, atheism can be considered to emphasize all works and no faith.
That’s why I blame Martin Luther for the predicament we’re in these days.
“If there is no Mrs. God, then I’ll bet God is blind or has hairy palms by now”
Gives a new meaning to “The Second Coming”…
Beware the mohelsaurus!
‘And anyway, why are we even having this conversation? I thought this was called secular humanism, and I’m told it’s what public schools already teach.’
Muriel Grey is writing about the UK, in which a significant proportion of state-funded schools are run by the Church of England.
“Muriel Grey is writing about the UK, in which a significant proportion of state-funded schools are run by the Church of England.”
This is a church one of whose Archbishops referred to the Resurrection as “A conjuring trick with old bones” without significant adverse consequences, and which is scarcely a threat to anyone’s rationality despite nominally being one of those wicked State Religions Americans are so scared of.
“Faith Schools” are not the problem … schools being allowed to pretend that a particular religion’s holy text comprises a reliable, easily interpretable guide to the facts comprising physical reality _are_ a problem.
Perhaps a better word for “Enlightenist” would be “Enlightenmentarian”, identifying with the original movement for reason, progress, humanism, etc.
quork said, “I am not giving up the secret handshake!”
I’m down with the quest for a catchy name, a cool logo, and a nifty secret handshake. But it doesn’t seem like good enough marketing. I propose that we erect small buildings in every city and town, where Enlightenists or Brights or Illuminati can meet each week (no admittance w/o the handshake!). There, we can profess our devotion to the data, and exchange fiery anecdotes about how believers are damned to poverty and ignorance for all eternity.
Funding these buildings would be hard, so we’d have to pass around a plate or something, to collect money. Maybe we could have some TV shows to get money from people who won’t go to the weekly meetings. We could have telethons, where people appear and testify as to their atheism, or say, “science cured my cancer!”
SO FUNNY!
not.
I find the faith side at least consistent internally the works side suffers from alot of problems. If one can work one’s way to glory faith is really not needed. If salvation is truly a gift then works are a byproduct not the first answer.
GH:
Internal consistency is not an end in itself, but is rather a means to the end of external coherence. Remember that the delusions of a paranoid schizophrenic are usually consistent internally.
GH:
Internal consistency is not an end in itself, but is rather a means to the end of external coherence. Remember that the delusions of a paranoid schizophrenic are usually consistent internally.
Dang server. Sorry for the double post.
93 percent of Christians who describe themselves as “Born Again” feel certain God exists.
Somehow, the idea of born again Christian atheists and agnostics worries me. What’s the motive for all their sadistic behavior if not to appease the sky fairy? If he/she/it doesn’t exist, aren’t acts like refusing basic human rights to people on the basis of their sexual orientation and refusing life saving surgeries to women because their condition resulted from a sexual act just sort of…mean?
<>
Surely you’ve heard of “the Rod of God”? Or at least of “the Sword of the Lord”?
CV
That would have been funnier if the quoted question had posted, too:
“Does he have a penis?”
CV
“Enlightenists” is slightly less condescending than “Brights”, at least, so I suppose we’re making progress. The whole thing is a pretty clear example of why nicknames are bestowed and not asserted, though.
Besides, what’s wrong with “Freethinkers”? Or “Atheists”? Or “Humanists”?
How about just “sane?”
I’m not sure if Gray’s big tent movement could work. See how the IDiots did. ;-)
One problem is the epistemology. Both Gray and Dawkins are correct in that a political movement should forget about it. But it is hard to say if it could work. Those questions are old, and personally and philosophically more interesting than Gray account for. I think there is a reason earlier freethinkers movements are often or perhaps exclusively organised around it. (Humanists, Atheists, Sceptics, … )
A second problem is that the freedom of religion question is somewhat negatively put, and seems like freedom from religion. (Even considering the subtitle “recognition of all beliefs”.) It is enough to push the former to get the later.
A third problem is the opening for conflation with other political goals by discussing the multivalued term egalitarian, purposely or not. It is unavoidable that many freethinkers wants parts of that, though perhaps not all, and certainly not all forms. (Personally I find moral, legal and political egalitarianism important.)
If the message and naming is concentrated on positive pillars like freethinking, freedom of religion, and political clout/lobbying, my feeling is it would have a larger chance. Other basic human rights besides freedom of religion should be important but they have their own movements.
Is the name Freethinkers taken yet?
“it’s decay caused the spontaneous generation of organic life”
In my theology he got so excited by the creation he had wrought that he spilt his seed upon the ground, which accidentally become the first life.
The more interesting question is if the devil was a he or a she? They did argue so much that they separated – but was it hetero or homo love? I haven’t resolved this question yet. Not that it is important – I think we should stay out of the personal lives of other persons. I just wish the gods and their henchmen were supposed to use the same moral imperative…
“In this case, only about 2,000.”
It takes a surprisingly small sample to establish small enough sampling error to be representative. I suspect the differences in polls have more to do with the methodology. Which questions that are asked and how the answers are interpreted. But the real problem may be the abstainers – here they didn’t even try to contact them to find out corrections to make.
“According to the poll, 2% of born-again christians are absolutely certain, that there is no god…”
Such small numbers mean nada.
“With one exception (sampling error) the magnitude of the errors that result cannot be estimated. … With a pure probability sample of 2,010 one could say with a ninety-five percent probability that the overall results have a sampling error of +/- two percentage points. Sampling error for data based on sub-samples would be higher and would vary.”
“I think we should stay out of the personal lives of other persons. I just wish the gods and their henchmen were supposed to use the same moral imperative…”
Duh! *That* would be a good moral point to add and push for in a freethinking movement. Something that separates from some religions or the practices of some followers, and hints at moral superiority without saying so. I should have thought of that earlier. So I would add this, and the moral egalitarianism that supports it, to the positive pillars of freethinking.
Perhaps but if one takes the existence of God as an external idea than ‘faith alone’ is much more coherent a thought than is work based theology.
“Somehow, the idea of born again Christian atheists and agnostics worries me. What’s the motive for all their sadistic behavior if not to appease the sky fairy?”
Well, you’re confusing “born again” with “fundamentalist”. There’s a lot of overlap, but these are not two words meaning the same thing. “Born again” is an expression of a theology. “Fundamentalist” is an expression of an ideology.
A “born again” atheist does, in fact, make absolutely no sense, but not for the reasons you give. The real reason is that the whole concept of being “born again” relies on belief that Christ was the son of God who gave his life as a sacrifice to absolve believers of their sins. Obviously, the concept of a “son of God” is meaningless without a belief in God to begin with.
“Maybe the fraction of the population with secular attitudes is increasing, while the fanatics are growing more fervent?”
I would suspect, actually, that what’s happening is that the fanatics are growing more fervent and alienating the moderates, who are gravitating toward secularism as a result.
If the sample is representative of the larger population, yes. But statistics isn’t magic — garbage in, garbage out.
True, methodology is important and we don’t have it for this poll.
“Does he he have a penis? How big is it? What does he use it for?”
OMG, this gives me a chance to use an extremely sacreligious line my husband and I made up last night: Can God create a penis too big to f*ck himself with?
Yes, extremely juvenile. But we are juvenile people.
GH:
The statement that God exists is itself, by definition, a statement of faith. It is, as such, axiomatically impossible for it to be an external idea. Any claim to the contrary is a post hoc self-justifying rationalization.
“Actually I like “Explorers”, which I’ve seen bandied around a few times.”
Thbbt. I ain’t Vasco da Gama.
How do they know he’s male?
Um, because he is. What kind of all-powerful being would be stupid enough to make himself female?
Does he he have a penis?
Yes.
How big is it?
As big as I wish mine were.
What does he use it for?
To have sex with all the women who won’t look at me.
Heh. Reminds of two things. First was a joke I first told a while ago:
The second is that, if we postulate that the birth of Jesus ever occurred at all and that Mary was a virgin “until she brought forth Jesus,” and use the standard of virginity at the time (presence of an intact hymen) then we must conclude that Jesus took his mother’s virginity (unless a second, unmentioned miracle was involved in his either being able to squeeze out without rupturing her hymen, or her surviving an impromptu Cesarean performed in a dirty stable). An interesting example to throw at the people who equate Christianity with “morality” and “family values,” if only to watch them sputter… ^.^
Correct, my simple point was that a faith based theology makes more sense than a works based one. That is all.:-)
GH:
But just like any other argument based on false or non-falsifiable premises, theology is logically valid but not logically sound. Basically, it doesn’t matter how internally consistent something is if it’s not true or not provable (cf. my previous mention of paranoid schizophrenic delusions).
Look Dan I think we are talking passed one another here. I don’t disagree with you that it is not provable. I just mention that all things being equal a faith based approach makes more sense than working your way into a glorious afterlife. In this particular story.
But I 100% understand your perspective.
Arguments in favor of both atheism and theism contradict themselves before they get out the door.
No one knows if there is, or is not, a god. No one knows what that god whose existence is impossible to ascertain wants. No one knows which religion, or lack thereof, comports most closely with the unknown wants of the god whose existence is fundamentally unknowable.
Instead of Enlightenist, I vote for Dunnoist. It applys to every form of religious belief, or lack thereof.
And will thereby counteract that which makes religion so pernicious: universalist certainty.
Frisbee:
and do you then, in your everyday life, make the automatic assumption that all things are possible?
or do you in reality live your life as if certain things, being very improbable based on experiental or objective independent evidence, do not have an impact?
IOW, are you a philosophical agnostic, and a functional atheist, or are you a true agnostic?
there is a world of difference between the assumption of something existing with no evidentiary support, and the assumption something does not exist based on the lack of objective evidence to support that it does.
atheism does NOT contradict itself; this is a logical misrepresentation that is getting quite tiresome to see posted in various blogs and media.
analogy:
do you assume bigfoot exists? How about the lochness monster?
would you base any study of fauna of North America with the assumption that bigfoot exists?
it’s not universal certainty that’s the issue here, it’s simple probability based on evidence.
Frisbee, it’s logically necessary to assume a default position against which any evidence can be judged, for or against. It just so happens that the default “off” position is logically useful, while the default “on” position is not (hence “innocent [off] until proven guilty [on]”).
“I don’t know” is not a default position — it’s not really a position at all –Â it’s a refusal even to engage with the question in the first place.
PZ writes,
Nobody has commented on that thought. So here goes…
I nominate PZ for one of the charismatic freethinker leadership positions. This is sort of ex post facto since he’s already acknowledged as such by many. The thing is — and this is a point I’ve made ad nauseum — PZ only appeals to radical atheists (of which I am one). To capture the hearts and minds of a large majority of the anti-Christianists, we must get PZ to stop trashing anyone who has some god-language in their lexicon — like the Dieists and others who have some vague notion of an abstract entity/concept that provides them with some philosophical or psychological support. This is something PZ has shown a nascent ability for. Let’s support him in building on that.
At best the true Christianists are 22% of the population, the ones that identify as true, rightwing evangelicals. The real number is likely smaller. At the opposite end of the spectrum we have PZ’s base, the radical atheists, at less than 5%. That means more than two-thirds of the population is not clearly in one camp or the other, and as the polls cited above show maybe half of them could be pulled into the freethinker group.
Come on. Let’s get to work. What will it take to rally these people to the cause? What sort of coaching can we give PZ for him to provide the spark to bring these folks to our side?
Oh, please. You can’t even spell ‘deist’, much less ‘atheist’. You’ve been posting on here for weeks if not months, and you expect us to believe (with your posting habits available, no less!) that you’re a radical atheist?
Caledonian,
Are you now some new kind of spelling troll?
I define radical atheist as someone who chooses to believe that no god or other supernatural being exists. You can’t prove that proposition, but it’s not an unreasonable position to take.
I think you and many others define radical atheist to be someone who goes to extreme lengths to insult and denigrate anyone who believes differently. I don’t cop to that. (And, yes, my word choice probably dates me.)
I should be more definitive, else Caledonian will tear me a new one (because that is his way of improving the world).
I believe an atheist is someone who chooses to believe that no god or other supernatural beings exists. A *radical* atheist is someone who thinks that is enough to motivate ethics and a complete worldview. One can imagine an atheist who just doesn’t care about ethics or any other component of a worldview (for lack of a better term). For some, “atheist” is quite narrowly defined as someone who does not believe in a god or gods; they don’t see any need to address what the consequences of that negative belief are.
Dianne writes, “Somehow, the idea of born again Christian atheists and agnostics worries me. What’s the motive for all their sadistic behavior if not to appease the sky fairy? If he/she/it doesn’t exist, aren’t acts like refusing basic human rights to people on the basis of their sexual orientation and refusing life saving surgeries to women because their condition resulted from a sexual act just sort of…mean?”
Not all Christians take those political views. I would have been interesting if this poll had asked about such things. There might be an correlation between extremity of political view, and depth of belief. Perhaps nominal Christians are also more liberal?
Q1: Does he he have a penis? How big is it?
I quote:
Chaplain: Let us praise God. O Lord…
Congregation: O Lord…
Chaplain: …Ooh, You are so big…
Congregation: …ooh, You are so big…
Chaplain: …So absolutely huge.
Congregation: …So absolutely huge.
Chaplain: Gosh, we’re all really impressed down here, I can tell You.
Congregation: Gosh, we’re all really impressed down here, I can tell You.
Q2: What does he use it for?
Well, if I were God, I’d use it for smiting.
The Xian God has to be male because he’s Jesus Christ’s biological father. But it was biological fatherhood by miraculous artificial insemination, because
the Xian God did not have sexual relations with that woman, Mary.
Two very recent studies have been done correlating “spirituality” with professors, and one correlating “spirituality” with scientists.
I summarized the results on my blog, if you’re interested.
Two of the studies are in The Chronicle, and the other one is here.
Not all Christians take those political views.
All Christians, certainly not. But I had the impression that most or all born again Christians were pretty into fundamentalism. (Of course, wouldn’t a truly fundamentalist Christian be into giving away his or her worldly goods and wandering the world preaching about God’s love of all creation and how all sins can be forgiven with true repentence rather than spending his or her time defining which level of hell each person he or she considers a sinner is going to and trying to force conversion on them?)
I love the “God is male” conundrum. It’s so totally accepted, conservatives make fun of people who want to de-gender Biblical text – those crazy liberals. But when you get down to it, what does it mean? Does God have a penis and testicles? Does he have male hormones? Does he have a Y chromosome? If none of those things, what the hell does it mean to be “male” without any physical manifestations of “maleness”? Are maleness and femaleness ultimately spiritual rather than physical states? If so, do they support transgendered individuals? It’s so basic to their philosophy, and gets tangled and uncomfortable so quickly, it’s a great point of attack.
Oh, and God does have a penis. It’s bigger than a million galaxies – unless he wants it to be smaller than a quark. He uses it to measure infinity and nothingness. That’s what makes Him God.
T_U_T: I’ve read that sociologists have noticed that you will get about 5% of respondants on any polling / survey question answering the question in the affirmative. Maybe your “anomaly” is due to that.
Heh,
In the same line line as the, “Does god have a penis?” question, I once asked the age-old question of a born-again, “Did Adam have a navel?”
It was during a car trip to a supplier and we had just finished discussing the various literal or metaphorical interpetations of the miracle of the loaves and fishes. He’d never considered that there may be a metaphorical way to view biblical miracles. I was personally surprised at his naivete, I thought even the literalists would be aware that biblical legends are often seen as metaphors, and could be seen as true in that sense, even if the literalists maintained that the biblical tall tales are literally true.
So I threw him the ancient conundrum, “Did Adam have a navel?” It stumped him. He couldn’t decide.
Cheers,
-Flex
Jews don’t have a lobby, having no centralised religious hierarchy, they really can’t. Zionists, on the other hand , and the State of Isreal has a very effective lobby in the US.
Jewishness and Israel, Zionists and Jews. They’re are not the same and you shouldn’t confuse them.
Does anyone wonder why we haven’t heard from God in a while? I mean, he talked to all those people a long time ago, and now he’s as mute as a stone. What’s up with that?
he didn’t want to pay child support?
just another deadbeat dad.
I believe an atheist is someone who chooses to believe that no god or other supernatural beings exists. A *radical* atheist is someone who thinks that is enough to motivate ethics and a complete worldview.
then you’d be wrong about the vast majority of atheists, and the idea of “radical” atheists makes as much sense as “religious” atheists.
you’ve apparently missed the bulk of discussion on this site in the many weeks you’ve been here.
an atheist is simply someone who sees theism as unwarranted by evidence.
that’s it.
just that simple.
hate to repeat someone else’s clever saying, but an atheist is someone who simply goes one god beyond a xian.
nothing else characterizes them as a group.
I don’t have those other polls on hand right now, so this is going to be a bit speculative. Part of the issue may be the methodology of the poll. This one was done online, and the article mentions that poll respondants are generally more willing to admit to something they’re embarassed/ashamed about online than over the phone (and I imagine for some people, admitting that they’re not sure if God exists would be rather embarassing). On the other hand, I imagine online polling might skew the response a little since not everyone has internet access.
The other thing (and this the speculative part) is that it’s totally possible that religious membership/attendence is growing and people are becoming more secular. The two are not mutually exclusive. Some people belong to a religion because they feel they should, or to fit in, or they want a community, or other reasons that have nothing to do with devout faith in a deity. And some people are actually somewhat religious but still have some doubts or take a somewhat secular/skeptical approach (someone else mentioned a C of E bishop calling the Resurrection a “conjuring trick”). Not every religious person is a fundamentalist.
The Bible doesn’t mention its god having a penis, but does claim the god’s possession of a womb. So I’d say the scriptural case for that god being female is stronger than one for it being male.
Meanwhile, there are scientific reasons why many delusional people would imagine their god(s) to be male, eg:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4675103.stm
>…the political difference is that only one of us has an >effective lobby.
>All we need are a few charismatic freethinkers bold >enough to state their views and rally all the people >disgusted with the Christianists. I think there’s a solid >constituency there, but no one is exploiting it.
Might I suggest the Secular Coalition of America? Maybe it’s not an “effective” lobbying group yet, but at least they are “freethinkers bold enough” to try to do something. Take a look http://www.secular.org/ and maybe even give them your support. I’ve been pleased with the efforts they’ve made so far. Results? What would expect with a hyper-xian Congress? But at least “our side” is being presented.