Chance - you mean, it isn't really a "thing"?

Here is my contribution to the atheist question via Conservapedia.

http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Johnadavison

It can also be found as comment # 55 on the Prescribed Evolutionary Thread at

john.a.davison.free.fr/

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

According to Albert Einstein there is no such thing as chance.

"Everything is determined... by forces over which we have no control."

Naturally, I agree. Ergo - A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

There's something wrong with the conservapedia link - every time I click through I get a load of spam adverts. I'm pretty sure conservapedia has been hacked. So unfortunately I cannot view or quote your text.

I seem to remember that your definition was something along the lines of "an atheist is somebody who who denies the existence of gods" - I'd agree that somebody who holds that position is almost certainly an atheist, but it's probably better to call that person an 'anti-theist' since they are taking a position of opposition to theism.

A safer definition might be that an atheist is simply somebody who lacks any belief in God or any gods.

"Follow the evidence, wherever it leads you" - Michael Behe

My latest essay addresses exactly that point. The dictionary definition of atheist is ambiguous because iit assumes that an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a living God. I submit that Nietache was not an atheist because he claimed that God is dead, a conclusion that as far as I can see may be true. It is not necessary to believe in a living God to be a theist. Nietzche's God once existed which is all that is required to understand the world. To read my essay go to my old blog -

john.a.davison.free.fr/

click on the Prescribed Evolution thread and go to message # 55

I hope that helps

I agree about Conservapedia. They seem to be paralyzed. They publish very little of what is submitted.

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

Nietache was not an atheist because he claimed that God is dead, a conclusion that as far as I can see may be true.

John, Nietzsche was speaking metaphorically, or figuratively. He did not believe that a god which had once lived had undergone some kind of physical death, rather, it is Nietzsche's way of saying that the idea of "God" (representing religion and spirituality) is no longer capable of acting as a source of any moral code or teleology.

Nietzsche was posing the question of how we might have a moral framework in the absence of any belief in God.

Nietzsche almost certainly WAS an atheist, some have even called him a nihilist - although I think this is entirely unfair, since much of his work concerned re-establishing a moral framework in the absence of God.

By the way, that's Nietzsche's opinion and not my own.

Thanks for reading.

I love it when others tell me what someone REALLY meant. I suppose you will also tell me that Einstein REALLY didn't mean that -

"Everything is determined...by forces over which we have no control."

Words have meaning and Nietzche's "Gott ist tot" requires no further interpretation. A dead God once lived!

Nihilism has nothing to do with atheism. I am a nihilist because I am convinced that this may be our last century. I am not an atheist because the dictionary definition does not preclude that God once existed, which is my position and Nietzche's as well. No rational mind can possibly deny the minimal necessity for at least one past creative intelligence far beyond our capacity to even imagine.

Only irrational, congenetical, "born that way" ultra-atheists like Paul Zachary Myers, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins insist that the entire cosmos, living and nonliving, resulted without supernatural intervention. These poor souls actually maintain that it is intrinsic in the nature of matter to self assemble not only to become alive but then also to evolve, all driven by chance and their precious natural selection. Natural selection never had anything to do with creative evolution except to inhibit it as long as possible.

"The struggle for existence and natural selection are not progressive agencies, but being, on the contrary, conservative, maintain the standard."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 406

"Any system that purports to account for evolution must invoke a mechanism not mutational and aleatory."
Pierre Gasse, Evolution of Living organisms, page 245, in italics for emphasis.

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

I love it when others tell me what someone REALLY meant. I suppose you will also tell me that Einstein REALLY didn't mean that -

My comment was solely about Nietzsche and not Einstein, Leo Berg, RIchard Dawkins, or even PZ-Myers. I'm sure I could learn a great deal from you about those other folk, but for now let us focus on Friedrich Nietzsche?

The quote "God is Dead" is from a section of "The Gay Science" usually called "The Parable of the Madman". The phrase "God Is Dead" is part of a passage spoken by the fictional "madman", and not from Nietzsche's commentary. The madman is a fictional character in his book, and not an actual historical person or a pen-portrait of the author.

I think it's clear to see that this is an example of dramatic speech rather than Nietzsche's actual beliefs. You can read the quote in it's context here:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/nietzsche-madman.html

Perhaps you would care to cite some authoritative source that confirms that Nietzsche really did believe in the literal death of a God? All the texts that I can find suggest that this was merely commentary about the decline of of spirituality in 18th century European culture,

Regarding Nihilism, my comment was that people falsely accused Nietzsche of nihilism - not that he was one. As a Christian I'm not sure how somebody could be both a Christian and a Nihilist - perhaps you could spare a moment to explain your beliefs to me? I am genuinely interested.

Neither of us are privy to the mind of Frederich Nietzche or any other philosopher for that matter. As you insist Nietzche is widely regarded as an atheist. The problem resides in the dictionary definition of an atheist as "one who does not believe in the existence of God." But is that an adequate definition? I don't think so because I do not "believe" in the existence of God either and I am not an atheist. Neither was Einstein. As I tried but obviously failed to explain to your satisfaction in my essay, a living God is not requisite to an understanding of the living world. In order to qualify as a genuine (redefined) atheist, one has to proclaim as do Paul Zachary Myers and Richard Dawkins that there never was a God. I doubt very much if Nietzche would deny a past supernatural. I can't imagine any rational person who would be so weak minded as to go that far. Can you? Belief or lack of same in God has been demonstrated to have an hereditary component. Are you an atheist? I suspect that you are. Are you then a Darwinian because to be a Darwinian one must be a true (redefined) atheist? They believe that all the living world was an accident. In fact Stephen J.Gould actually said as much - "Intelligence was an evolutionary accident."

It is hard to believe isn't it?

"The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and science lies in the concept of personal God."
Albert Einstein

A personal God is a living God.

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."

Neither of us are privy to the mind of Frederich Nietzche or any other philosopher for that matter.

We do have access to a great deal of writing by Mr. Nietzsche, so it's possible to understand a great deal about what he thought about a wide range of topics.

The problem resides in the dictionary definition of an atheist as "one who does not believe in the existence of God." But is that an adequate definition? I don't think so because I do not "believe" in the existence of God either and I am not an atheist.

There are plenty of dictionaries, and as a consequence more than one definition of the word. For example Webster gives us: "The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being. " - that's a substantially broader definition than the one you gave. It seems good enough for all practical purposes, however I'm sure that if you think hard enough you can find an exception.

We Christians have plenty of first-rate scholars, teachers and leaders to call our own - why do we feel the need to co-opt those who blatently do not share our theistic beliefs.

Bob

As a scientist I don't care for broad definitions. I like them to be specific. The dictionary definition of a theist requires that God be a living, personal God. Now I am sorry you don't care for my theology or rather lack of same. There is not a shred of evidence that God or Gods now exist but that one or more once did cannot be denied by any rational mind. If you are certain that God or Gods exist you should be able to prove it. You can't and you know it. I also don't care for your elitist ""We Christians" either. Are you trying to paint me as an atheist? Besides, I suspect you are a closet Darwinian which renders being a Christian ridiculous. Ken Miller has the same problem. Darwinians don't believe in anything.

The point that I have made is that there is no need for a living God in order to understand the living world. Pierre Grasse, probably a Catholic like myself, put it this way -

Let us not invoke God in realities in which He NO LONGER HAS TO INTERVENE. The single absolute act of creation was enough for Him."
Evolution of Living Organisms, page 166, his emphasis, original in italics.

"The main source of the present-day conflcts between the spheres of religion and science lies in the concept of a personal God."
Albert Einstein

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

As a scientist I don't care for broad definitions. I like them to be specific. The dictionary definition of a theist requires that God be a living, personal God.

One thing I have learnt is that belief and dictionaries comes in all shapes & sizes.

I know folks who believe in the idea of an impersonal, distant God - that's certainly not Christian theology but it is a theology of a kind. I'd certainly never call these people atheists, neither would they.

There is not a shred of evidence that God or Gods now exist but that one or more once did cannot be denied by any rational mind. If you are certain that God or Gods exist you should be able to prove it. You can't and you know it.

I'd hoped this wouldnt get into a debate into the nature of God - I thought we were trying to inquire into what is meant by "atheist". Suffice to say, many people (including myself) have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. That's my personal belief and I don't think I need to justify it here, but I am willing to answer any challenge you care to throw at me.

You can't and you know it. I also don't care for your elitist ""We Christians" either. Are you trying to paint me as an atheist?

Decide for yourself if you want to include yourself in my "We" - my point was limited to a criticism of your attempt to co-opt Einstein, and Nietzsche as believers in God when even a rudimentary study of their life and writing should convince us otherwise.

Besides, I suspect you are a closet Darwinian which renders being a Christian ridiculous. Ken Miller has the same problem. Darwinians don't believe in anything.

I never presumed to know what you believe!

I'm not sure that Ken Miller believes in nothing, perhaps he just believes in the wrong things?

Please don't take any offense - lets keep the discussion going.

Bob

The American Heritage Dictionary, fourth edition.

Atheist - One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God.

The ambiguity resides in the word - "existence." How can one be an atheist when he claims that God once existed? When I went to school one lives before dying. Get it now? probably not.

I can't believe you could be so out of touch with reality as to claim or even suggest that Einstein was an atheist. Nor am I. Nor, by my clarified definition of "atheist," was Nietzshe.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison