First, let me write that I'm not a Christian nor do I consider myself in any sense, religious.  I've spent the obligatory time 'paying my dues' by studying the worlds religions, philosophies and ideas.  In this, I've come to ideas I accept about the universe and it's function in my life.  I believe in "GOD." But the point I'd like to make here is something that undoubtedly has been brought up before on these forums by i've not noticed it as I'm new....that point is the etymology and semantics of the word God.   

If you look up "Atheism" in any encylopedia or dictionary, you'll find it covers a lot of territory and history as a word and an idea.  

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/answers.php

Will someone debunk these, point-by-point?

Pointing out a link to this or other Atheist sites can get the Theist response "that's a biased source" or "it's clearly in favor of Atheism." To the theist, Atheism is just a position or a point of view, so something arguing against the Bible on an Atheism focused website is "biased" and fits an Atheist agenda or viewpoint. It doesn't matter if the information happens to be true either. Some people refuse to look at something specifically because it's an opposition. I'm not sure when concepts discussed in Atheism will be seen not as Atheist views but as facts. Of course Christians want the same thing for their beliefs.

Old Testament- God can manifest as a physical being and interact with the world

New Testament- God is a being who rules over heaven

Contemporary philosophers- God is abstract, unknowable, exists beyond reality, exists as a set of rules or laws, exists as the universe itself, is not part of reality at all, is a concept beyond our understanding, is immeasurable, etc.

In this last category, what philosophers started describing God as an abstract concept?  Descartes is one example, Thomas Aquinas is another.  Who else?  It seems over history the idea of God has moved from something that can be manifested and seen to something immeasurable and outside observability.  I'd like to know how this idea of God was presented by different philosophers and how these ideas have evolved over time. 

Looks like the xians pwnd themselves!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/03/AR2007050302170.html

Dozens of Heads Were Bowed

By Dana Milbank

Friday, May 4, 2007; Page A02


Let us pray.

Let us pray that, on next year's National Day of Prayer, there is better attendance at the "Bible Reading Marathon" on the West Front of the Capitol.

Organizers put out 600 folding chairs on the lawn -- the spot where presidents are inaugurated -- and set up a huge stage with powerful amplifiers. But at 9:30 a.m. yesterday, not one of the 600 seats was occupied. By 11 a.m., as a woman read a passage from Revelations, attendance had grown -- to four people. Finally, at 1 p.m., 37 of the 600 seats were occupied, though many of those people were tourists eating lunch.

Where was everybody?

"This isn't that kind of event," explained Jeff Gannon, spokesman for the host, the International Bible Reading Association. Gannon, actually a pseudonym for James Guckert, had earned fame in 2005 representing a conservative Web site at White House briefings until it was revealed that he posted nude pictures of himself on the Web to offer his services as a $200-an-hour gay escort.

Let us pray for the power to understand how Gannon made his way from HotMilitaryStud.com to the International Bible Reading Association.

* * *

While we are at it, let us pray for the atheists, because -- Lord knows -- they need it. To protest the National Day of Prayer, American Atheists held a counterdemonstration across from the White House yesterday, called the National Day of Reason. Rick Wingrove, co-founder of a group called Beltway Atheists, stood on a coffee table in Lafayette Park and used a bullhorn to get his message out.

The atheists directed particular irreverence at President Bush. "This is the beginning of a theocratic dictatorship, or maybe a better name is a holy decidership," Wingrove announced. "You might as well be reading the charter documents for the freaking Taliban."

But those participating in the National Day of Prayer did not find the National Day of Reason to be much of a threat. Wingrove attracted a crowd of only five fellow atheists, and they reported no confrontations with believers. Just "lots of tourists and schoolkids," said one man handing out Beltway Atheists literature.

* * *

Let us pray, as well, for the beleaguered practitioners of Christian street theater, for they deserve greater press coverage.

The argument that Atheists will commit crimes and mass murder is a bit extreme, but the idea comes from the lack of any absolute moral quality in the universe. The response is that Altruism allows people to treat each other with enough respect to ensure life and society sustaining actions. But what about actions that aren't as extreme as murder or mass murder? Since there are no sins, only societal laws, then I can commit any action that isn't illegal or doesn't greatly harm people. I can spend every day masturbating to porn, I can treat people like shit, I can swear, I can be cynical, I can live life with a personality that isn't polite or caring or respectful of others. None of these things are sinful, and I can do all of them without remorse. But look at the religious person who is polite, caring, respectful, kind, and has a positive outlook on life. Aren't they better people in terms of personality and Altruism? Not only do their attitudes follow Kantian principles of treating others positively, but also Utilitarian principles in terms of allowing society to be a more friendly, happier place. Sure the happiness and politeness is driven by something unreal, but without that spiritual motivation, there's nothing to prevent me from being a complete George Carlin style asshole at every opportunity. A job interview or a conversation with police can necessitate forced politeness in order to look out for ones own self interests, but the rest of the time I have no obligation to treat myself or others well. The consequence may be "you won't get along with others and ultimately may find less happiness in life," but that's not important to the person who enjoys being a cynical jackass and wasting every hour whacking it.

I had engaged in a conversation with todangst some time ago, and have since lost the original thread.  The thrust eventually became a call for a definition of "supernatural," which I used without realizing that it was seen as an incoherent word.  Since then, I've had time to begin reading some of todangst's writings on this site, and some of his other posts.  It may be possible to render a positive ontology for "supernatural," although I don't believe I can just yet.

For the time being, I've noted todangst's frequent use of the term "metaphysics."  On some preliminary research, the meaning seems to conflict with his use of the word.  I was hoping someone here (possibly todangst himself) might be able to offer a definition of metaphysics, and explain how it is proof of universal constancy.  I'm sure it's clear my education on the subject is limited, but I should hope an atheist community would be capable of educating a similarly under-educated athiest, and would therefore be able to educate me.

Discussion has been moved to this forum.

I decided to email the fellow running the 'Stanford Challenge'

http://i53network.org/The_Stanford_Challenge.html

Here are our exchanges.

#1 Todangst to Tripplehorn

Dear Kelly:

From your site, you write:

"If you answered that the law of noncontradiction is material, then in order to collect your money, you must give an empirical demonstration"

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070503/LOCAL18/705030475/-1/ZONES04

Rather than focusing on removing that which atheists disagree with, why not focus on finding ways to "minister" (in a humanistic way) to the community? How about creating programs to promote morality in the workplace? How about working in cooporation with others who share your desire to make society better, even tho you may not agree with them on the subject of God?

Shouldn't our government be concerned with supporting and promoting the morality of its citizens, given that, societies with rampant immorality, in the long run, are incapable of sustaining themselves? Is not one of government's fundamental responsibilities to promote order in a non-obtrusive way so that you and I are free to live productive lives? Shouldn't government institutions be allowed at least some flexibility in determining how to do just that?