Atheist Meme of the Day: Atheist About Zeus, Leprechauns, and God

Today's Atheist Meme of the Day, from my Facebook page. Pass this on; or don't; or edit it as you see fit; or make up your own. Enjoy!

Most atheists don't say we're 100% sure God doesn't exist. We simply see God the way we see Zeus or leprechauns: impossible to 100% disprove, but highly implausible, and not supported by the available evidence. And unless we see better evidence, we're proceeding on the assumption that Zeus, leprechauns, and God don't exist. Pass it on: if we say it enough times to enough people, it may get across.

Comments

[DSimon]

you really need to add comment moderation to your blasphemy…

Hate to agree with the evil little troll, but you have to admire the effectiveness with which he makes this particular point.

[DSimon]

Ah, and I see his comments are already gone. Bye, troll.

Anyways, I think this meme hits pretty close to the core of why religion is so popular: it seems so much more feasible to keep on believing the silly things you've already believed your whole life and that everyone around you believes (i.e. God), even when the nature of the content of that belief is very similar to something you'd just laugh at if someone argued for its existence (i.e. leprechauns).

[Joshua Zelinsky]

The comparison to leprechauns reminds me of an old Cectic comic:

http://cectic.com/010.html

[Maria]

For someone that has never been religious, looking at things from the outside, it is constantly baffling to see people take one fairy tale character seriously while dismissing all the others as fiction. I can intellectually see some reasons to this phenomena, as DSimon describes it, everyone arounds you believe it too, and so on. Still, from the outside it looks really strange.

[John W. Ratcliff]

Greta,

I enjoy your blog but I am generally frustrated by it as well. I just watched Ben Stein’s documentary this evening, and afterwards wrote a rant against the stupidity of the entire debate. The points I made in my rant are points I have always wanted to bring up with you.

I do have questions for you:

1. Do you equate atheism with material reductionism?

2. Can someone who is not a material reductionist be an atheist in your view? (Correct answer is *yes)

3. Can someone believe in life after death, reincarnation, spirit, soul and still be an atheist? (Correct answer is *yes*)

4. Do you believe someone can be an atheist yet at the same time believe in the paranormal? (The correct answer is yes they can)

5. Do you believe someone can be an atheist yet at the same time believe the Universe is God? (i.e. a pantheist)

An atheist is simply someone who doesn't believe in the popular cultural definition of the word God. Just because an individual describes themselves as an atheist does not mean they must also subscribe to a strict material reductionist view of reality.

You do realize that GOD is just a word right? It’s three letters, ‘G’, ‘O’, and ‘D’ and means something completely different to every single person who utters it. Yet you, and other vocal ‘atheists’ try to act like it means just one very specific thing (usually the angry tribal desert Gods).

Since ‘God’ is simply a matter of semantics I suggest that anyone can ascribe their own personal definition for the word. This is why, since I believe that all of creation, all of life and everything that exists is a product of the Universe (or multiverse if you want to get really big hearted about it) *IS* God.

Now, if I say I believe in God, i.e. the Universe, creator of all things, does that make me an atheist in your mind? See, its all just a matter of semantics. While you see a cold, dead, lifeless, mechanistic Universe devoid of any deeper meaning, I see a vibrant and creative Universe worthy of the title of God.

In the end it all boils down to nasty ugly little words and we waste way, way, too much time arguing about them.

At any rate, here is the link to my blog post.

http://jratcliffscarab.blogspot.com/2009/12/expelled-no-intelligence-allowed-or-win.html

Thanks,

John

[Colin]

John, the main reason you are re-appropriating the term "God" to represent the Universe is because the popular conception of the deity-entity "God" often encompasses a sense of vibrancy and creativity in the universe. However, the main result of your re-appropriation is still to buttress pre-existing conceptions of "God", rather than to dilute them. I don't see much of a point.