I have just published a book that discusses religion and atheism in light of the bio-cultural sciences, and in dialogue with the philosopher Gilles Deleuze. It is called Iconoclastic Theology: Gilles Deleuze and the Secretion of Atheism. For more details, see www.leronshults.com

Views: 209

Tags: Deleuze, atheism, bio-cultural, religion

Comment

You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by Michael Penn on March 14, 2014 at 2:46pm

Nobody can say with absolute certainty that no god or gods exist. To make that claim you would have to produce evidence. This would be the same evidence we want the theists to produce, but they just do not get it. They answer you back from them is  that "the buybull sez." This is ZERO evidence. God is not a "given" but most likelty does not exist. IF any gods exist there is no evidence that they are wanting to "talk with us or tell us something."

I'm back to the statement that "you either believe in god or you do not." As to what degree you do or do not believe in god is determeined by your "religious practices." I no longer practice any religion, so therefore it's safe to say that I no longer believe in god.

As to that remark "the god of theism" I'm asking what other possible gods there might be? Theism is a belief in a "deity." I'm still ROTFLMAO here. Sorry. Just using LOGIC here.

No gods. No teapots going around Venus.

Comment by Richard Goscicki on March 14, 2014 at 2:22pm

Michael, I have to disagree with you on this one.

Sorry. I'm not understanding this discussion. You either believe in god or you do not.

The entire position of agnosticism, and there’re many varieties from strong to weak, claims there might be a god.

 

 

Comment by Luara on March 13, 2014 at 4:40pm

You might be right that monotheism tends to be more oppressive than polytheism. 

Comment by Michael Penn on March 13, 2014 at 10:01am

"The GOD of theism."    ROTFLMAO here.

Comment by LeRon Shults on March 13, 2014 at 9:56am

Hi Michael, yes, I agree and I do not believe in the supernatural or gods. Most people do believe in them, I argue, because of evolved cognitive and coalitional tendencies that lead to over-dectecting agents in the natural world and over-protecting one's own group. This comes "naturally," but that does not mean it is good for us; racist and sexist biases come "naturally" too, but many of us try to contest them. The emergence of belief in a particular kind of god - the GOD of theism - led to so many logical inconsistencies and exerted so much psychological and political pressure on human life that it contributed the the birth of atheism, so I argue in the book. Hard to summarize it all in a blog  :)

Comment by Michael Penn on March 13, 2014 at 6:55am

Sorry. I'm not understanding this discussion. You either believe in god or you do not. You either believe in the suernatural or you do not. For the vast majority of my life I was a believer. I was even a lay preacher. About a year and a half ago I realized that there is no evidence. NONE! Zilch, zero. There is absolutely no evidence for any gods or deities, nor for anything supernatural. I may have first been a believer, but deciding there was no evidence to believe had nothing to do with anything except for the lack of evidence. "Emergence of theism?" No, let's call it the emergence of LOGIC!

Comment by Luara on March 13, 2014 at 3:50am

The idea is that atheism (belief in no gods and no God) was made possible, in a sense, by the emergence of theism itself

Do you mean "strong atheism" or simply the lack of belief in supernatural entities? 

People have been religious at least since the emergence of Homo sapiens.  But you or Gilles Deleuze think that more modern forms of religion were easier to reject? 

Comment by LeRon Shults on March 13, 2014 at 2:05am

Hi Luara, yes, I think it has poetic force too. The idea is that atheism (belief in no gods and no God) was made possible, in a sense, by the emergence of theism itself in the wake of what is called the "axial age" (800-200 BCE). The incoherence of the idea of an infinite supernatural person is an open secret among theologians, but it is "concealed" in plain sight by appeals to "mystery." I spell this out in more detail in chapter two of the book I mentioned, but in even more detail in another book coming out in July: "Theology after the Birth of God: Atheist Conceptions in Cognition a..."

Comment by Luara on March 12, 2014 at 3:08pm

I like "secreting atheism" as a figure of speech anyway - it has poetic force.

Comment by Michael Penn on March 12, 2014 at 2:37pm

Apparently modern theism secretes atheism, and this man has figured out how to "restore theological antropology and its relevance." I think I understand the subject, but to say that this should be done, and also want to do it? I'm not decided. I do know that if the cave people had 2 entrances to the cave and one collapsed killing a leader, that closed entrance would no longer be used because "god" would not want it to be used. Only the other entrance could be used now because "god spoke" in a possitive way about this.

To me, that is "theological antropology and it's relevance." If I am correct here, then this man's book needs a read. We all need a better understanding. If it is all other mumbo jumbo then forget it!

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service