Famous atheist belives in God and church teaches exorcisms

[Michael_E]

Atheist:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=315976

catholic church teaching exorcisms due to new intrest in occult:



http://www.reuters.com/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7043360

[WalkerInTheWoods]

"I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins," he said.

hehe interesting way to look at it.  

[WalkerInTheWoods]

"For young people, interest in Satanism can start with a CD, move onto the Internet. From there, it sometimes develops into home-grown, seemingly harmless things like going to cemeteries but sometimes can lead to murders, as we have seen."

So you are not suppose to go to cemeteries? When did that become a "sin"?

[narfellus]

I think that the Catholic Church feeding into the satantist scare with more "trained" exorcists will just cause problems.

[no_leaf_clover]

"I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins," he said.

That's pretty much how I feel too (I differ from his other beliefs though). That why I don't really like saying I'm atheist, because by definition I'm really not, but then saying you believe in God implies in a monotheistc god such as the ones from Christianity, Islam, Judaism..  Universal consciousness seems to work well for me

[Gandalf]

"I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins," he said.


I think this above quote is very important because all the religious types have been jumping on the bandwagon here shouting about how this athiest has 'repented' and 'told you so' attitudes are abounding..

however he is very clear that he doesnt accept the standard middle-eastern conception of 'god' (ie the Judaic, Christian & Muslim concept).
He advocates some kind of intellegent design and whatever created all this could be termed 'god' but that is just what it is, a term.. and not a very useful one i think, as it brings up all the negative connotations which he alludes to in his description of 'oriental despots'.

People make a common mistake in assuming that 'intelligent design' can only equal the standard biblical definition of god with all the bells and whistles (esp. scientists are bad for only refering to this version)).. possibly since that is the most common (and worst imv) type found in the US).

it doesnt just fefer to that version howvever, but to ANY theory of intelligent design... it might imply a more pantheistic view with the universe itself as intelligent, it might imply super powerful 'aliens' for want of a better word, who are so advanced they can create their own universes... the 2001 scenario is a good example of intelligent design without the traditional concept of god..

I also dont accept the traditional concept and i actualy prefer not to use the term, but if I must i bracket it thus: as 'god'.

The biggest problem is that people inprison themselves in terminology... you are either 'athiest' or believe in 'god', 'evolution' or 'design' and so on... its not as straightforward as that... I might be an 'athiest' in the biblical sense but I might believe in 'god' in another sense... so does that make me a true 'athiest'? Terminology is only so useful before it becomes a burden.

Douglas

[Shinobi]

...

[Gandalf]

Very well Shinobi, perhaps I was generalizing too much (we can all be guilty of that sometimes) and I apologize for excessive use of parenthesis (although it is sometimes handy when making side point)

Yes, I agree the USA is so big that any attempt to categorize under one description is wrong, indeed many have said that the whole idea of 'one nation' is a bit of an illusion.. Yes there is the national identity which is very strong but this shouldn't mask the sometimes serious differences between areas. (insert additional comments here).

I think the major problem of why the US religious issue is brought up so much is due to the country being the most influential in the west and therefore has most attention placed upon it... A problem is that secular Britain, which views its secularism as a sign of progress, despite grumblings from church leaders, looks to the US as another progressive country and therefore expects the same level of criticism, skepticism and general secular values as itself; it is shocked when it finds quite the opposite and finds this difficult to understand for a supposedly 'progressive' country.
In the UK we learned the hard way, via Oliver Cromwell etc, that you do NOT mix religion and politics otherwise you are going to have problems; so we are shocked by the constant use of religion by US politicians as this goes against the grain with us.

I think both the UK and the US really are on different wavelengths when it comes to this issue and we do not really understand each other with regards to it.
As example, when a US evangelist points over the Atlantic and talks of 'godless' Europe or Scotland as a 'dark land ruled by homosexuals' (I kid you not   ), we actually take this as a compliment and as a sign of progress!!!

Likewise, when we look over the water and complain about mix of politics and religion and the 'religious nuts' in the US, the US perception holds up this religious aspect as an example of moral superiority.

A common proverbial is that people can base their morality on the bible or Aristotle; we generally prefer Aristotle, while in the US people generally prefer the bible... nothing wrong with either, we just have to accept the difference, and of course recognize that being generalizations, this model doesn't apply to everyone.

Anyway, back to the 'atheist', I agree with where this guy is coming from, but what do others think?

Douglas

PS (I wanted to add another embedded parentheses but could'nt think of anything   )

[RenaissanceMan]

In the UK we learned the hard way, via Oliver Cromwell etc, that you do NOT mix religion and politics otherwise you are going to have problems; so we are shocked by the constant use of religion by US politicians as this goes against the grain with us.

The way the US is going is a worry - as much for the journey back towards conservativism on most issues as with religion.  Bio-conservatisim, concerning stem cell research and the like, is a Nazi-like nightmare.  Even more worrying from my perspective is that Australia likes to copy whatever the US does.  There is already some evidence of it with the rise of a 'Family First' party created by a bunch of churches and the outright banning of human cloning.  NOoooooooo!!

[James S]

Oh Douglas, give us poor young countries a chance! We've only a couple of hundred years of history to learn from, not a couple of thousand.  

I like the point of terminology getting in the way.
So.....if I believe that I am part of God, and God is part of me, therefore I AM God, that is, we are one, does that make me atheist, believer, a heretic in need of a thorough exorcising, or just plain confused?


RenaissanceMan, you're right about Oz following the US.
A good example - the Pentecostal church colleges like to send their star pupils over to the US colleges to learn the more important aspects of preaching the Word of God, like what are the most effective methods to get a congregations to tythe correctly.
A good pentecostal church now will offer their members the option to have their tythes direct debited from their accounts.
Seriously!

Regards,
James.