His point wasn’t to address atheists. The point of that section was to address the public face of Christianity and how crappy it is. He was talking about the Fred Phelps and Pat Robertsons of this world. The Jerry Falwells. And he was making the point that they’re screwing it up for everybody else.

The day I posted this, my current experience allowed me to equate the section with some Atheist beliefs – because I really do know people who have said, “Well I just can’t believe in a God who is _________” based on their perceptions. But that was me drawing the comparison, not Miller.

Sure, they exist, but they’re not the “face of Christianity”.

There is a difference between believing in and worshipping (or following, or something like that).

Even if there were some sort of evidence of God, that still doesnt mean I would follow him. What if we did find that there was a God and it ended up being that it was the Devil and only the devil. Does his ‘supernaturality’ make us have to worship him? same goes for your god, if we did find evidence of him, I would still need some sort of affidavit clearing up all the nonsense in the bible, all the various interpretations, and so forth, before I would worship him (I’d even have trouble worshipping him, if he required worship!).

Do your ‘atheist’ friends truly not believe in him, because of his TV embodiment? Or do they believe in him, and refuse to follow him because of that embodiment?

Musicguy’s point about atheists not hating/disagreeing/rebelling against/etc. God is spot-on because it recognizes that we don’t believe He/She/It/They exists in the first place.

The problem we face is when we begin to speculate on the existence of your God. Paying attention to your definitions (which you haven’t yet given), we can begin to discuss the merits/demerits of this God, but barring any definitions, you can hardly expect us to read your mind, can you?

You also didn’t mention what exactly you were thinking when you said that you were beginning to think like atheists. What arguments were beginning to “make sense” to you or began to seem compelling? Spelling that out for us would go a long way into helping form a more coherent response.

Lastly, I wanted to address the heart of your post–David Miller’s argument in the “Imposters” section of his book. Contrary to his claims, I don’t not believe in God because of a certain portrayal of him found somewhere, be it TV, radio, books or by other people who claim to “know” God. Rather, as a former Christian of 24 years, I came to realized that there was not a single picture of God that sense rationally. That is to say, the problem wasn’t one picture of God, it was all of them. The more I began to think through the arguments of all the definitions/stories of God(s) that either exist in the world via holy-books/men or via my own imagination, the more I began to realize that none of them squared with reality. And when no suitable picture exists, then the real thing easily melted away.

I’d actually tend to disagree with this somewhat. There are lots of possible views of God. There’s the pantheistic “divine feel” to the universe. There’s the cosmic First Mover. There’s the guardian angel. There’s the angry beard in the sky. I fully understand that each view has its adherents.

But, regardless of the God-model, you hit the same set of dichotomies. Is God is an entity in His own right? If yes (deism or theism) then where’s the supporting evidence? If no (pantheism) then where’s the fuss?

Making God fuzzier and more cosmic, removing His beard and placing Him in a more mysterious abode, doesn’t save Him here. It provides an escape from the paradox of “the harder we look, the less God we find”. But it does so at the expense of completely detaching Him from reality. He becomes little more than a pantheistic impulse in the human psyche.

I don’t have a problem with that. I have a lot of respect for pantheism. But pantheism in the cloak of theism is misrepresentation at best.

I’ve realized that recently I’ve begun to think a little too much like my atheist friends. Their logic was beginning to make sense.

Perhaps there is a reason for that, Amanda.

Kisses,
JanieBelle

2. I don’t stay silent.

Then perhaps someone should tell that to the “Christians” who have decided to speak for all of you. It’s interesting how the “real Christians” rarely speak up, at least not publicly, when religion gets shoved into every aspect of secular American life.

The truth of the matter is that you’ll “benefit” from the crazy Christians taking over America and making this country a theocracy. That’s why you and others stay silent, or strive to maintain “neutrality” instead of telling Falwell (rest his spirit), the Banana Evolution man, and all the others to take their brand of Christianity and shove it where the sun don’t shine.

Also, I’m not an atheist. We’ve been through this a few times already.