It’s a reference to Time’s headline ‘Is God Dead’ in 1966, which in turn is a reference to Friedrich Nietzsche and his 1882 book ‘The Gay Science’, or perhaps the culture associated with it.
The Time article discusses the fall of religion in a highly and increasingly secularized world.
I doubt this book will be equally compelling to the contrary.
The only way atheism would be “dead” is if a deity tells me.
If people can deny a fact as well evidenced as species evolution, and even the rotundity of the earth, why can anyone think a lack of belief in deities is dead, given there is as much evidence for mermaids, leprechauns, and garden fairies?
People is dumb…
How would you know it is a deity that brings you this piece of information?
That is a HUGE question.
I do not automatically deny the existence of any god, I am just not convinced right now. But how could we discern some entity with advanced technology fooling us? Because if I went back a thousand years with today’s technology, I could easily pull of tricks that would fool everyone.
Read Morrie Bantter’s “I Know That Life is Meaningless: How I Was Finally Able to Cope”. He proves that God doesn’t exist.
I find that hard to believe.
Someone needs to get over this idea of “Proof.” Things are not proven. Instead, we accumulate evidence to a degree that things seem most likely to be ‘true.’ (Not Proved) As you can not even ‘prove’ the world is a real place and you are not a brain in a vat, there is no reason to assume anything else can be proven.
I’ve seen several videos by Eric Metaxis, and all he offers up are he same fallacious arguments, flawed ‘evidence’ (historical and scientific), as every other apologist since the time of Aquinas.
So, unless anyone is up for yet more versions of cosmological, teleological, ontological arguments, I doubt this book there is anything if interest for anyone who actually understands good standards of evidence.
He proves that God doesn’t exist
That’s a nice thought. Itd be wonderful if someone could come along and snuff out superstitious religion. That’d make a great Christmas gift for all Atheists alike
Well I can’t speculate on that obviously, however if it failed to convince me then I’d be dubious it was a deity, obviously. This reminds of theists asking me, what I’d accept from them, as evidence for their belief. How on earth would I know, but if a deity wants to convince me, and it created me, then it’s been pretty reticent for the last 56 years.
You closed-minded atheist, you.
Yes, I think it all boils down to Matt Dillahunty’s take on it.
The exception would be mathematical proofs and some physics, etc.
I found an interesting news blurb that seems tangentally relevant to this thread . . . namely, that Evangelical Christianity is declining in the U.S.A., and that agnosticism and a poorly-defined “spirituality” may be taking its place. See below:
This article (and points made and exchanged on this forum) led me to a few ideas that interest me . . . namely, that monotheism started from polytheism in several distinct steps, such as “progressing” from worshipping several gods to a state where we believe in the existence of many gods–but only worship one–to the next step, which is the idea that there is only one God . . . to a further step (my idea) into spirituality that discards the ritual and the middleman of organized religion . . . and–from there–into agnosticism . . . finally ending in atheism.
I based this idea of a social progression through time on the ideas of Karl Marx, where he theorized about a social “wheel” that turns from capitalism into communism.
I still have to tweak and play with the details before I write a paper for a college course that I’m working on, so any input would be appreciated.
Interestingly, this may be linked to our concept of morality. Sort of “be like the god(s)”.
Early polytheism had many gods, who had different characteristics and moralities. One may have been virtuous and caring, one may have been a drunken lout, another a nasty trouble-maker. All different entities, all different gods. With the amalgamation into just one god, in almost every example I can think of, this god is now wonderful and love, and rainbows and sugar and spice.
IMO this may be a reason for the conflicts in a definition of a certain god. For example, a god being both merciful and just.
But these days people are taking more responsibility of their actions (e.g. atheists) and their thinking and actions not governed by any religion.
Is it possible that we (as a people) are now making ourselves more accountable for our own actions and decisions and no longer need a god for reference or blame?
Thank you very much.