Atheist.

[Neoma]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZAaOKWf7zs&search=atheist

Kinda cool. :hi:

[Neoma]

1. Bumpity.

[Ladyhawk]

2. Interesting, but I thought Charles Schultz and Van Gogh were Christians.

Van Gogh studied to become a minister and there are a lot of Christian themes in Schultz's work. Correct me if I'm wrong.

BTW, I'm am also a "fool" whose deeds are vile. :D

LH

[Room101]

3. That was really cool

Great find! He forgot Gore Vidal;-)

[Spider Jerusalem]

5. Schulz was a self-described 'secular humanist'.

And Van Gogh said (or rather wrote) 'I can very well do without God both in my life and in my painting, but I cannot, suffering as I am, do without something which is greater than I am, which is my life, the power to create.' (Which doesn't necessarily mean he was completely atheistic.)

[TallahasseeGrannie]

7. Wasn't he rejected in his attempt to study

to be a minister?

T-Grannie

[Spider Jerusalem]

9. Not so much rejected.

He failed as a seminarian, more or less, and quit to become a missionary. He hewed too closely to Jesus' example for his superiors' comfort (gave most of his clothes to the poor, lived in a shack, etc), and failed at that, too...about the same time that he decided his true calling lay in art.

[kay1864]

17. That's really amazing

Especially considering the number of Biblical references scattered in his works. IIRC he argued with CBS over Linus reciting Biblical verse in "Charlie Brown's Christmas". Did the secular humanism come later in his life?

[kay1864]

19. Wikipedia had an answer

Schulz touched on religious themes in his work, including the classic television cartoon, A Charlie Brown Christmas (1965), which features the character Linus van Pelt quoting the King James Version of the Bible (Luke 2:8-14) to explain "what Christmas is all about." In personal interviews Schulz mentioned that Linus represented his spiritual side. Schulz, reared in the Lutheran faith, had been active in the Church of God (Anderson) as a young adult and then later taught Sunday school at a United Methodist Church. By the late 1980s he told one of his biographers (Rheta Grimsley Johnson, 1989) that he identified with Secular Humanism.

In the Sixties, Robert L. Short interpreted certain themes and conversations in Peanuts as being consistent with parts of Christian theology, as he (Short) explained in his bestselling paperback book, The Gospel According to Peanuts. Schulz did not endorse Short's specific interpretations and often said that "the only theology is no theology," yet Schulz gave permission to use many of his strips in the book, and his newspaper comics continued to have enough theological themes to fill many Sunday School lessons. Schulz seemed concerned about having the focus of his strip viewed as being narrowed to be a religious themed comic, when it had many more simple insights into life that went beyond a specifically defined theology.

[Spider Jerusalem]

20. (You DID mean Van Gogh, right? I may have been confused.)

[Taverner]

23. Shultz was not athiest, but a Secular Humanist Christian

And a Congregationalist (now the UCC - you know, the ones who get their ads banned from TV for saying they accept everyone.)

[PassingFair]

4. Thank you for that!

We don't often get good PR!

[wildhorses]

6. thanks for posting that. yes, VERY cool...perhaps you can

help me...I have this conundrum...

in order to deny something, one must admit that there is something to deny...

[kay1864]

10. Easy solution

If you deny Santa Claus, you don't have to admit that Santa Claus is there.

Now I suppose you have to have the concept of Santa, to deny Santa. Therefore atheists have to recognize the concept of God, to deny God. But that's not the same as admitting that God is there.

[wildhorses]

11. but, and please don't misunderstand me, I really am trying to

learn, the concept of God is God. I mean who really thinks they can understand God? This God that we are speaking of...to me is beyond all comprehension...

[kay1864]

12. The concept is not the thing

Even with God. I can acknowledge the concept of Santa, even if I don't acknowledge Santa himself. The concept certainly exists, but Santa himself does not.

No different with God. I can acknowledge the concept of God, even if I don't acknowledge God himself. The concept of God, the idea of God, is not the same as God.

"Believing" and "understanding" are not the same either. One can believe in God (or not) without understanding or comprehending God.

[wildhorses]

13. maybe so...

so then what do you think about spirit?
what about soul?

[kay1864]

14. Well let's see if we're talking about the same thing

If by "spirit" and "soul" you mean "the part inside you that continues after death", no I don't believe in that.

If by "spirit" and "soul" you mean "the part inside you that is creative and alive", well of course I believe in that.

Good questions BTW!

[wildhorses]

26. as an atheist you believe (understand) the soul

and spirit to die when the physical body dies. Do you think a physical body can be alive without a spirit or soul?

[kay1864]

27. Well, sorta

Since for me, spirit=soul=consciousness=mind. All the same thing.

A body/person can technically be alive without a mind or consciousness, as in coma, vegetative state, or on life-support (I am of course excluding sleep here). But that's not what most people would call "living".

So for the most part, no, a person is not "alive" without s/s/c/m.

[wildhorses]

28. what is this thing then ...

some people call heart (and you know they are NOT talking about the muscle)?

[kay1864]

29. Well now we're back to...

the "other" definition of "soul" (see above). Creativity, if you will.

Ultimately, that, too (IMHO), resides in the mind.

[wildhorses]

30. then how can my mind argue with me heart?

as in "My heart tells me one thing but, head another"? Is it really just my head taking 2 sides?

[kay1864]

31. Well yes, basically

In a simplistic sense, it's the left side of your brain arguing with the right side. Or more accurately, you're seeing an issue both logically ("mind") and emotionally ("heart"). Most issues have both logical and emotional aspects, so sometimes there's a conflict.

[wildhorses]

32. and imagination? inspiration?

why is it sometimes I can let the pen "flow" and not even realize what I have written until I read it? Where does this come from? How did I loose all desire for cigarettes after 30 some years of smoking?

[kay1864]

33. All from your mind as well

You don't necessarily have to be consciously aware of everything you do, in order for it to happen.

[wildhorses]

34. which side of the brain is the side that argues for God?

and thank you for being so patient with me.

[kay1864]

35. Dunno for sure

But I guess it would be more the emotional/intuitive side, rather than the logical/reasoning side, since God cannot be proven logically, but rather must be taken on faith.

(faith=belief without empirical evidence)

[wildhorses]

36. I have to quit now

I am crying

[kay1864]

37. I am sorry if I was the cause

I thought God being taken on faith was common knowledge.

[wildhorses]

38. Does an atheist accept anything on faith?

is not faith itself then proof of God's existence?

[kay1864]

39. Well I can't speak for all atheists...

But I would guess that most do not accept things on faith. Most would want evidence.

Faith is a feeling, a belief without evidence. It doesn't follow that it's proof of God's existence. Can you explain your thoughts further? I'm not seeing the connection.

[wildhorses]

40. I may ramble...but, I will try

actually I posted that yesterday. perhaps I could start this way...I see evolution and I "feel" it is proof of a "supreme creator" and I guess atheists look at evolution and "think" it is proof that there is no God. We just look at things differently. We are looking at the same thing and drawing opposite conclusions...to me this is God. God is the paradox.

The brain, is that all there is...nothing more, nothing less?

[kay1864]

41. Atheists don't look at evolution that way

At least not the ones I've encountered.

1. First of all, most don't try to disprove God--for atheists it's like trying to prove there is no Santa. They may believe there is no God (or even strongly say there is no God), but they don't try to disprove it. It's kind of a waste of time, for one thing.

2. For themselves, it's sufficient that there is no evidence for God, kind of like no evidence for Santa.

3. Evolution and God are two separate things. Evolution-with-God and evolution-without-God are both possible. Evolution does not require God, but it doesn't disprove God either. In fact, it doesn't address the subject directly at all.

So atheists see evolution on its own terms--they don't use it to disprove God. They might say that evolution shows that God is unnecessary, but that's not the same as nonexistent.

[wildhorses]

42. ok...I understand now

so when I hear an atheist say "there is no God" what they really mean is there is "no evidence of God."

thank you.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

8. It's not opening for me

maybe the site is down this AM for a while

[2bfree]

15. Thanks...........

I'll pass that on to my son who is an athiest.

[Neoma]

21. And i take it you're not one?

[progressoid]

16. Dave Matthews...more like Agnostic

"'It would be safe to say that I'm 'agnostic.' However, I do feel as though we owe a faith to the world and to ourselves. We owe a grace and gratitude to things that have brought us here... Maybe the real faithful act is to commit to something, to take action, as opposed to saying, `Well, everything is in the hand of God.'"

[ThomCat]

18. You should post that in GD

so we can recommend it and get it on the Greatest page.

[Neoma]

22. Why, can you not get a thread on greatest page from the lounge?

[ThomCat]

24. No.

I think you can only get posts on the Greatest page from the big boards, with the exception of the lounge. You can't get them there from the forums either.

[Neoma]

25. Quite confusing.