Not Such a Bright Idea: Atheists Try a New Name

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/mohler/ ^ | September 29, 2003 | Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

[DittoJed2]

Not Such a Bright Idea: Atheists Try a New Name Albert Mohler Daniel Dennett claims that atheism is getting a bad press. The world is filled with religious believers, he acknowledges, but a growing number of atheists lack the respect they deserve. It's time for a new public relations strategy for the godless, Dennett argues, and he has just the plan. The central point of Dennett's strategy is to get rid of the word "atheist." It's too, well, negative. After all, it identifies an individual by what he or she does not believe--in this case the individual does not believe in God. A more positive approach would be helpful to advance the atheist anti-supernatural agenda. Dennett, joined by Richard Dawkins, thinks he has found the perfect plan. Two atheists in California have suggested that the anti-supernatural crowd should take a page from the homosexual rights movement's handbook. Homosexuals renamed themselves "gays" and changed the terms of the debate, they argue. As Richard Dawkins explains, "A triumph of consciousness-raising has been the homosexual hijacking of the word 'gay'.... Gay is succinct, uplifting, positive: an 'up' word, where homosexual is a down word and queer [and] faggot . . . are insults. Those of us who subscribe to no religion; those of us who rejoice in the real and scorn the false comfort of the unreal, we need a word of our own, a word like 'gay'." The word chosen to be the atheists' version of 'gay' is bright. That's right, they want unbelievers to call themselves brights. Give them an "A" for arrogance. Of course, Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins are already specialists in the highest form of intellectual snobbery. Dennett, a professor of philosophy at Tufts University, and Dawkins, a scientist at Oxford University, are well known for their condescending dismissal of all belief in the supernatural. Both address their scorn to anyone who believes in God or dares to question naturalistic evolution. Their plan, if successful, would put believers in God in the unenviable position of being opposed to "brights" who deny belief in God. This is, no pun avoidable, a diabolically brilliant public relations strategy. The real question is: Will it work? In "The Bright Stuff," an op-ed column published in The New York Times, Dennett simply declared, "It's time for us brights to come out of the closet." Now, that's an invitation sure to get attention. He continued, "What is a bright? A bright is a person with a naturalist as opposed to a supernaturalist world view. We brights don't believe in ghosts or elves or the Easter Bunny--or God. We disagree about many things, and hold a variety of views about morality, politics and the meaning of life, but we share a disbelief in black magic--and life after death." Brights are all around us, Dennett claims. Brights are "doctors, nurses, police officers, schoolteachers, crossing guards and men and women serving in the military. We are your sons and daughters, your brothers and sisters. Our colleges and universities teem with brights. Among scientists, we are a commanding majority." Had enough? Dennett wants to be the Moses of the atheist cause, leading his people out of bondage to theists and into the promised land of atheistic cultural influence--a land flowing with skepticism and unbelief. The most absurd argument offered by Dennett is that brights "just want to be treated with the same respect accorded to Baptists and Hindus and Catholics, no more and no less." Those familiar with the work of Dennett and Dawkins will be waiting for the laughter after that claim. The same respect? These two militant secularists show no respect for religious belief. Philosopher Michael Rea of the University of Notre Dame couldn't let Dennett and Dawkins get away with such hogwash. 'The fact is," he asserts, "the likes of Dennett and Dawkins aren't the least bit interested in mutual respect." Dennett has suggested that serious religious believers should be isolated from society in a "cultural zoo." Dawkins has argued that persons who reject naturalistic evolution are "ignorant, stupid or insane." Well, now--is that their vision of "mutual respect?" As for the anti-supernaturalists calling themselves "brights," Rea argues, "The genuinely tolerant atheist will refuse the label; for the the very respect and humility that characterize her tolerance will also help her to see that in fact their are bright people on both sides of the theist/atheist divide."  [See Rea's exchange with Dennett] Timothy K. Beal, professor of religion at Case Western Reserve University, notes that the brights demonstrate "an evangelical tone" in their writings. Beal perceptively notes that, in their determination to be irreligious, these atheists have just established a new anti-religious religion. But what they really want is not only respect, but cultural influence. Dennett's New York Times column decried "the role of religious organizations in daily life," contrasted with no such public role for secularists. Of course, this claim is sheer nonsense. Dennett and Dawkins boast that most scientists and intellectuals are atheists. They are without influence? G. K. Chesterton once identified atheism as "the most daring of all dogmas," since it is the "assertion of a universal negative." As he explained; "for a man to say that there is no God in the universe is like saying that there are no insects in any of the stars." The Psalmist agreed, and spoke in even more dramatic terms: "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'." [Psalm 14:1] The atheists are caught in a difficult position. They reject belief in God, but draw attention to God even as they shout their unbelief. In the end, they look more foolish than dangerous. This call for a new public relations strategy will likely backfire. Hijacking the term bright shows insecurity more than anything else. A movement of secure egos would not resort to calling itself "brights." Atheism may try to change its name, but it cannot succeed in changing its nature. This bright idea doesn't look so bright after all.    Article Resources

[DittoJed2]

Good night, Ogmios.

[jennyp]

Remember the moon dust problem? Scientists with their evolutionary presuppositions feared the dust would be so deep it could swallow up any craft that attempted to land. After a trip they found that their presuppositions and calculations needed to be "adjusted" since they found nearly no dust.

No, after satellites started collecting space dust directly, they adjusted their "presuppositions" down to 1/50th the size of Pettersson's original wild guess which YEC's still throw around as an authoritative figure. I'm truly surprised, after all the times this bogus argument has been beaten to death here and elsewhere on the net (even AiG publically renounced it!), that you still use it.

It's a similar set of presuppositions that suffered when the lost squadron was found. Now all we need to do is wait for the "adjustment."

But it's you who need to change your "presuppositions". You think it snows 5' per year in Greenland's interior, where they take the ice cores from. Didn't you read any of those posts today?

[jennyp]

As an atheist (aka ‘nontheist’), do you believe that our consciousness (along with our universe) came from mindlessness? Do you believe that our consciousness sprung out of a universe void of purpose, value, morality, and intellect?

Our consciousness, yes. Our universe "coming from mindlessness"? Well, I have no evidence that the universe as a whole is anything but mindless anyway. If you mean it in the sense that there was no "mind" behind the existence of either the universe or our conscious selves, then no: I have no reason to think there was any.

When I say that the atheist believes the part is greater than the whole, I am basically saying that the atheist should believe himself or herself greater than where they believe they came from… Now back to point, it is incumbent on the atheist to prove that all came from mindlessness just as it is for a theist to prove ID. For the record, I am for letting science advance but my problem is the motive science currently has… aka prove mindlessness only.

But the claim that there is some unseen, undetectable person behind it all is the extraordinary positive claim. The mundane, default claim is that there is no such thing, because we don't detect any such overarching supernatural person in the course of our normal existence. So I have no burden to prove my negative, mundane claim. The burden's on you to support your non-obvious, positive claim.

[Dataman]

Sorry. It is too difficult to carry on a discussion with you. You fabricate too often. For example, just in your last post you wrote

I'm truly surprised, after all the times this bogus argument has been beaten to death here and elsewhere on the net (even AiG publically renounced it!), that you still use it.

Guess what? I didn't use it. We weren't discussing the age of the moon based on the amount of dust. We were talking about calibrating, as you put it, a "wild guess."

I would appreciate if you'd either cut back on the caffeine take some time off before you post to me again. Your nerves are shot.

[jennyp]

You feeling OK?

[f.Christian]

fC ...

When are evolutionists - wiccans - liberals ... going to find their own country --- lesser america !

separate post ... link !

To: Hermann the Cherusker

**Your claiming of those Deists as Protestants proves my point that Protestantism doesn't really care what a man believes, and certainly not if he believes in Christ or not, so long as it is not Catholicism. **

Thank you for the opportunity to post this. Note only one Catholic..

Denominational Affiliations of the Framers of the Constitution

Dr. Miles Bradford of the University of Dallas did a study on the denominational classifications that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention accepted for themselves. Contrary to myth, the following list, published by Bradford, indicates that only 3 out of 55 of the framers classified themselves as Deists.

Note: only those Denominations whose Confessions of Faith were expressly Calvinistic at this time have been identified as "Calvinist" denominations. While many "Old-School" Lutherans and "Whitfield" Methodists at this time would have identified themselves with a Calvinistic view of Predestination, their affiliation has for the sake of charity been assumed to be non-Calvinist.

New Hampshire

* John Langdon, CONGREGATIONALIST -- Calvinist
* Nicholas Gilman, CONGREGATIONALIST -- Calvinist

Massachusetts

* Elbridge Gerry, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* Rufus King, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* Caleb Strong, CONGREGATIONALIST -- Calvinist
* Nathaniel Gorham, CONGREGATIONALIST -- Calvinist Connecticut
* Roger Sherman, CONGREGATIONALIST -- Calvinist
* William Johnson, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* Oliver Ellsworth, CONGREGATIONALIST -- Calvinist

New York

* Alexander Hamilton, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* John Lansing, DUTCH REFORMED -- Calvinist
* Robert Yates, DUTCH REFORMED -- Calvinist

New Jersey

* William Patterson, PRESBYTERIAN -- Calvinist
* William Livingston, PRESBYTERIAN -- Calvinist
* Jonathan Dayton, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* David Brearly, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* William Churchill Houston, PRESBYTERIAN -- Calvinist

Pennsylvania

* Benjamin Franklin, DEIST
* Robert Morris, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* James Wilson, DEIST
* Gouverneur Morris, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* Thomas Mifflin, QUAKER
* George Clymer, QUAKER
* Thomas FitzSimmons, ROMAN CATHOLIC
* Jared Ingersoll, PRESBYTERIAN -- Calvinist

Delaware

* John Dickinson, QUAKER
* George Read, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* Richard Bassett, METHODIST
* Gunning Beford, PRESBYTERIAN -- Calvinist
* Jacod Broom, LUTHERAN

Maryland

* Luther Martin, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* Daniel Carroll, ROMAN CATHOLIC
* John Mercer, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* James McHenry, PRESBYTERIAN -- Calvinist
* Daniel Jennifer, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist

Virginia

* George Washington, EPISCOPALIAN (Non-Communicant)
* James Madison, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* George Mason, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* Edmund Randolph, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* James Blair, Jr., EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* James McClung, PRESBYTERIAN -- Calvinist
* George Wythe, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist

North Carolina

* William Davie, PRESBYTERIAN -- Calvinist
* Hugh Williamson, DEIST
* William Blount, PRESBYTERIAN -- Calvinist
* Alexander Martin, PRESBYTERIAN -- Calvinist
* Richard Spaight, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist

South Carolina

* John Rutledge, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* Charles Pinckney, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist * Pierce Butler, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* Charles Pinckney, III, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist

Georgia

* Abraham Baldwin, CONGREGATIONALIST -- Calvinist
* William Leigh Pierce, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* William Houstoun, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* William Few, METHODIST

327 posted on 09/30/2003 9:47 PM PDT by RnMomof7

[balrog666]

You feeling OK?

Aw, Creationist tactic 103, he changed the subject again.

Too bad, I was hoping he was about to learn something about snow and ice layers in Greenland and finally quit posting those foolish lies about the dating methods.

[JesseShurun]

It seems to me that you are probably going to make some sort of judgement on me based on my probable response, therefore I shall not respond.

see, you are already accusing me of something that I have not done. Your bias is showing. As a Christian, and as a student of the Word of God, agnosticism is incomprehensible to me. I'm just trying to understand how you can be an agnostic Christian, because I have never heard of anyone , other than people pretending to be Christian, say, for the perks of belonging to a church or something, socially, or because their family expects them to be. I'm just perplexed

[Ogmios]

Then you shall remain perplexed.

The bottom line is this, I do not believe that any certain Christian denomination or belief has the true answer, or has the sole answer for a persons relationship with Christ/God, therefore I do not belong to nor accept any one churches beliefs.

This makes me an agnostic Christian, perhaps you use the word differently then I do.

I have a personal relationship with Christ/God, no church nor individual can tell me otherwise, or tell me that I am doing it wrong. That is what I mean by agnostic Christian.

[JesseShurun]

How about the Word of God? Does that have the Truth? Are you a bible believing Christian?

[Dimensio]

*boggle*

He didn't even try to sound reasonable. He just called you a liar and that you were going off-topic and stomped off when you showed that he was in error, as though he didn't know that we could scroll up and see that your comments were not only not fabrications, but also that you were not changing the subject.

He could at least put some effort into throwing a temper tantrum and running away.

[Heartlander]

But the claim that there is some unseen, undetectable person behind it all is the extraordinary positive claim. The mundane, default claim is that there is no such thing, because we don't detect any such overarching supernatural person in the course of our normal existence. So I have no burden to prove my negative, mundane claim. The burden's on you to support your non-obvious, positive claim.

Really? The Design Theory has been around for quite a long time. A majority of the people believed that life came from intelligence because it was self evident and obvious to them. Pssst… and a majority still do. Actually, it wasn’t until recently that science rejected an ‘undetectable person behind it all’. ID was self evident to science as well as societies in general. Science rejects ID – not people.

"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."
Scott Todd, 'Nature" 401(6752):423 9-30-99

IMHO it is obvious that consciousness cannot come out of pure mindlessness. If one chooses to believe that consciousness does come from mindlessness; than please explain what is truth, morality, free will, joy, and intellect. I would believe these concepts to be purely delusional in a mindless universe.

Let me explain:
Let us say the universe is truly mindless and life is springing up left and right all around us without reason. A race of people from another galaxy invade our planet, destroy, devour, and leave. This race is void of emotion due to their mindless evolutionary process. Now, explain to me why and how what they did was wrong or evil. What truth could you offer this race? Do you think they would call you an ‘emotional creationist’ for believing in morality, truth, free will, and joy?

You see, in a mindless universe, you are the ‘emotional creationist’ because… hey, where else does it exist? Why would you expect it to exist anywhere else? Obviously you should be amazed that these things seem to exist at all – heck, for that matter, that you exist.

Let’s say that in some distant galaxy, due to some bizarre chemical reaction (mindless mind you) that rock-like creatures develop consciousness. They can’t reproduce, move, see, or communicate with each other to even know they are surrounded by others just like them – but they are conscious and don’t die. After billions of years, they want to die but they can’t. Hey, it’s just another creation from a mindless universe. It is not right or wrong – it just is… They do get to ponder ‘stuff’ longer than we do though…

So, lets get back to what the atheist and ‘current’ science is spreading as the gospel:

…. and on the 3 billionth day, nature accidentally puked forth chemicals, looked upon it and said, “this is neither good or bad, it’s just chemicals, and I shall form these chemicals in no specific image and without intelligence”.
Then plants, insects, fish, and man evolved from this puke without intelligence, each according to its own inane kind.

Now, the atheist knows this is only an allegorical story because… hey, nature doesn’t speak. That would just be ridiculous because nature is mindless. Yes, and since this is purely allegorical, one must look beyond the text and discover its inner meanings and lessons to us all – whatever that means in the whole scheme of things.

So if you believe this burden of proof is on me to prove to you what the majority see as obvious, you are wrong. You are responsible for your own beliefs. I cannot make you see or believe anything and never thought I could.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

I believe you have your choice and right to believe that there is no ID behind it all. But if you are stating that my claim is ‘extraordinary’ and yours’ isn’t – you prove it.

[jennyp]

But the claim that there is some unseen, undetectable person behind it all is the extraordinary positive claim. The mundane, default claim is that there is no such thing, because we don't detect any such overarching supernatural person in the course of our normal existence. So I have no burden to prove my negative, mundane claim. The burden's on you to support your non-obvious, positive claim.

Really? The Design Theory has been around for quite a long time. A majority of the people believed that life came from intelligence because it was self evident and obvious to them. Pssst… and a majority still do. Actually, it wasn’t until recently that science rejected an ‘undetectable person behind it all’. ID was self evident to science as well as societies in general. Science rejects ID – not people.

But personal incredulity stemming from ignorance of the subject matter does not equal self-evidence! Two hundred years ago ID was still a live possibility. Heck, a young Earth was a live possibility! Until Mendelian genetics was successfully married to evolutionary theory, Lamarckianism was still a live possibility.

Even today, millions of people play the Lotto because the "obvious" conclusion is that their number is due.

[Republic_of_Secession.]

Then who designed the designer?

Since God would have to be non linear: it could stand to reason that God created himself. Remember: clues to God's nature can be found in the Bible when it states that God "is the same yesterday today & tommorow". This is a state that could only occur in non linear beings. Since God is not subject to the linear notion of time: this would in fact mean that he is the same yesterday & tommorow. Meaning also that God is the point of origin with no begining & the He is also the point of demise with no end. This also explains how generations of human life spans (& indeed probablly all of time itself) are "as one day" to Him.

While many may have a hard time wrapping their minds around this concept: it does make quite a lot of sense as it would eliminate the assertion of creation ad infinitum, which is not really a very feasable notion since the notion of creation ad infinitum would not be a plausable explaination. But if the Source or God himself is a non linear being, then there would exist a point of creation & infinitum all at once. Since God is "eternal" while the universe appears to be finite: this sheds light on the nature of His creation as contrated with His own nature. To further illustrate this: imagine God's life span as going in a constant circle ( ie: non linear ) while creating the universe with a life span which goes in a straight line ie: linear. God's own point of creation is obscured by the non linear nature of his existence which in essense is suplanted by eternal natuer of his continued existence. Just as when one paints a circle on a canvass with a brush: the point of origin is obscured by the painting over of the continuated motion of the brush following the same pattern.

While human life & the universe in general follows a straight linear path where origin & demise can be measured. This would expain how God's origin can not be measured or acertained as it would have been suplanted by his own continued existence. Similar to recording over the same cassette tape over & over.

[Republic_of_Secession.]

Why? Because you can't imagine another way for it to come into being? Sorry, but I require evidence for the creator.

OK: What "other way" would that be? Let's hear them. Evidence for the Creator lies in the fact that His creation exists -& with midboggling mathematic prescision.

Maybe it's a causality loop -- thus it started itself (and will start itself again and again).

This is not a plausable explanation as the universe is demonstably linear. Thus heading towards an ultimate demise of which its ability to start again would be most unlikely. The universe has a finite life span.

There are two problems with this. First, you're asserting intelligence without demonstrating it;

The universe demonsrates it itself. The fact that the design of sacred geometry is present in just about everything is one powerful demonstration of intelligence.

Sacred Geometry Link 1.

Sacred geometry is a blueprint of creation. It graphically describes the self-organizing processes of nature. It gives evidence of an inherent order that pervades the universe. In certain respects it may be contemplated as a mathematical representation of the Mindset of the Creator.

Sacred geometry is based on pure mathematical principles. It is beyond religion and doctrine, yet many of its principles have been adopted by different religions in their architecture and art. Through the centuries, architects around the world have used the same geometric principles to build their temples, monuments, cathedrals and other sacred structures, intended as symbolic models of the universe and the self. The art of Islamic mosaics, the Eastern and Western mandalas, the basket weaving patterns of the Pacific Islands... all describe various processes of creation, expressing them according to the cultural influences involved.

We live in a mathematically ordered world. All actions on the physical plane obey distinct mathematical laws. All existence exteriorizes itself through harmonic economy. From the dance of atoms to spiraling galaxies, every type of growth and motion is governed by the same set of laws. Sacred geometry describes these laws through a language of number, angle, shape, form and ratio (relationship). It is a universal language of pure mathematical truths based upon the inner workings of nature and the inherent qualities of the circle and sphere.

From: Sacred Geometry.com.

Sacred Geometry Link II.

second, you're assuming that the intelligence -- yet to be demonstrated

It is demonstrated every single moment. It is certainly demonstrated through sacred geometry & the mathemoatical prescision of the universe.

-- is the result of a "god" rather than a perfectly "natural" entity.

The problem is that you act as if these are two separate things. The fact of the matter is that God IS a perfectly natural entity! Seems you believe in the atheist's faulty paradigm which claims that God & nature are supposedly part of a zero sum equation. God is not some distant aloof "extra-natural" isolated enclosure. God is a natural entity who is a part of every molecule of the universe as well.

[Dimensio]

OK: What "other way" would that be? Let's hear them. Evidence for the Creator lies in the fact that His creation exists -& with midboggling mathematic prescision.

Wait, so now not only are you assuming a Creator, but you're assuming a gender of this Creator as well? Again, you call me arrogant?

This is not a plausable explanation as the universe is demonstably linear. Thus heading towards an ultimate demise of which its ability to start again would be most unlikely. The universe has a finite life span.

So you have such complete knowledge of the working of the universe to make such a proclamation? Perhaps you could share your monumental insights with the rest of us.

The universe demonsrates it itself. The fact that the design of sacred geometry is present in just about everything is one powerful demonstration of intelligence.

When did geometry become "sacred"? Because people can find where patterns emerge?

Your website assumes its conclusion and uses geometry to prop up this assumed conclusion. It doesn't work when speaking to someone who hasn't already assumed the conclusion, though.

The fact of the matter is that God IS a perfectly natural entity!

Okay, but this definition conflicts with the definitions of "God" (or "god") that I've been given by other theists. Why should I accept yours over theirs?

Seems you believe in the atheist's faulty paradigm which claims that God & nature are supposedly part of a zero sum equation.

There is no specific "atheist paradigm". Atheism is a lack of theism; a lack of belief in a god or gods. You have once again imposed your specific definition of a "God" onto atheism, assuming that yours is already established as the "real" deity and that all others can be disregarded. It doesn't work that way, and it's incredibly arrogant for you to insist that your "God" be given special consideration above all others without cause.

God is not some distant aloof "extra-natural" isolated enclosure. God is a natural entity who is a part of every molecule of the universe as well.

That begs the question then -- how did it all get here? Your God couldn't have created the entirety of the natural universe if God himself is a completely bound within the natural universe.

[Republic_of_Secession.]

Wait, so now not only are you assuming a Creator, but you're assuming a gender of this Creator as well? Again, you call me arrogant?

First of all: I am not "asuming a gender". God for one: does not have a gender. Since there is no neutral pronoun in the English language: scholars are stuck with using He. Note also the He is capitalized. Signifying the elevated status of it refering to an entity that would natually be above human based pronouns. I would have used a neuter or neutral pronoun if there existed such in the English language as there does in fact exist neutral pronouns in other languages.

Also:

One likely explanation for why the masculine pronoun He is used in referance to God is probably due to the fact that man is once removed from God while woman was purportedly twice removed -at least according to the Bible (ie: Adam was fromed from the Earth while Eve was formed from Adam). Thus the referance to God as He was likely started even before there was more than one gender. IE: when there was still only a he: Adam.

Therefore it is not a matter of "asuming a gender" but simply the risidual reality of the original nomenclature.

So you have such complete knowledge of the working of the universe to make such a proclamation? Perhaps you could share your monumental insights with the rest of us.

No. The fact that the universe is linear is a matter of pure obsevation. Are you claiming that there exists some areas of the universe that are non-linear? Perhaps you could share that information with the rest of us. Though I suppose Black Holes might indeed qualify as such.

When did geometry become "sacred"? Because people can find where patterns emerge?

Ha ha ha ha ha. No. Geometry is not "sacred". What I was refering to was Sacred Geomerty. The word sacred is not being used as an ajective but as a noun. Geometry & Sacred Geometry are two very different things. Sacred Geometry is not ordinary one-dimensional geometry, but rather the notion of predictable designs within designs (& multi-demensional ) which are complex but consitant formulas & (purportedly) tend to promote energy feilds which were formerly the domain of "esoteric" knowledge.

Your website

It is not "my" website.

assumes its conclusion and uses geometry to prop up this assumed conclusion.

Wrong. In fact it relates the prevelance of Sacred Geometry within the design of the universe. Which itself is a dead giveaway to intelligent design of the said universe.

It doesn't work when speaking to someone who hasn't already assumed the conclusion, though.

So did the universe intricately design itself all by itself complete with the use of complex formulae? That sounds more absurd than the notion of intelligent design.

Okay, but this definition conflicts with the definitions of "God" (or "god") that I've been given by other theists.

Theists are simply the gatekeepers of a theology. The true defintion of God can be found through natural forces & observations of the nature of the universe. The theists seem to be doing their best in perpetuating a false conception which tends to be somewhat antithetical to the true nature of God.

Why should I accept yours over theirs?

Well it is not "mine" per se. But simply the conclusions reached from observations.

There is no specific "atheist paradigm".

Except for the notion that God does not fit anywhere in it.

Atheism is a lack of theism; a lack of belief in a god or gods.

Though atheism can defintely be theistic in its approach & notably when they put their faith in the false god of one-dimensional & limited scientific data.

You have once again imposed your specific definition of a "God" onto atheism, assuming that yours is already established as the "real" deity and that all others can be disregarded.

What "others" are you refering to? The Annunaki of Sumer? The flying serpants of India? The Great Spirit of the Amerindian cultures? The Dragons of China? The "descending gods" of the Voleros of Mayan culute? The mythological gods of Rome & Greece?

It doesn't work that way,

Indeed. It doesn't work to impose an atheistic opinion in the face of contradictory evidence & that it be given special consideration above all other theories.

it's incredibly arrogant for you to insist that your "God" be given special consideration above all others without cause.

"My" God? God would logically be everyone's God. I nor any individual has a monopoly on the relationship with or understanding of God.

That begs the question then -- how did it all get here? Your God couldn't have created the entirety of the natural universe if God himself is a completely bound within the natural universe.

God could indeed have done so when considering the fact that the universe is essentially part of Him. The universe afterall would have to have been created out of his own essence & being. Furthermore: He is not "my" God. (as you are implying multiple realities that everyone has their "own" god). God would naturally be the God & Creator of all. Since God would have had to have created the universe out of Himself: everything & everyone would have to logically be part of God as the source of the creation.

[AlbionGirl]

Won't work; it's stupid. Thought they were supposed to be smarter than believers. I've got it, they can call themselves Disciples of Everything Accounted for and Defined (DEAD).

I've only met one atheist who claimed to be so and really was so, he was a very gentle, kind and good man. He would only mention that he was an atheist if it was relevant to the subject being discussed. He was an atheist to his core, but he acted like a Christian should act, and I always thought the world of him.

All the other atheists I met were just a bunch of losers who were mad at God for one reason or another, and in the end could be judged to be bigger believers than professed ones.

[Conservative Me]

Most athiests don't profess their beliefs unless they are asked or it is relevant to the situation. You may have met some that do otherwise, but they are the minority. I am sure you have met many atheists, but didn't realize it because it never "came up."

BTW, there is a woman who I met one time who heard that I was an athiest through a common friend and she tried to use it against me. Luckily the person she tried to use it against me with was a warm, generous person, who worried more about the type of person I am rather than my religions affiliation (or lack there of).

[Pedantic_Lady]

I'm an atheist, but you'll never see me referring to myself as a "bright." That's just stupid. Atheism has no real "leaders" and these people can't even pretend to speak for every non-believer.