I have recently read 2 books (well, bits of 2 books) by CJ Werleman: ‘God Hates You…’ and ‘Jesus Lied…’ as well as a book explaining what Atheism is by Dan Steel

I have not enjoyed (sic) reading what I consider to be such utter trash since I read ‘The Christianity Myth’ by Ken Thackary.

I presume that Messrs Werleman and Steel, like Mr Thackary, are New Atheists, of the ilk that argue against the irrationality and absurdity of Faith by using irrational and absurd criteria to ‘support’ their claims.

So where does one start? Now, I am not claiming that all Theists are right but they, even the most basic Fundamentalists, do have one advantage over Atheists, their arguments are Logically Valid!

You may choose to disagree with their beliefs but, in most cases, you cannot fault their Argument. Atheists tend to waffle and make invalid

arguments.

The main thrust of my Argument is that if one has the intention of discussing, or arguing about, the existence or otherwise of God with another person then it behoves one, and the other one, to come to an agreement, even if only for the sake of Argument, as to what defines the term “God.’ and to define the term ‘God’ in as uncontentious a way as possible so that one is discussing what is ‘God’ and not what he, she or it, is named or whether you like him or not.

In any debate or discussion there must be a common starting point or agreement about what the issue is that is under scrutiny. In the absence of that commonality the debate cannot happen, or if it does it is little more than a slanging match which serves nobody any good at all.

I have tried to hold dialogues with Atheists but as soon as I mention the word ‘God’ they get all iffy and sniffy and go off in a sulk. So I will go into the situation further now.

In my endeavour to try and understand the nature and the whereabouts of God; I decided to revisit St Anselm’s ‘Proslogion , written in the 11^th century to propose  ontological proof of the existence of God, that God’s existence can be proved by reasoned and rational thought. Here’s what I found, or rather, where I stopped looking.

Anselm was the Archbishop of Canturbury, the most senior Christian clergyman in England. In writing his proof he called upon the works of scholars and philosophers from Classical Greece and mooted that  God was ‘That than none other can be Greater.’  He propounds that if the existence of God can be acknowledged in one’s mind then there could be something greater than that ‘imagined God’ and that would be a God that physically existed as physical reality is greater than mere mental existence.

He then proceeds to extol the virtues and nature of the Christian God as being ‘that of which none other can be greater’, after that statement, I have to be honest, he loses me…

St Anselm then argues, unsurprisingly for an Archbishop, that the Christian God is ‘That Than Which None Greater Can be Thought.’   He then goes on to detail an exposition of his statement which has invited elaboration and disputation through the ensuing centuries, even to the extent of convincing the great Bertrand Russell himself, albeit briefly, that the Argument was valid. (I suspect that it was St Anselm’s exposition that ‘de-convinced ‘ Russell!)

If we return to Anselm’s opening proposal then we can determine what God is; he is ‘That Than Which None can be Greater.’ and this has been elaborated further by stating that God is: ‘That Which Cannot be Thought Not to Exist.’ To my mind that would be defined as a Creator.

Here comes the problem facing interdisciplinary dialogue, Atheists cannot countenance using the word God and Theists can not countenance not using it in any discussion but until they do there can be no meaningful dialogue between the 2.

So, God is not non-existent neither is he an old grey bearded man sitting on a cloud, a sky fairy nor a flying spaghetti monster. To reverse Anselm’s statement ‘That Than Which None can be Greater’ is God. Which leads us to ponder Oolan Kaloofid’s query: Who is this God person anyway?

Think about it.

See you in the next post xx

My plan was to post this thread on my other blog: ‘From the Pulpit of…’ but I have decided that I will stay on this site as what I have to say is my  opinion and although we all know that I am right, Truth is best served by phrasing this as an opinion. (But not just any old opinion but it is MY opinion!

Many years have passed since I was accused of believing that ‘Eddie thinks it’s right because he has said it (I’m 66 years old now,  so that would first have been said about me some 58 years ago!) but that is not so, I don’t believe that something is right because I said it but I say something because it  is  right.( I’m a bit like the Pope on that score, only sometimes he says something that disagrees with what I believe,  so that proves that he is not always right!)

Not so many years have passed since  someone. I think that it was my wife..I  forget which one, number 2 or number 3 I suspect, told me,  during a row,  that I was the most arrogant man that she had ever met. My reply to her, and to any of you that may be thinking the same about me, was, Arrogance is for lesser men than me my dear.

Anyhoo, back to the matter in hand.  Atheists and the cognitive  thickness thereof.

I admit that my interactions have mostly been with Atheists on social media and as we all know, Twitter is not the best place for informed opinions and discussions but some of these people  have written books and articles. God bless their little cotton socks.

The 2 books that have occupied me lately are ‘All God Worshippers are Mad’  by JP Tate (hence my riposte ‘All Atheists are Thick!) and ‘Why God does not Exist…’ by Dan Steel, I have made short trips to books by CJ Werleman, his ‘God Hates You…’ and ‘Jesus Lied…’

What all these books have in common with all other Atheist works of the 20th and 21st centuries that I have read is a complete lack of understanding of what Atheism actually is and a vehement hatred for Christianity and Islam, blaming all the ills of the world on a God that they don’t  believe exists.

The title of this post is ‘in my opinion all atheists are thick’ but that is not necessarily true, not all of them are thick, some of them are stupid and the others may just be merely naive. (I suspect that there may be one or two intelligent ones out there but I have not seen any proof of that theory!

The main thrust of my Argument is that If one has the intention of discussing, or arguing about, the existence or otherwise of God with another person then it behooves one, and the other one, to come to an agreement, even if only for the sake of Argument, as to what defines the term “God.’ and to define the term ‘God’ in as uncontentious a way as possible so that one is discussing what is ‘God’ and not what he, she or it, is named. As in any d debate or discussion there must be a common starting point. In the absence of that commonality the debate cannot happen, or if it does it is little more than a slanging match which serves nobody any good.

I have tried to hold dialogues with Atheists but as soon as I mention the word ‘God’ they get all iffy and sniffy and go off in a sulk. So in my next post I will go into the situation furthrr.

Think about it