"atheist - n. a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."

I think this guy has some great points and he seems to grasp an overwhelming awe of the God of Christianity, however, he seems to have a poor definition of atheism. Acknowledging one's inadequacy in the ability to describe a thing (any thing/person/concept/idea/etc.) is not equal to denying or disbelieving in that thing's existence.

I will agree with him in a certain sense that every religion is some other religion's atheism (I think I gathered that from what he said).

"Acknowledging one's inadequacy in the ability to describe a thing (any thing/person/concept/idea/etc.) is not equal to denying or disbelieving in that thing's existence." - flobi

In the same way, any theism we could "believe in", is always the belief in our own ability to accurately define God. If I ask you if you believe in "xyz", your only response would be to ask for a definition of "xyz". Without a definition, you can't make a judgment about its existence. Existence is more like a category. Well actually, it can be many categories. Human's exist, but that is not the same thing as existing as a plant. In fact when humans stop having certain traits of life we call them "vegetables". Dreams exist. I've had them. I can recount them and describe them, yet that is not human existence. To suggest that God exists would mean that you have a definition of what a "God existence" is. Without a definition of what it means to exist as God, you could not have any kind of theism. In this way, theism depends on a particular description (definition) of God. In the same way, any Atheism depends on a corresponding theism.

What people mean when they say that they "believe in God" is that they feel some level of confidence that their definition is correct. What Peter Rollins is suggesting is that atheism may be a healthy form of doubting human capability to define God.

Doubting your definition of God (even severely distrusting and rebuking it) is the ultimate form of faith since it demands that God must be bigger than any definition you could hold. For example, when you said...

"I think this guy has some great points and he seems to grasp an overwhelming awe of the God of Christianity" - flobi

...I think you belittled God with your statement because you're suggesting God is merely "God of Christianity". By renouncing phrases like "God of Christianity" I hope to give God more credit. By renouncing any definition (claiming atheism in this particular sense) I hope to claim God is more than these human attempts at defining God.

I think this theological perspective is biblical. In fact, I think this is what the early Jewish authors of Torah mean when they speak elusively about the name "I am" and elusively about the inability to see or contain "I am".

As always, thanks for stopping by and joining in the conversation.

I love this video. But unfortunately most Christians do not particularly accept the transcendence and unnameability of God that Rollins calls an "insight of Christianity". Christianity in its popular, mainstream, biblical form has always paid homage to a particular God with a particular name and particular attributes. While it pays lip-service to transcendence, it rarely has been willing to go the whole way in that direction. As someone who affirms the full transcendence of God, I frankly find myself alienated from the Christian tradition I love.