All Comments (77)

We are one of the Major Marketers of all brands/models of G.S.M/NEXTEL PHONE. We are a registered firm and one of the leading brokers in the G.S.M/NEXTEL PHONE Market worldwide.We do have Brand New/Refurbished (21 days return) phones in stock. Our brand New Phones are in their Original box. With one year International warranty.All accessories intact.Our prices are very Competitive. We look forward to a good trading time with you Phones and prices.
Brand new Nokia N95 **** 290 USD
Brand New Nokia N93 **** 240 USD
Brand New Nokia N90 **** 220 USD
Brand New Nokia 8800 ****210 USD
Brand New Nokia N92 **** 205 USD
Brand New Nokia N91 **** 230 USD
Thanks,
Linkserve telecom Marketing Manager.
Brett Becham
linkservetelecom@yahoo.com

Contradictions in the written word of the bible is not faith it is denial. No long years of study are going to make 2 + 2 not equal 4 (square root proofs aside).

The arguement was not about proving faith but using the a conflicted bible to decide your real world actions. However, since you brought that up how on earth can say the human mind cannot determine what is real or not. Your faith is the product of the same weak human mind. The human mind is the only perspective you or any human can take on in anything.

You also do not understand atheists if you think they 'believe'. Atheists don't believe in atheism, they don't feel the need to resort to belief about anything that is not real.

It breaks down like this: no one wants to die but the only truth there is, is that you are going to die and you know it. The religious decide to believe they can sneak around this only truth into an afterlife. This is intelligent as your brain has evolved to get you out of every life threathening situation.

But you also then must believe in a soul to get you to the afterlife and a God to eternally reward or punish you. Then you have to believe in a religion in order to undertand how to worship the God and thus gain leverage over him to get your soul into the afterlife. The religion also needs a written dogma that also needs to be believed in. So what started off as a simple belief now has a huge religious framework thrown around.

The problem is in doing so the religious devalue their real lives as these become just someplace to mark time in before thier infinitely better and longer afterlives begin.

They also have now made death something to truly fear as because they believe in an afterlife they believe they will experience their deaths, that is, being ripped away from everything they know and love. Is it any wonder they then try to grab onto a God to balance that horror.

The atheist reacts to death, not by believing in complex (and conflicting) religious frameworks but by simply dealing with reality. There is no real world reality attached to an afterlife (or the lesser issues of souls and Gods).

Death is the end. Stop.

Hence, the atheist knows (not believes) that he is not going to experience a death, as the only thing he will experience are the last moments of his life and life is nothing to fear. He also knows that his real life is the only life he gets so every moment is treasured.

As I said most people who claim to be atheists are not. Others do not reflect on what the absence of an afterlife really means and hence are still living in fear of death and searching for an escape clause which is nearly always religious in nature. So in short there is nothing that religion can promise that reality cannot deliver without resorting to belief in things that do not exist.

Brett,

I do find the OT and NT to be compatible - but only after years of study. And it is about faith. I cannot prove the value of faith. You say faith doesn't stand up to proof and reason. Fair enough. But I retort that the human mind is a pathetic standard against which to judge. If God is real (which I say He is) then the idea that His ways would be inscrutable is not at all untenable.

I do respect the beliefs of atheists. I think individualslike Dr Dennet are to be praised for their true kindness of spirit and attempted honesty. But I have found most atheists to be disgruntled former believers - wanting to "burst the bubble" of those "idiot Christians". These individuals are not quite the enlightened braintrusts they see themselves as.

Charels M,

The OT is completed and perspectivized by the NT?

Various items in the OT are direct contradictions to those in the NT. No matter what perspective you take. In addition, the OT directly contradicts itself. You either believe 'Thou should not kill' or as in Deuteronomy it of OK kill every man, woman and child in infidel cities. You just can't paper over these glaring inconsistencies with the word 'faith'.

It is not about proving religion. You simply cannot use a conflicted dogma to decide your 'good' actions without cherry picking one side of the contradiction or the other. If your dogma doesn't get genocide right, what does it get right?

If we are talking atheist versus religious I think you really do not know what the opposing arguements are?

Also you should be insulted by people who ridicule your beliefs but not by an atheist who simply disagrees with you as is willing to lay out the exact reasons why reality provides everything that religion promises and more.

Many atheists aren't. If they still beleieve in ghosts, angels or reincarnation they are religious. Also many say religion is a crutch. So it is but so is everthing else. Many do not examine the implications of their choice not to believe.

Jonathan Switzer:

May I offer the United States of America as a successful nation with munticultures? Would a single culture make America more successful? Which one should we keep? I like Mexican food but then there's Chinese food to say nothing of Japanese automobiles. This will not be an easy decision to make.

Were the communists Godless or religionless? One may not control beliefs, only the public manifestations of beliefs. Is it good for one group to declare another to be hell bound sinners?

All love is love of one's self. I love you because I love myself. If I do not love myself then I cannot love you. Do I actually love you?

If the children can learn modern math with all those zeros and ones, less thans and greater thans, estimates and all, can they not learn to love themselves? Is there a relationship between modern math and love?

Maybe the children should be given a look at all the faiths and allowed to make up their own minds, after they mature a bit? Don't forget that atheism is a faith just like Devil worship.

Charles M:

"If God designed things such that the veracity of His religion could be discerned, proved, and believed by even iconoclastic professors then where would the faith element be?"

It's not a very compelling or well-justified idea that God mustn't be provable. Maybe God isn't provable because he doesn't exist. Or maybe there is a supernatural creator/power, and he/she/it is outside of our scope of knowledge. Believing that the OT and NT have it right seems like a heck of a leap. I've been reading the OT of late, and it strikes me as completely insane, bizarrely inconsistent, and blatantly misogynistic -- though no doubt punctuated with the occasional interesting story or turn of a phrase.

"What makes me shake my head are those who think that they in their great intellectual honesty have discovered that all faith is grounded in myth and that only they are smart enough or brave enough to discern it. Curiously these folks tend to have more criticism and ridicule for Christianity than for other 'faiths' - perhaps because they have discovered that it is the great imperialist white male religion. Then they preach tolerance in the same breath while ridiculing anyone who believes in the Bible."

I'm happy to ridicule other faiths. They're all equally unfounded. I will give Christianity and Judiasm a big thumbs up for being less likely to give you a death sentence for criticizing them. Thanks, y'all!

One thing folks like me are not tolerant of is intolerance, and there's a lot of that about in the Christian Right. Gay hate, science hate, Muslim hate, and all kinds of disregard for womens' rights.

Christianity is the religous brand that's most in-our-face in this country, so you're going to hear more reaction against its excesses. If Christians would stop breathing down our necks, you probably wouldn't hear a peep out of us.

I was wondering if someone might show me from history the success of a nation that had competing worldviews at its center (multiculturalism). India is a poor example due to its pervasive and vile caste system. European nations that have embraced this do so in their decline, not their vitality. Communist nations have repeatedly failed (though they were more of an a-culturalism in keeping with a-theism). Many feel that the United States is moving into its twilight and as it does so, it too is showing a multi-cultural tendency.

I just have to say that I find the encouragement to raise one's kids multi-cultural is disingenous. It is simply irreligious and agnostic at its source.

True Buddhism has no belief in God. Rather, it believes that all of life is suffering and this is best resolved by slowly disconnecting oneself from all of life. Hence, a good Buddhist husband is encouraged to leave his wife and kids if his goal is enlightenment. There is no inherent responsibility to which he is...to be responsible. Even the Dalai Lama is guilty of caring too much about this world (Tibet, specifically) that he is likely to reincarnate hundreds of times due to his attachment to a goal.

True Hinduism seeks to extinguish all flame of personality in the great Atman (which belies its claim to diversity and acceptance of all different gods.) It's claim to personalize faith ultimately leads to an impersonalization of all faith. Of course, perhaps a more impersonal society is to be desired?

Take Islam, there can be NO personal connection with God. Only servitude and submission (hence the name Muslim). God is too holy to interact with you and I personally.

So on one hand we are swallowed up by the great impersonal or on the other hand we are kept at a distance unable to personally interact with what is holy.

My experience of the multi-religion crowd is that they only really have criticism for Christianity. For all the rest they have grace and curious benevolence. Of course, they have never lived in a society ruled by other religions. Often they have never lived in a society ruled by atheism. (if they have they did so with the barrier of American wealth they brought with them i.e. Angelina Jolie) So, they find themselves in the winter of their discontent because their rejection of Christianity leaves them unsatisfied with all religion. Or really, all of life.

The problem with Christianity is that it is full of sinners saved by grace. So, it looks, well, human. The bigger problem is that it embodies the grace, intimate personal acceptance and holiness that is left so imbalanced in the other great religions. So, we find ourselves committed to the great commandment (golden rule) and resistent to the giver of that rule (eastern mystical orientation that we have) We find ourselves in love with the idea of an all-loving God and hindered in our ability to call anything right or wrong. Hence, our glaring rudeness and lack of love and gratitude back toward Him.

I would simply warn that we not choose an approach to spirituality that is incapable of identifying evil when it arrives. Spiritual Acquired Immune Deficiency only means that our children will die of common spiritual colds. If there is evil, we must organically be able to identify it and quarantine it lest it infiltrate the rest of society. Hitler slipped past Nazi Germany's ability to identify evil. The consequences speak for themselves.

God makes mistakes. God's mistakes must be fixed.

The OT is God's law as laid down by Moses, straight from God.

The NT is "fixing" the problems with the OT. Jesus came to "change the law."

The next step is the MT to fix all the problems caused by the OT and the NT. What does MT stand for anyhow? Surely that's not Muhammad's testament or the Momon testament. Misleading testament?

We will now stand and testify, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help us God.

Will God never get the story straight?

Brett,

The problem is that religion presents itself as absolute truth that is immutable: 'now and always'. If the old testament was rejected and the new testament classed as the only true gospel, then once again you have a huge contradiction. What is 'gospel' would have evolved from the old to the new testament. Christianity could no longer claim to have immutable truth.

The OT is never rejected - but is viewed as completed and perspectivized by the NT. Jesus and the NT writers show how the OT fits into proper theology.

Believe me - I once thought as you do. But Christianity is a matter of faith. If God designed things such that the veracity of His religion could be discerned, proved, and believed by even iconoclastic professors then where would the faith element be?

I have read everything from Falwell to Sam Harris and from Augustine to Crossan. I know what the opposing arguments are.

What makes me shake my head are those who think that they in their great intellectual honesty have discovered that all faith is grounded in myth and that only they are smart enough or brave enough to discern it. Curiously these folks tend to have more criticism and ridicule for Christianity than for other "faiths" - perhaps because they have discovered that it is the great imperialist white male religion. Then they preach tolerance in the same breath while ridiculing anyone who believes in the Bible.

Let us pray some more:

Our father - says everyone's father
who are in heaven - says father is in the sky
hallowed be thy name - says father has a halo, (clue to his identity)
thy kingdom come - says fahter is invited to come to earth
thy will be done - says whatever father wants father gets
on earth as it is in heaven - says he's the big boss there and here, (another clue)
give us this day our daily bread - says he will replace Pharaoh the present daily bread guy
and forgive us our trespasses - says we request the forgivness of sins
as we forgive those who trespass against us - says we are forgiving
lead us not into temptation - says Pharaoh tempts us. Don't be like Pharaoh.
but deliver us from evil - says turn us into spirits, shed our evil bodies
for thine is the power, the kingdom and the glory for ever and ever. - says I submit to you
Amen - the name of the author, Amenophis IV, Pharaoh.

Shall the little children be taught this? It's one of those Bible based faiths, just another interpretation.

. Hail Mary - says hello
. full of grace - says she's noibility, "your grace"
. the Lord - the one in charge
. is with thee - says she's the Lord
. blessed art thou - says she's God
. amongst women - more than one God, all women
. and blessed is - says there's still another God
. the fruit of thy womb - says it's her baby

her baby is Jesus. Given: Jesus is God. Jesus is blessed :: blessed means God.

This is a rejection of the notion that the mother of God is not God.

We must be careful not to eliminate the father of Jesus. As it now stands Jesus had no siginficant mother. Unlike cats and dogs that are all mothered by cats and dogs, Gods only have fathers.

We can't teach that to the children because sex is dirty. Think of the dirty thoughts children have of the Virgin Mary being impregnated by God and what their fruitful imaginations come up with for scenarios of how they did "it."

Charles M

The first problem is that the stories in the OT were witnessed too were they not?

The second problem is that is no christian sect on earth says that the old testament is not gospel (or no longer gospel) and gospel is supposed to be absolute truth.

The problem is that religion presents itself as absolute truth that is immutable: 'now and always'. If the old testament was rejected and the new testament classed as the only true gospel, then once again you have a huge contradiction. What is 'gospel' would have evolved from the old to the new testament. Christianity could no longer claim to have immutable truth.

The ironic thing is that would then reflect the real world in which (all) morality and everything else evolves. Sadly, public (or herd)morality even more readily changes to adapt and reflect its changing environment.

Anyone using a nuclear weapon in a time of peace would be regarded as a rogue nation with no morality. But we had no problem with burning to death ten of thousands of women and children in Japan during World War II because public morality allowed such acts because the public were simply sick and tired of war and wanted it over.

Charles M, it is very convient to separate the NT from the OT. It is more convient to separate the 72 "books" of the Bible from the stack that is over 850 "books" tall. That's an awful lot of "by gosh and by gollly."

We know for a fact that no one was there when God said, "let there be light" don't we? That part of the Bible must be pure fiction and nothing else. Fiction is the work of "inspired" writers. We are all temples of the Holy Ghost and therefore all writings are "the inspired words of God." That's good old fashioned "round house" reasoning.

Blessed are they who live in round rooms for they shall never be cornered.

God no more inspired the Bible than God inspired Jim Jones to do the Jonsetown mass suicide, Jack the ripper or the hillside strangler. Well, there is the self verifying logic, God is responsible for everything. So I guess you win the point. The Bible is the absolute word of God.

That still doesn't answer the question, whcih God is it? All supernatural beings are Gods even Devils, by definition. So even the contention that Moses sold his soul to the Devil is so, self verifying reasoning. Moses did make a deal with some supernatural being, the father of Jesus? You're not suggesting dropping the OT?

Mark Eaton posted: "As I've said in another post, children's minds are like a vaccum in space, if left open they will be filled with something. Take Jeff's children for instance. He left discussion of beliefs or religion completely wide open to his children. Now that they are grown, I would say that they have no beliefs at all."

There are more beliefs than merely religious ones. There are beliefs about how a good society should work, what values are important in life, what it is that makes life worth living. Thinking about these and many other topics is very fulfilling. It's not like atheists have one empty slot in their mind's sorting system, the other compartments take over very nicely.

Brett,

The Bible makes no absolute claims that are not refuted in other chapters of the same book.

This a bit of a generalization. The Bible was penned by people and has human elements to it. Just look at Genesis.

But the NT was written as a document of witness. The presentation of the essence of Christianity in the NT is pretty clearly laid out.

Tonio,

Perhaps I should clarify what I mean. I would not want to live in a society where Christianity was forced on everyone - or anyone for that matter.

But I would love to live in a world where everyone's life revolved around God - by choice.

And yes you are correct - a perfect society will never exist on earth.

Tonio! We have had Christian societies in the past, 320CE through July 4, 1776. Of course the true Christian society is loving, kind, gentle and filled with Christian charity. Now take the Inquisitions for example and if you don't like that example think of all the religious freedom the Pilgrims brought to the new world, (Salem).

Those who ignore history are sure to repeat it. I know where there's a woman that we can find witnesses who will swear she's a witch. You can find the witnesses at church. Hey, hey, hey! We can have a good old fashioned "burn the witch at the stake." She'll probably just wiggle her nose and put the fire out so we better hang her instead.

I can't wait for all that Christian sweetness.

"As a Christian I would love to see a 'Christian society' where the faith was just a way of life..."

Charles, even though your intentions are good, that statement bothers me. A one-dogma society goes against the principle of freedom of conscience, and in practice would entail sacrificing most personal freedoms. I believe that is not your intention, of course. But I also believe that a perfect human society is impossible because people will never be perfect. Changing society so everyone held the same religious beliefs wouldn't magically make people more moral.

The Bible makes no absolute claims that are not refuted in other chapters of the same book. You are just cherry picking the bits that fit with your personality and what that personality finds palatable as 'good'.

"Judge ye not" and "vengence is mine" is balanced by the numerous biblical characters who took vengence (just look at the multiple genocides of Joshua) and judged many.

These perpetrators insane acts are always explained away by them being aligned, advised or commanded by God's wishes. When these wishes seem directly in conflict with other more loving sections of the biblcal dogma, the weak excuse is that is that it is all part of God's mysterious plan. In other words, pick the morality that best suits your personality, pretend those bits are absolute and ignore the contradictions.

Yestme mentions astrology. That is the same. 12 off the shelf personalitys to align yourself with. We all of course have aspects of all 12 of them.

Yest Me,

The Christian sees the Bible as God's message to him/her. As such there is an interpretation - an interpretation which is fairly clear when big points are in view.

Christianity makes bold claims and sticks by them. Sam Harris is right when he says that the liberal Pagels/Crossan/Borg Christianity is not credible - the Bible makes very definite claims which can not all be subsumed under "judge not..." Either it is right or it is not.

If the God of the universe did in fact visit earth then all bets are off as to what might have occurred. I choose to have faith.

Anonymous,

Except of course if they are gay -- in that case let's definitely ostracize them. Oh, and the same for the polytheists like Hindus. And the kids probably don't need to respect those 'ACLU-types' -- you know, those godless liberal atheists and their ilk.

Those are your words not mine.

I know many gays and I treat them as I would anyone else. I do not think that they are living a moral lifestyle - but that is between them and God - not me.

Do you think that "brights" are the only ones who have read scholarly books or can think original thoughts? You sound like one of those college freshman who has just taken his first philosophy class and has now "seen the light" regarding the oppressive imperialist Christianity that his parents practice.

sorry - couldn't resist that.

Chritianity makes claims that Jesus is God's answer to this world's problems. By definition if Jesus is "the way" then another "religious practice" is not. I realize that is exclusive. But that is the proposition. And I choose to accept it.

Jeff, we can't hold out much hope for what you advocate. At least in the present atmosphere, however. They said people couldn't be weaned off cigarettes. So all is not lost yet.

All the people of earth will never be enlightened. There are still a few who insist the earth is falt. Then there are the astrological charts that are still a popular favorite. Not too long ago major decisions were made based upon astrology, (Nancy Regan). We are now told those decisions ended the cold war and we won. What we won is still unknown.

I've had a laugh or two hearing astrology being discussed in the church yard by the devout. Then there's the case of a woman our friends insist is a witch. She won a $53,000 prize for just being at an Indian casino which definitely confirms it. We must not deny the absolute truths. Speak the magic terms and phrases for there's great reward for true believers. It's when you do that voo doo that you do when you do what you do do.

For those who are religious and visiting Dr. Dennett's column, I take the liberty of highly recommending his latest book -- Breaking the Spell -- which provides an interesting, provocative and respectful engagement for intelligent believers to test a few of the more traditional assumptions about belief. Nicely written too.

Dear Mark Eaton,
Children's minds are indeed vacuums. People who've been totally isolated by circumstance in their formative years will never acquire the mental functioning required to subsist in our modern culture, much less be able to observe social, political or religious niceties. Such is the strength and such is the necessity of human culture. I gave my children plenty. I gave them an education that enriched them with verifiable truths from the real world. The sciences, mathematics, social sciences, the Arts. What I left them free to discover for themselves were the ideas people have about the unknowables and the myriad scenarios they've made up to try to describe and explain. My son came home one day worrying for the well being of a friend. She had told him some astonishing things, but his true concern took hold when he realized she actually believed them. My second grade son had been playing with the kindergarten daughter of our evangelical Baptist neighbors. He had the ability to discern. It was already too late for the girl.
(As far as beliefs go) my children have PLENTY of knowledge - now. The desire comes of wanting to understand the strange belief culture that they live in; wanting to understand the people that they commune with every day: teachers, students, friends, lovers, political leaders, inspired thinkers, inspiring artists. It is wrong to inculcate your children in their most innocent formative years into what's got to be the most subjective and contradictory interpretations of reality there can be. Better is the world where, instead of relying on Belief, all the people who used to be children rely on their own independent well educated minds to forge a meaningful life for themselves. This life in this beautiful world is all that we have. Best not to waste this one life thinking about, longing for, waiting for the next one. There is no next one. There is plenty here. There is plenty now. Open your minds and hearts to it. Imagine how wonderful our existance on our planet might be if everyone put their all into the here and now.

Charles M, the difficulty in "moral character" is who's version of morality are we talking about?

Religion assumes the right, duty and obligation to decide what is and what is not moral. That's assume and not authorized. The authority is implied. Religion has the absolute word of God, the Bible. Is the Bible the word of God?

Interpretation 1501 http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul

The Bible requuires interpretation. There are at least 1,500 interpretations that are officially sanctioned, qualifies the interpreter for tax relief. Will number 1501 also qualify?

Tonio, there's a world of difference in saying I believe in what my minister says, the Bible, other things and I believe in God. At a mimimum God ranks third in all religious beliefs that must begin by believing someone's version of God.

Faith is therefore in the person that tells us there is a God and follows with God's demands. When we get our faith in the person then that faith must come with his credentials. Where do they, his knowledge of God come from if not the "sacred scriptures" the Bible?

1. Faith is in the minister, God's vicar. The word vicar means attorney with the power to legally sign God's name.

2. Faith comes from the book known as the Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon etc. All are the word of God.

3. At last. God!

I wonder how many if any actually have faith in God.

Religion is theater. Ministers are performners that perform for a fee. In the past that fee was known as a tithe, (still is in some places). Take the word tithe to it's inception and it's "taxes paid to God." The minister is God's tax collector.

The word faith by itself is like the word red. What if you were told to have red? Got red?

Charles M:

"If anything we have seen a deplorable decrease in the moral character of our society - and I find it coincident with the efforts of groups like the ACLU to purge any remnants of Christianity from government."

By almost any measure you would like to define, the US is more religious than it was 50 years ago. I would agree that this change is certainly partially responsible for the deplorable decrease in moral character.

"As a Christian I would love to see a "Christian society" where the faith was just a way of life."

Ahh, if only we had a Christian version of the Taliban enforcing strict obedience to Christian rules. I could see the political commercials now -- "A burning witch in every pot".

"I have tried and will contiue to try to show them that we must respect everyone equally - even if they look different or have different customs."

Except of course if they are gay -- in that case let's definitely ostracize them. Oh, and the same for the polytheists like Hindus. And the kids probably don't need to respect those 'ACLU-types' -- you know, those godless liberal atheists and their ilk. [For some reason I keep going back to the movie line 'We like all kinds of music here -- Country AND Western.']

Tonio,

I certainly understand the importance of not forcing religious beliefs on children in school.

But I think Vast Left was way off in claiming that society has been religicized. If anything we have seen a deplorable decrease in the moral character of our society - and I find it coincident with the efforts of groups like the ACLU to purge any remnants of Christianity from government.

As a Christian I would love to see a "Christian society" where the faith was just a way of life - but I realize that cannot happen in a country that is not 100% Christian - and as such I do not advocate such a thing.

I intend to raise my kids in an environment which is as saturated with Jesus as I can. I have tried and will contiue to try to show them that we must respect everyone equally - even if they look different or have different customs.

But for me Christianity is not just a "custom" - it is life.

Yest Me, I don't see how one can separate a claim about God from religion. If one says there is a God, one is making a claim about the supernatural, which is a big part of religion but certainly not the only part. The same is true if one says there are many gods, no gods, or some other type of supernatural beings such as animal spirits.

Charles M, you're right about Christianity's essence being in disagreement with the framework I offered. I'm sure this is the case for many other religions as well. My personal objective in this discussion is to take a position outside of any religious dogma. Most religious make some sort of claims about the supernatural, and I'm trying not to favor some claims over others. I don't expect or suggest that anyone here do the same, because I oppose the idea of telling people what religious beliefs to hold.

Also, your comment to Vast Left about school prayer - I think we need to distinguish between public school students praying on their own and public school teachers leading prayers. The first is constitutionally protected while the second is not, and that's the way it should be. I don't want my daughters' school to prevent them from praying on their own, but I don't want the school making them pray to someone else's deity or deities, either.

1. I can be a low functioning animal.

2. I can be a high functioning animal.

3. I can live in a dream world and be whatever I please.

Kinda like deciding what to have at McDonalds. But no matter what I chose I get super sized.

At McDonalds no one watches me and then declares that I'm not fit to live because I chose the wrong thing. They aren't committing suicide to terrorize big Mac eaters are they?

I see great confusion here brought about by a failure to recognize the difference between God and religion. Are they the same thing? The supreme court has ruled they're not. If they are then "under God" must be removed from the pledge.

We need a clear definition of religion that's independent of God. There can be Godless religion can there not?

Dr Dennett's contention that some religions should thrive while other go extince totals out to all religions go extinct. They all need "forced ignorance" to survive. Forced ignorance is a good definition of religion, the compelling attribute of them all.

Tonio,

In my view, there's an ethical principle of not causing harm to other people, and this principle transcends the dogma of all religions.

Fair enough - that's a good principle. But my point is that Christianity (as a theism) in its essence is not compatible with this framework - where human principles transcend "religious dogma." In Chrsitianity God transcends all humanity - not the other way around.

Vast Left,

In what way is our government becoming "religicized"? I think it is the opposite! Our grade school kids are given violent video games, filthy movies, condoms, and obscene, demeaning rap music - and all of it is protected by "freedom of speech" - unless God forbid someone wants to say a prayer - then that of course is not allowed. Christianity is not "in" or "politically correct".

My point is that by its nature Christianity makes definite claims about God. To say that those claims should be conditional based on not offending others is to say that God is not God. And people should respect my beliefs - and not just the beliefs which are compatible with today's multicultural activism.

And by the way I do not think that Falwell et al speak for God.

I am Catholic. My husband is Jewish. I suppose that puts me in the middle of this discussion.

When I first brought my husband-to-be home, it was a Christmas, and we all went to Midnight Mass. Afterward, my dad remarked to me that it is possible to read the same scripture over and over for years, and still not understand it. What he was referring to was one of the Pauline epistles that explained that the Good News of Salvation is that we, along with the Jews, are heirs to the Kingdom of God.

I have never had any problem with my family over my husband's religion.

People have problems when they confuse religious custom with religious faith. Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between custom and faith, and so knowing about the experience of others can help. There was a time when being Catholic meant that you had to believe (or at least say) that the Earth was the center of the universe. People thought that an assertion that the Earth revolves around the Sun was an assertion that God is not God. To me, the Catholic church's experience with that little mistake has only shown that God is much greater, and the Universe He created is much bigger, than we thought.

As I've said in another post, children's minds are like a vaccum in space, if left open they will be filled with something. Take Jeff's children for instance. He left discussion of beliefs or religion completely wide open to his children. Now that they are grown, I would say that they have no beliefs at all. I would suggest what Jeff and his wife gave them (as far as beliefs go) nothing. No desire, no knowledge, nothing. Is it so wrong to want our children to believe as we do? If you are partriotic, do you want your children to also love their country? We believe in One God, Supreme, Loving, Just, Holy and in His Son, Jesus. We simply want our children to see Him in that way also.

Can anyone speak on a subject to which they have no desire, no knowledge, no information? Most of us would say no, but is that what many of you are doing when you discuss Evangelical Christianity? Do you really understand the tenets of our faith or belief? Or do you have only a superficial knowledge and speak from someone else's in-depth knowledge? Will you quote Scripture to me as proof of your knowledge? Please do not. I know more Scripture than most of you.

If we do not teach our children of this One God in-depth with love and compassion, how will they ever get to know Him? Who will teach them? We should impart our beliefs and morals to our children. They are what make us individuals. It is our responsibility to teach our children. So many of us parents have left that up to others, schools, universities, the state, peers. Do we really think they can do a better job or have we just become lazy? Will any of us believe that a teacher can impart more wisdom to a child than a kind, gracious, loving grandfather can? Give me the grandfather any day of the week.

Please, get involved with your children. Don't be a wimp on telling them the tough stuff. Don't gloss over the issues. Be honest and sincere with them. They can see through to the heart of the issue. They will understand. They will choose for themselves. We just want them to make an informed decision.

Charles M said "I would disagree B man. I want my children to know that there is more to life than living as a high-functioning animal and dying only to be buried and forgotten."

Of course there is more to life than that - I have a hunch that several high functioning non-human animals are aware of that. There is some evidence for a musical inclination in wild chimpanzees and art by tame gorrillas. There is no need for a belief in a deity to provide the 'more' aspect of life. Go to a library, a museum, a concert. Go outside, observe nature, interact with people - you'll find a lot of this 'more' stuff.

Charles M.,

"I am troubled by the amount of bitterness so many here hold toward Christianity. It seems as though it is those who preach "tolerance" are the very ones bashing Christians as "ignorant". Should not tolerance extend to all?"

This is simply equivalation , pretending that the small amount of static that humanists have raised in the face of rising theocracy is somehow an equivalent sin.

One thing that people should be intolerant of is intolerance, and that's the stock-in-trade of America's rabid Christian Right. It's only in the context of the religification of our government that you're hearing atheists come out of the closet and make a fuss.

"I want my children to know that there is more to life than living as a high-functioning animal and dying only to be buried and forgotten."

Charles M, while I agree with that in principle, I also believe that no religious dogma has exclusive title to that idea. What is wrong with encouraging one's children to develop their own answers to life's meaning and purpose?

Just because one disagrees with Christian dogma, doesn't mean that one rejects the idea of moral absoluteness. In my view, there's an ethical principle of not causing harm to other people, and this principle transcends the dogma of all religions. Why should that principle have to rely on any dogma about the supernatural? What is wrong with teaching one's children that harming other people is wrong? When they grow up, they will be expected to make ethical decisions without being told what to do.

Christianity's guidelines for living a fuller life may or may not have value. (Personally, I think it's unnecessary and irresponsible to threaten people with hell to try to get them to follow those guidelines.) The guidelines offered by other religions also may or may not have value. Why do those guidelines have to rely on any specific dogma about the supernatural? Why should someone have to believe in a specific dogma to live a fuller life? Doesn't the idea of being told what to believe go against the idea of faith? What is wrong with encouraging children to find their own ways of living fuller lives?

I would disagree B man. I want my children to know that there is more to life than living as a high-functioning animal and dying only to be buried and forgotten.

And I reject the position that sees the almighty human spirit as the highest governing principle - that sees any concept of moral absoluteness as antiquated. I believe that God can be known because He chose to reveal Himself. That does not entail, however, believing everything that comes from the mouth of Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell!

I think your representation of Christianity belies a seemingly angstful misunderstanding. Christianity posits that God came seeking man and has set up guidelines for living which will lead to a fuller life.

I realize that not everyone agrees with me. While I believe that I am right I respect the freedom of others to have their own beliefs. I do think that we must see religious tolerance as extending to include the beliefs of all - not just those who are secular humanists.

I am interested in Daniel Dennett's concluding remark:
"A religion that can thrive in such an atmosphere of shared knowledge deserves to thrive; a religion that depends on enforced ignorance deserves to go extinct."

On the whole I agree with Dennett's remark, but I do not understand how his naturalistic worldview would permit him to claim that one style of religion "deserves" to thrive and another "deserves" to go extinct. Natural selection doesn't deal with "deserving" and "undeserving." It's a series of contingencies about what reproduces and survives, and what doesn't.

The idea of "deserving" belongs to the realm of ethics, morality, and judgment, a part of the human psyche with which Dennett seems generally unfamiliar.

I also wonder about the idea of raising children to figure out their own religion. We don't raise them to figure out mathematics and reading, astronomy and chemistry on their own. It's so much easier with a guide, a teacher. It took centuries for people to figure out fractions, elliptical orbits, and the table of the elements. The kids need some help to get there in one lifetime.

And just as there are different ways to learn reading (phonics, see-and-say, whole language, gingerbread letters, sandpaper letters, etc.) -- which all seem to work, although there is sometimes heated debate about which works best -- so there are many different paths to religion.

Non-conceptual knowledge, the knowledge that comes from experiential learning, also needs a teacher. We learn kindness or selfishness, generosity or judgment, curiosity or fear, awe or cynicism, yearning or self-sufficiency, through example and practice.

It is immoral to indoctrinate children in religions dogma that is not supported by one shred of evidence, goes against all known natural law, and which shuts out any and all discussion or criticism, especially when these children are defenseless to think about such weighty matters for themselves, and ESPECIALLY when you teach these children that they were born with original sin, could possibly experience the horrors of hell, and that their thoughts and actions are under surveillance by a vengeful god at all times.

That is bad parenting. That is immoral parenting.

It seems that most people here, including Dr Dennett, see religion as an aspect of human behavior and culture. As such any religion which would claim exclusiveness is viewed as "ignorance".

Christianity is a theistic religion. Authentic NT Christianty is based first and foremost on devotion to and absolute God. Those who would distill Jesus' teaching down to include only "judge not" and "love thy neighbor" have are not practicing any sort of real Christianity. As Sam Harris pointed out this is merely humanism cloaked in religious symbols.

Tolerance does not mean that one abandons his/her convictions to avoid offending others. The tolerant individual accepts the beliefs of others and affirms their right to practice them. But any belief system which is subordinate to the sensitivities of other people is not much more than an aspect of culture. For the individual who believes in an almighty God this is unthinkable.

I am troubled by the amount of bitterness so many here hold toward Christianity. It seems as though it is those who preach "tolerance" are the very ones bashing Christians as "ignorant". Should not tolerance extend to all?

In reading this Comment, I am reminded of Kahlil Gibran's words:

On Children

And a woman who held a babe against her bosom said, "Speak to us of Children." And he said:

Your children are not your children.

They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.

They come through you but not from you,

And though they are with you, yet they belong not to you.

You may give them your love but not your thoughts.

For they have their own thoughts.

You may house their bodies but not their souls,

For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.

You may strive to be like them, but seek not to make them like you.

For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.

You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth.

The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite, and He bends you with His might that His arrows may go swift and far.

Let your bending in the archer's hand be for gladness;

For even as he loves the arrow that flies, so He loves also the bow that is stable.

I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic school through 12th grade. I celebrated the sacraments and lived a Catholic life. I am now 24 and have since discovered that Catholicism is not for me.

But my point is that my religious upbringing was invaluable for the fact that it taught me to be a spiritual person. It is my belief that being authentically spiritual is most important, and if/when you find a religion to match, you are truly blessed. Parents, I believe it is more important to teach your kids to be spiritual and god-seeking, so that whatever their practice will be as an adult, they are true and authentic in their expression.

"God has no religion." ~Mahatma Gandhi

1. I am thy lord thy king. Thou shalt not have strange kings before me.

2. Thou shalt not take the name of thy lord thy king in vein.

1. I am thy servant thy president. Thou shalt have but one of me at a time.

2. Thou shalt speak as thou pleasests about the quality of my servitude.

Presidents can be fired. Kings must die to terminate their servitude.

An informed electorate is the key to democracy. Education is the key to informing the electorate. Teach no lies.

My wife and I were "Naturalists" at the time we had children. We told them absolutely nothing about religion. They, of course, got clues as they went through their school carreers. My daughter lost her best friend in high school when the born-again friend could no longer tolerate my daughter's lack of belief. I would characterize her as a passive atheist now at age 27. She's well adjusted, though not undamaged by astracism. My son wrote an essay in his personal journal while in high school lamenting how he can't feel as close as he'd like to friends who accept the "fairy tales". I'd characterize him as an active atheist, and on excellent terms with his life at 22. I must admit that the children may very well have sensed our perspective in their formative years even though we never addressed the subject directly. This is a rare thing to do, of course, but we felt it was the only ethical thing to do at the time. We're both proud of our children and the decisions they've come to after considerable independant thinking. I suspect that if everyone raised their children this way, religious dogmatism wouldn't last long at all. Sadly, most parents are so personally invested in their own beliefs that they wouldn't risk the "loss" of their children to true independance.

I apologize that I was not clear in my initial posting. In my second sentence, "these remarks" refers to the remarks that are posted herein, not on those of the great minds

Socrates said that there is only one sin, ignorance. If belief/unbelief is important, then it is incumbent on us to read what the great minds have said on the subject. Most of these remarks are speculative and not informed. Example: People who are insistant that their's is the only "true" view of God can be viewed as narrow minded zealots, or, alternately, as convinced believers. We believe in the atomic theory completely and only a scientific fool would argue that we should respect views that there are no such things as atoms.

Certainly there is intolerance among the religious right, but we must understand that there is also intolerance on the liberal left. The human condition can seem a contradiction, but that's all we have to work on.

Andy,
would you please explain, in concrete terms, what "non-conceptual knowledge" might be. Seems an oxymoron to me.
Contrarian
I'll bet you a dollar that if you waited until that child was 18 to indoctrinate them about religion, they would find the whole concept incredibly unbelievable. Maybe that should inform an intelligent person.
Most children who are taught about Santa believe in him the same way they believe in God when taught at a young age. The reason they stop believing in Santa, usually at about the same time they realize the Santa concept is impossible, is because their parents tell them the truth and that it's ok to stop believing. The God concept is no more impossible, but parents fail to tell the children that, and the church reinforces the delusion. It's all pretty sad, really.

It would take an unreasonably long time to go through the histories of all religions, from all of the various points of view, or in an unbiased way, and therefore a requirement to do this is unreasonable.

Furthermore, to present such a huge volume of information about all these topics in an unbiased way is an abdication of responsibility. In a time when there is too much information about all subjects including religion, parents must exercise discretion in what they show their children.

Children have a limited amount of time and are not yet capable of deciding what is important and what is not impor