All Comments (63)

PETER M:

Thanks for your post. In the interest of healthy dialogue allow me to dismantle a bit of the straw man you raised in your post.

1. You narrow the definition of Christian by connoting that they believe they are eating the body of and blood of Christ. This is not the majority view of Christians.

2. You imply that there are contradictory versions of Paul's conversion. This position is not sustainable within the context of the New Testament.

3. You imply that the recorders of Jesus' preaching were mistaken or fabricating (re. 'Sermon on the Mount'). It is entirely plausible (and, in fact, overwhelmingly likely) that they had different perspectives and/or Jesus might have preached this content on different occasions.

4. I'm a keen Christian (that is, I have repented of my sin and trust Jesus, on the merit of His sacrificial death and sin-conquering resurrection for my salvation) and I do not know that to which you allude regarding the ten commandments. What is in the text is in the text.

5. On genealogy of Jesus, both can be correct. I can trace my genealogy through my mother or through my father and they will be completely different, and yet, both accurate.

Having dismantled part of your straw man, we're in a position to discuss truth. And the Bible remains a reliable source in terms of history, geography, science, and prophecy. It teaches that Jesus is God and that He died for your sins and mine and that God commands everyone everywhere to repent, al within the context of history's most powerful love story (God and creation).

Try it out.
Much grace,
StephenS2S

fun search test!

One of the things that scares me with this new Atheist movement (or recognition) is that within their organization, there are some real zealots. And those zealots, who would be condemned for saying such atrocities if they were theistic, are considered to be heroes for Atheism.

The Rational Response Squad does many things that even they speak against when it comes to religious groups. They actively try to recruit young impressionable teens and adolescents with ads on websites like Teen Beat and Myspace. They are calling for Theism in general to be considered a delusion in the DSM(Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). They attest that ALL THEISM is based on a delusional belief in a deity not based on any scientific evidence.

I beg to differ, as an unorthodox Theist(Wiccan), I don't disagree with modern science. Furthermore, I find that modern science supports my beliefs in many areas. Lastly, even Richard Dawkings claims that the inelligence and patterns seen and felt by humans are simply because we are supposed to see patterns, but computers also see these patterns.

I'm not saying that any Theistic belief should be considered a delusion as long as you aren't hurting others.

It makes no difference to me what one believes, as long as it harms none. Believing that all Theists are delusional is not only unhealthy, but it alludes to a bigotry that we would shun from any other faith group.

Hey

I was surfing the web and i saw this site, pretty cool.
Currently im running and adult site:Wellness
k, just want to say hi :)
Can i link you from my site? im looking for quality content like yours. If no let me know if i can add u in exchange for a montly fee or something.

Hey

I was surfing the web and i saw this site, pretty cool.
Currently im running and adult site:Reachton
k, just want to say hi :)
Can i link you from my site? im looking for quality content like yours. If no let me know if i can add u in exchange for a montly fee or something.

It's a great achievement for Islamic leaders and scholars as well as Newsweek and the Washington post to present this imperative opportunity for inter cultural and global philosophical dialogue. What's important is that by exchanging our ideas and comments regarding inter religious relations and world events that affect our views of each other as fellow human beings. Since the advent of humanity, We strove to make sense of the world we live in and the lives we've experienced. Worldwide curiosities to learn the true nature of life and our universe is an exceptionally rare virtue upon life on Earth. In other words, we're the only known species on the planet who've pursued to unravel these great mysteries and developed written philosophies based upon our understanding of the world around us.
One such philosophy that lasted throughout the ages of humanity is commonly known as religion and spirituality. Ever since our early belief in the Sky God and the God Mother from ancient Pagan times, we vigorously pursued to unravel the truth about our most profound questions. As any educated person would know that religion and their core beliefs or faith have evolved over time. Paganism, Monotheism and Polytheism have been influenced by humanity as these great philosophies have influenced our perceptions and decisions in life over the ages. Over time humanity has embraced diverse religious faiths and spiritual convictions that continue to influence our behavior in our times and most likely beyond.
What's vital for humanity's progress and even survival is to know the true nature of faith itself. To understand the true origins of faith. But most of all, is to accept the truth for whatever it may be. Each one of us will learn the absolute truth once we die. But until that time comes for anyone of us to depart this world, we really don't know the answer to God's existence nor do we have the absolute truth in regards to the true nature of God. Besides if we did possess the truth, there would've been only one religion on Earth with no diversification of any way, shape of form. There would only be one holy scripture written throughout human history.
Considering one's religious faith to be absolute, while considering others to be false would be ethnocentric at best. While collectively searching to unravel the mysteries on nature, life and the universe through sincere reasoning and serious research would be enlightening at its worst. Most importantly, we must accept the fact is that none of us have conclusive evidence to confirm our core beliefs and there's always an immanent change that our most cherished beliefs could be wrong. Our greatest challenge would be to tolerate the truth no matter what it may ultimately be. With such an open mind, we would be able to overcome any future discovery that would contradict our faith regarding the true nature of life, spirituality and divinity.
Humanity does have the ability to achieve such a social achievement. However, it's solely up to humanity and not any other entity or groups of entities to decide our destinies. Each one of us has a choice to make; either hopelessly engaging into meaningless inter cultural conflicts or combine our scientific and cultural gifts to thrive into an enlightened global civilization that could ultimately expand beyond our solar system. The choice is yours, and the time to make it is now!

To those who distinguish believing in no God from not believing in a God:

Suppose I say the Great Pumpkin exists. You respond, “I have found no evidence that persuades me of the Great Pumpkin’s existence. So I don’t believe the Great Pumpkin exists. I do not believe in the Great Pumpkin.”

Something tells me that “I do not believe the Great Pumpkin exists” is the logical equivalent of “I believe the Great Pumpkin does not exist.” The concept communicated with “God exists” has a contradictory: “God does not exist.” If one is true, the other isn’t. If I believe one, I necessarily disbelieve the other.

How is saying “I do not believe in the existence of God” different from saying “I believe God doesn’t exist?”

One more comment. “If atheism is a faith, bald is a hair color.” Pithy, but like most soundbites, not helpful. Atheism is a faith, or religion, in the sense that it holds a fundamental place in the basic commitments making up a person’s identity. Which is why theists aren't the only ones who sometimes get so exercised when their faith is challenged.

> We are, it has been correctly stated, born atheistic. We can gain a knowledge about Gods or any theistic view only from parents and community that we are born into. Or by inventing our own Gods or God. [arthur]

That might be "correct" if the mind is a tabula rasa at birth.

It seems more likely that each person is born with a great deal of information for survival - the child becomes related to the world and others without taking a course in human interaction. The widespread appearance of symbolic representation occurs in all cultures - these motifs are spontaneous and don't have to be "spread" by some global theistic cabal.

> Many of the things that Jesus said was light-years ahead of his time; and it's still probably generations ahead of ours today.

We could start with "Know thyself".

A little reflection would yield much more positive results. The knee-jerk insults and attempted humiliation that passes for dialogue more often dwindles to vitriolic rant.

To all atheists (& religious folks as well):

Atheism is a view of the universe, and while each individual atheist may view the universe differently, the one common thread among them all is that there are no gods in it. All religions also have their own view of the universe.

Now, some atheists may think they don't have any beliefs (aka Mr. Richard Wade). They may rely on evidence, facts, science, etc.

However, we human beings know so very little about the universe. We haven't even left our own solar system. We don't even know what most of the universe is made of (we just call it dark matter), and we don't even know how many universes there even are! The human race is so primitive it is not only still stuck on Earth, but we can't seem to stop ourselves from killing each other and destroying our home planet. So isn't it a bit presumptuous for a human being to say, "There is no God(s)"?

My point is, if you are an atheist, you are jumping to conclusions. Which is certainly understandable, since many religious people jump to many conclusions as well and give their religions a very bad name. I, personally, believe that the Bible, Koran, and other religious texts are all man-made.

However, I do believe in God, and one of the reasons is because I read the Gospels. Many of the things that Jesus said was light-years ahead of his time; and it's still probably generations ahead of ours today. However, I think that a lot of everything else in the Bible is very man-made, and it is ironic that when you hear Christians and ministers quote the Bible, they almost always quote everything else except what Jesus said in the first 3 Gospels. This is why many Christians are still so unChristian-like, which puts off a lot of nonbelievers. But it isn't God or Jesus that's the problem, it's the very human people who interpret them & use their names.

I've noticed that the "atheist" label is being thrown at anyone who criticizes the administration's war policies. Not surprising, sonce the White House has made it into a "holy war" against evil.

> Atheism is a belief system like any other—a religion of sorts in its own right.

"Religion" would be a careful adherence to some rules and schedule - even someone on a diet or workout regime must follow it "religiously". Do atheists have weekly rituals or annual "holidays" they must observe?

Excellent comments Arthur. Thank you.

Atheism Is not a belief system in an of itself.

Many different people have come to the conclusion of atheism and from many different philosophies and religious experiences.

Atheism is not Marxist, it is not Objectivist, it is not always a conclusion reached from Logic. It can be also reached using emotion.

You can be a Liberal or a Conservative or an Anarchist or any point therein.

Atheism can be a formal statement of non-belief but it can also be the fact that you have no knowledge or awareness of some theistic belief that others hold.

We are, it has been correctly stated, born atheistic. We can gain a knowledge about Gods or any theistic view only from parents and community that we are born into. Or by inventing our own Gods or God.

In fact we can say that we are all atheists in respects to other peoples Gods.

Most Atheists really just don't believe because it did not make sense to them. Some pretend to believe because in times past, and in the current state in the more radical muslim controlled countries you can actually be killed for expressing a belief against the status quo.

Why are there now "Militant Atheists"? Maybe they are not so militant as they are tired of being told that unless they believe in the same fairy tales as their neighbor they will be censured, or excluded from even secular activities.

The United States of American is the first Nation to not have any particular religious doctrine being the foundation of it's Government. We even have an article in the constitution that forbids any religious test be given to any holder of office elected or appointed. There is no requirement to say "So Help me God" in the President's Oath. That is a personal choice to do so.

The farther back in time you go the more closely linked religion seems to be to the Ruling Bodies. We once had God-Kings, representatives of heaven on Earth, Some like Egypt claimed that the first Kings or Pharaohs were the Gods them selves. Later we had Kings and Rulers that said they Ruled by Divine Right and the Pope backed them up on it.

Was the United states influenced by Christianity? Yes, undoubtedly. Is it the singular influence that Christians of the far right would have you believe? No far from it. Much of the influence comes from individuals who began to think for themselves, the merchants of venice, The Greeks and the Romans for example.

They also questioned the great experiments of Europe, and did not want the disasters as they saw them of the Papists, and Church of England. That to me is the biggest influence that the Church or Faiths of man had on the founding Fathers. They seemed to have wanted each man to make up his own mind and not be bullied by a government or other group. They actually thought that it was a matter or personal choice, but they also thought that open discussion was healthy so long as no one was excluded because of a Majority Ruling.

We do seem to have the odd and contrary notion that the "Majority Rules" in this country. John Adams gave warnings about the evils of a true democracy, that it lead to only anarchy.

The controversial rulings of the Supreme Court against the "Under God" part of the Pledge of Allegiance are not an attack on Christianity. The reality is it is a support of it, or rather each individuals right to choose. If you take that choice away and enforce it, you now take a road that the Founders feared.

They thought that picking and saying "We are a Christian Nation" was a prelude to saying that we are a Baptist Nation or a Catholic Nation, or a Lutheran Nation, or a Unitarian Nation, or a Deist Nation. First we exclude those who are not Christians, then we exclude those who are not our particular denomination. Remember, they were all well aware that we did not live in harmony as a freely choosing Christians.

Believe it or not, while many came to this country to practice their religion as they saw fit, when they got here they found that even here there were others who would not let them and in fact would kill them for being a Quaker, or Anabaptist, or Catholic or Jew, or Muslim, or Hindu. So much for Freedom of Religion as the basis of our Founding Pilgrims. The Puritans were a violent lot, so to were many others.

I say this:

"It is a weak Religion that requires the Government to Sanction or support it. It should stand on its own merits or fall for a lack of them."

Arthur

Marxist atheism is a religion because it is faith based on nothing in particular. The state or society as provider are collective terms of convenience and cannot be held responsible. Philosophically, these are termed Secular Mysticism.

In debate on this subject, I always ask: "What is the nature of God ?" I haven't been given a rationally existence-based answer yet.
"God" is a man-made construct and also needs a faith-based belief system to uphold it. There is no rational explanation for the concept "God."
"God" has been given three impossible attributes -
Omnipotence (all powerful), omniscience (all knowlegeable)and omnipresence (everywhere at once). Since every entity in this universe has an identity, the concept "God", like the concept "society", is not an entity and has no identity and therefore cannot exist.
Philosophically this is known as religious mysticism.

The philosophy of Objectivism is also one of atheism.It is based in existence, in objective reality and in man's life as man and not slave; man's life as a rational being in a contractual society with every individual being held responsible for their ideas and actions. Erroneously, Objectivism can also be held on faith by its adherents. I for one have made, and can still make, that error. If I neither know nor understand something, I am not then licenced to represent that something and demand that others accept my representations as truths. I either know and understand, or don't.

When the unreal ideas of secular and religious mysticism are imposed on individuals by force, appropriation of private property, starvation and death are the result.

D.B.R.

"Atheism is a belief system like any other."

In the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby and "bald" is a hair colour...

I guess for someone who actually embraced Ayn Rand's sophomoric tripe it might seem that way, but for unbelievers like me it certainly isn't.

Objectivism is for rebellious adolescents, but it is no more representative of atheists generally than Communism is. Both are political dogmas, as much to be avoided as their religious counterparts.

Ayn Rand was an Abhorent and evil egotistical Atheist.

What did she believe?

She thought:

Existence existed. She had no room for the the concept "well you can't prove that reality is real"

We have Conciousness: She thought the one true tool we had was a brain and that we ought to use it. Think or die so to speak.

There is something called the Law of Identity: She thought that everything that made up existence could be understood, and that from this logic was real. She actually believed that 1+1=2. Crazy huh!

She thought that our senses did not play tricks on us, but rather that our brains and our grasp of logic and reason really were the cause of seeing things that were not really there. The little monster that lives under my bed told me that was wrong.

She thought that enforced Altruism was evil. That it was actually wrong for another person, group of persons or government to take what you earned to support a person(s) or cause you did not support or was contrary to your beliefs, like public funded abortions, arms deals in Iran, supporting murderous despots like Osama Bin Ladin, or Manuel Noriaga etc. How evil can you get, it is our duty to support the policies of this country and unpatriotic to question what our leaders who obviously know more than us actually do.

She thought that Rational self interest Or Selfishness as she said was the highest virtue. That we should not owe our lives to the goverment and that we should lay down our lives and give all of the fruits of our labor to systems that might contradict our own Values.

She actually believed that morality was Objective and contextual. That we should not, as it was in our best interest to co-exist with others, to take from another their property, or life unless so threatened ourselves. That is was in our rational self interest to determine those things we valued ie: Our Life, Family, Friends, livlyhood.

She thought we would should pick our friends carefully, that they should reflect at least some of our values

She actually believe it was wrong to not defend your self from being killed or attacked. That you should hold your life as being more important than the person's who is trying to take yours.

She was fool hardy in believing that an individual who worked hard, and produced something of value, that he/she was entitled to benefit from his work, that he did not have the obligation, duty, to give it away. However he could if he so choose. How can we be giving people choices in this manner I say! It must be taken from them. Can't have these evil rich people creating wealth, and if they do we have to take from them as they would never give it away. Do you really think Bill Gates or Warren Buffett Both Atheist by the way would ever give their Billions away to a charity? I think Not.

She actually believed that all individuals had Rights equal to every one else. That there are no special Group rights, no Christian rights, no Gay Rights, no women's rights, no Blacks rights only individual rights.

She thought the best way individuals could deal with each other is with the trader mentality or Laissez-faire capitalism. She actually thought that a free market economy works best when it is free and not regulated or conversely artificailly supported by a government. As we all know that could never work, when ever we have approached such a system in this country all we got was inovation like railroads, Automobiles, Radio, TV, better medical care, food and crop production increases, more available leisure and vaction time, supermarkets with abundant variety, and no lines for toilet paper.

She actually believed that we had the right to Pursue Happiness, but that happiness was not guarranteed to us only the pursuit of it.

To me personally she is the most evil person to have walked the face of the Earth.

There Freitas goes again as other theists have done generalizing about atheists.

To Donna and other theists: Can you please answer the simple question posed by Davy S above (and implied by several others): "If atheism is a religion, what do you call someone who has no religion? - because that's what I am."

We frankly don't care about the specific version of atheism you "practiced" (yawn!). What do you have to say to people who simply don't find the Christianity/Islam/Judaism claim untenable? Because this is the kind of a-theism that Harris and Dawkins talk about in their books. The sheer fact that you chose to straw-man atheism is proof that you either did not read them or did not understand them.

I placed this on another thread, but it fits so well here from the speaker's view about dialogue, that I feel compelled to place it here also.

A Dialogue

What is God, I do not know him?

Then go to places of unknowing and be drawn to where your desire leads you.

I have and still I find nothing.

You find no-thing, and what is that like?

It is an empty space, without form, and I am deeply unsatisfied, and very desirous but not for anything I can put my finger on.

But who is it that inhabits that empty space?

It is not anyone. It is not anything.

But you go out from this emptiness and return once again.

Yes, it is like breathing. In one breath I am exhaled out of emptiness into the world, and in the next I am inhaled from being into nothingness.

Is that what it is to be an atheist or is that what it is to be a mystic?

Yes.

to John M.:

when you say:
Faith is the act of giving up the search for real answers.

I would disagree.

to some questions... science will not find an answer, and thats when faith steps in.

Faith bridges the gap... and I am not talking about god, it bridges the gap to when you need more than logic or reason to move forward in living.

just as science can be used wrongly to answer questions, so can faith be used wrongly also. Its just another tool we have to be human with. If people use it as their only tool, then yes theylead limited lives, but so to those who only use science.

Faith is not about religion, (religion uses it heavily so its easy for many to confuse it with religion) Faith is about trusting ones own ability to accept the unknown and move forward with an idea. Most scientists use faith in themselves and ideas to make the leap to their discoveries.

Peace and acceptance in your way.
http://www.personaltao.com

To the question:

Whether we, as a country, are not only ready but desirous of this sort of “inter-religious” conversation, as true dialogue and not as a standoff between two irreconcilable parties, remains to be seen.

Considering we as a country are in a holy war over Oil in the middle east,

which translates until high stakes money is on the line then I would suggest the answer is no.

However, if a crisis were ever to happen, and considering 80% of Americans believe in God, I would go as far to predict a backlash against Atheist's will occur at some point as more and more believer's feel threatened and politicians look for easy targets to cover up real problems.

In too many other country's Atheists have been killed before for their belief, I don't expect the American people to be better considering what has been going down over the past few years

Peace and acceptance in your way.
http://www.personaltao.com

well a person of christian faith- 1000 years ago muslims were developing sciences and building universities that educated the europeans and with which they drew themselves out of the dark ages and into the renaissance-

in around the 12th century the first man in the world to fly was a muslim in turkey- he constructed wings and flew several hunderd yards across the bosphorus river in turkey

A few hundred years ago, someone with "faith" would have probably seen a helium balloon as magical, or either the work of the devil or a miracle.
Personally, I'm quite happy that there were some people who wouldn't accept those answers on faith. When you stop trying to find the real reasons for something, you stop learning altogether.
Dialogue is only useful to me when I learn something new. My parents spent 18 years pushing me to accept their senseless answers about everything - they owe me about 6,000 hours of dialogue about science, but for some reason they don't want to talk anymore.

Faith is the act of giving up the search for real answers.

I'm content to continue learning about how things really work.

Faith: 0
Question Everything: 100

Atheism is unlike religious belief. Yes we believe there is no god(s), but we are willing to listen to evidence. If evidence comes out that some supernatural being exists, we'll change our mind.

No matter how much evidence comes out that the God of Abraham does not exist (and there is a mountain of evidence against that particular God), many many millions still believe. There is no evidence that they will accept that their God is fictitious.

The reason that dialogue is still possible is that it can be shown that nearly all of the people professing belief in the God of Abraham do not live like they actually believe it, giving me some slim hope that they are still open to the possibility that their God is fictitious.

Futhermore, many atheists, including myself, came to their position from an attempt to really live as if the God of Abraham existed (in my case Catholicism). It is impossible to do so in this day and age. I challenge any Christian to (1) read the Bible, and (2) follow everything it says. Don't accept the word of someone else who has read the Bible, actually read it and try to follow it. One note of caution - be prepared to spend some time in prison because you're going to have to do a lot of killing.

Many will say - well, the Bible (or the Torah or the Qu'ran) is just a set of parables, not really meant to be followed literally. First off, for most sects of Christianity, and certainly for Islam, this disqualifies you. Secondly, how do you then choose what to follow or believe from it? If there is no guidance other than those documents, then on what basis do you decide what is true, what is false, what should be followed, and what should not? If you find such guidance, shouldn't it be followed generally, rather than just applying it to the Bible? Wouldn't it tell you what is right or wrong, even if not mentioned in the Bible? And isn't this kind of thing expressly forbidden by the Bible (or Torah or Qu'ran)? The only major organized belief system I know that encourages open thought is Buddhism, which in its purist form does not believe in a supreme being in the western religious sense (and in my view is really a philosophy and not a religion).

For me the means I use to determine truth and falsity is science, but that is not necessarily the only way and is unconnected to atheism. Nonetheless, for me applying it to the Bible leads inevitibly to the understanding that the God described therein cannot really be.

The reason this dialogue is necessary is that fundamental belief in western religion has become a dangerous liability to our world. I used to be a "I don't care what you believe" person - live and let live. I still don't care if you are someone who believes in an impersonal god who has no bearing on this universe - this has no effect on me. Unfortunately, believers in fundamentalist Christianity, Judaism, and Islam can' be trusted to let me live in freedom (or live at all) and indoctrinate their children so that they are unable to think for themselves, making the outlook for tomorrow even bleaker.

From my perspective, many (not all) Christians treat these debates as if Christianity were the only possible alternative to atheism. They don't acknowledge that the main target of Dawkins and Harris is not Christianity but absolutism in all religious dogma. True, much of their focus is on the absolutism of both Christianity and Islam, but I attribute that to the prevalence and impact of both dogmas.

Assuming that one could prove the existence of God, that wouldn't validate everything else about Christian dogma, such as Original Sin and the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection. Nor would it automatically validate the complete dogma of Islam or of any other monotheistic religion. I see the same thing with the debates over evolution. Creationists like Duane Gish suggest that if evolution can be proven false, then the creation account in Genesis is automatically true. Why is this a zero-sum game? What if atheism and all religious dogmas are incorrect?

Friend

If you read the Fountainhead as a story and don't read too much into it, it is fine.

If you use that and other works of Rand as the basis of an entire philosophy, it leads to places you probably don't want to go.

I think you can read Ayn Rand and add to your knowledge of life. I think it is good to read all points of view about atheism, even in Ayn Rand's fiction or philosophy books.

No superiority insults necessary.

Putting Richard Dawkins and Ayn Rand in the same camp is an insult to scientists and the vast majority of atheists and agnostics. Ayn Rand's characters, and typically her modern day adult followers, are amoral self-centered jerks convinced of their own superiority and therefore free to do whatever they want, no matter how abhorrent. (I specify adult follower because for some reason her books have a particular appeal to adolescents, who, like, Ms. Freitas, grow out of it). As a political aside, it is notable how many adult followers of Ayn Rand are politically on the far right, since the resulting policies allow free reign to their unrestrained rapacity.

On the other hand, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are simply espousing a cosmological world view held by the vast majority of the world's scientists, a world view that is neither more or less likely to lead to sociopathic behavior. One's cosmological world view does not affect moral behavior any more than whether or not one believes in unicorns. A belief in your own superiority does. The latter is not well correlated with a belief in God.

I rather disagree with the premise of the question. Atheism isn't so much in vogue as it's a natural reaction to the overbearing fundamentalism being exercised by the Bush administration.

When the irrational beliefs of evangelicals start to effect social policies like stem cell research and global climate change then the rational among us will stand up and protest. If these policies are being presented as Christian and, by proxy, God's will then it is incumbent upon us to demand a higher standard of proof of this God before we allow Him to divinely inspire such short sighted and oftentimes bigoted legislation.

Dialog is all well and good, but at the end of the day one of us is absolutely correct about the existence of God and the other is profoundly wrong. Unless the faithful can deliver some compelling and irrefutable evidence for God they will continue to feel that their ideas are being considered foolish and irrational...because they simply are.

I agree with Friend.

Children should be taught about the religious inheritance of their ancestors. But I don't stop there. I think they should be taught of the religious inheritance of *all* peoples ancestors and I don't think we should just keep to the 'happy happy joy joy' moments of religious history either. Nazi Germany, the crusades, the stolen generations, jihadists, the corruption and subversion of pagan religions by the ones that followed.

Teach them everything, not just the sunday school version.

Who knows, maybe they'll actually learn something other than the indoctrination they receive in their homes.

To Jason Bradfield,

I turn my electric stove on.
I give it a few moments to heat up.
I tap it lightly with my finger to make sure its working.
I feel that it is hot.

What just happened? I just gained a small piece of knowledge through sensation! By feeling heat on my finger I learned that the stove is still in working condition.

Now, if you'll excuse me ... I need to go put my hand under the cold water tap.

I think that a commitment to the education of science to our children is necessary to develop complex technologies in the future. I think this is necessary to ensure the prolonged livelihood of humanity and to satisfy the inherent curiosity of the universe comprehending itself.

Children should have an understanding of the religious inheritance of their ancestors.

Every child should have knowledge of comparative religions.

Albert Einstein

A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and this alone, I am a deeply religious man.

Tonio: I've never read Ayn Rand, and I was surprised when Freitas described the author as an atheist. Why? Because many modern conservatives view Rand as a hero. That had led me to assume that Rand was a defender of "traditional Judeo-Christian values," a politician's nebulous term.

Well, the current American political line-up of Wall Street and religious conservatives is historically unusual. The recent election began some fracturing between libertarian-type conservatism (popular in the West) and the religious conservatism of the South.

Ronald Reagan first made the match successfully by lumping things like enforcement of environmental laws and civil rights laws together as examples of government interference in people's lives.

Surely the issue here is not over who believes what but over sweeping laws and policies influenced by them. Take gay marriage. Atheists see nothing wrong with allowing any people in committed relationships to have legal protection, whether they be straight, gay, transgendered, twosomes or threesomes. However, we all know how religious extremists feel!

Dialog between humanists and believers should not be over the details of belief but over whether one group should have the right to impose its living style on the others. Personally, I do not feel I should impose a scientific education (for example) on christians, no matter how foolish I think that choice is. I wish they had the same sense of tolerance.

I'm a Catholic/Athiest/Buddhist. So hard to put labels on who we really are...does action define your religion or just what you believe...can more than one reveal truth...when we adopt a label of who we are, does it mean we have to believe everything defined by the leaders of that belief system...

The Fountainhead is one of my favorite books.

I've never read Ayn Rand, and I was surprised when Freitas described the author as an atheist. Why? Because many modern conservatives view Rand as a hero. That had led me to assume that Rand was a defender of "traditional Judeo-Christian values," a politician's nebulous term.

Post reporter David Von Drehle once described Rand's philosophy this way: "Randism is the last of the corrupt and nihilistic ideologies to gain sway in the 20th Century." He hoped to see a day when "'Atlas Shrugged' goes the way of 'Mein Kampf' and 'The Sayings of Chairman Mao' and is pulped in the garbage mill of history."

Although my own beliefs resemble elements of pantheism and Buddhism, I consider myself an "atheist sympathizer." Specifically, I can't stand being told what to believe. Remember Muhammed Ali's famous quote, "No Viet Cong ever called me n*****"? My version is, "No atheist ever called me hell-bound."

Jason,
Read the final paragraph on the page that you linked to. To summarize it, it says that if any non-believer's argument includes any axioms (i.e., self-evident starting points), then theists are free to proclaim anything they wish as axiomatic (i.e., the Bible is the Word of God as an axiom? Not unless you change the meaning of the term axiom.). Gordon Clark's logic could be used to make equivalent cases for Yahweh, Zeus, or the Tooth Fairy as being the creator of the universe. His logic doesn't permit one to distinguish any competing propositions.

Jason Bradfield:

As James Randi once said, "atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby." You claim that atheism is a faith belief no different from religious beliefs by arguing that all beliefs are a matter of faith. Therefore, you conclude, faith in God is the better belief.

This is a bad argument. If one accepts your premise that all beliefs are equal acts of faith, then it does not follow that faith in God is a more equal faith belief. Belief and non-belief would be equal.

Further, if one thinks about your premise, it is apparant nonsense. If all beliefs are equal acts of faith, then everyone should get the same return on their investments. If all beliefs are equal acts of faith, then beliefs in Zeus, Thor, and the Galactic Space Goat, allbeit inconsistent with each other, are all equal beliefs. Your argument's premise is observably wrong and not workable.

You also say, "To my knowledge NOT one Atheist has EVER been able to prove/demonstrate how knowledge is derived through sensation YET most atheists believe this."

How is this semantic underware twist relevant to the existence or non-existence of God? The answer to your question, if it matters, is that sensation is information about the world assembled in your brain. Information about the world assembled in your brain IS knowledge. For example, you see that the car is going to pull out of the driveway right in front of you. Sensation, knowledge, brake!

Jason Bradfield,

If atheism is a "faith" then "bald" is a hair color.

You are also misusing the word "belief" because it is an "equivocal" word, one that has more than one definition. You seem to have learned only one of its common meanings.

Your antisocial behavior, like that of many believers who prefer to redefine terms to their own liking, is a problem not just for anyone your bigotry targets, but for all of civil society, which is weakened and corrupted when bigots are encouraged to remain ignorant.

To Anonymous,
Be careful to avoid making sweeping, blanket statements about Christians just as Donna Freitas and Jason Bradfield are making about atheists. They're just exhibiting their ignorance and/or resentment. Not all Christians "need this to be a 'Christian Nation,'" as you put it, and I suspect you know that when you're not angry. Many, with whom I have spoken find the various implications of that phrase repugnant. Slandering a whole group often comes from anger, which often comes from hurt. We may have been hurt by members of a category, and so it's tempting to attack them all. That just feeds their hurt, their anger and their slander in return. We must rise above that hall of mirrors with patience and respect. It is not easy, but it is imperative.
If atheists are to, as you say, "win their right to co-exist on an equal footing," we must have dialogue. We must not return hurt for hurt, anger for anger, slander for slander, or we'll be caught in a trap that will destroy us all. There is much to talk about, and it can be done.

To Jason Bradfield:

Thank you for the link. It was an interesting read. The conclusion the author reaches is that atheism has its central axiom and christianity has its central axiom. That is essentially correct. My rebuttal is that all axioms are not equal. The most minimalist axiom that assumes the least is the best.

Scientific atheism is based on one central axiom: every action causes a reaction. This is the basis of information theory and the focal point of logic. The author was not quite correct when he stated that the axiom of atheism is that sensation is real. Sensation is merely one means of observation and all observation ultimately amounts to inference.

Now, the author's axiom seems to be that God is real and that the Bible is God's spoken word. That is two distinct axioms in fact. If the world is irreducibly complex and requires a creator/designer, it does not follow that God is the author of the Bible.

Theologians must use logic to demonstrate the probability that God is the author of the Bible. But logic requires that central axiom of science, that every action causes a reaction. Based on my own logic and reasoning, I view the Bible as probably not the word of God. I would state that while as an atheist I have beliefs just like the theologian, my beliefs are simply more parsimonious.

Respectfully,
Justin

There's no reason for a dialogue between atheists and Christians.

Christians need this to be a "Christian nation". Their definitions articulate quite clearly what that means: there is no room in America for non-Christians. All Americans need to be Christian or at least need to pretend to be Christian well enough for the Christians to enjoy living in a world where everyone shares their belief or else.

So there's no dialogue. Either Christians win their right to live in a Christianity-only zone or atheists win their right to co-exist on an equal footing. Sounds pretty zero-sum to me.

What's to talk about?

I wish I could remember who first said this:

If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color.

Jason Bradfield,

The reason no one has put forth any attempts to counter your beloved patriarch, Gordon Clarke, is because his basic premise is outdated. Boiled down, his argument comes to the idea that since we do not have all evidence, we cannot prove that something (God) doesn't exist. The major flaw with the pdf you posited earlier comes out in the first sentence where he defines atheists as people who argue that there is no god. That definition, while certainly valid in one sense of the word, is not the general definition used in the majority of conversation today. Yes, a "hardcore" atheist does present that argument. The vast majority of atheists out there however, simply say that the evidence provided to support a belief in a supoernatural being is severely lacking, and they have decided based on the eveidence presented BY CHRISTIANITY/ISLAM/JUDAISM THEMSELVES in their own holy books, that those religions cannot be valid. From what I read of Gordon Clarke, his arguments come down to semantic wordplay intended to confuse and ensare its victims. Also, this particular branch of Christian Apologetics is not very well known, and in truth you are the ONLY person I've ever heard mention it. Possibly because his position is confusing (due in part or in whole to his attribution of word definitions not common today), and seems mostly semantic.

To Jason Bradfield:
Your website indicates that you are not an atheist, yet (please correct me if I’m wrong) you seem to think that you’re an expert on atheists. You make statements about what they think, feel and in your word, “believe.” Maybe you have met some people who don’t share your belief. Maybe they were not as articulate as you. Maybe they weren’t as clever as you. Maybe they just didn’t want to bother engaging in a game of wits with you. I get the impression (please correct me if I’m wrong) that you emerged from these encounters feeling victorious, having vanquished them, and having re-validated your own opinion once again. I don’t want to tell you that this is what you think, feel and believe; that would be very bad manners. I’m asking instead.

If I’m reading these things correctly from what I interpret as your tone, then you provide a good example of when dialogue between believers and atheists is futile at best and destructive at worst.

If a believer and a non-believer just make statements about each other, throw their most clever tricks and subtle insults at each other, but don’t respectfully ask questions of each other, nothing good will come from the dialogue other than one or both thinking that they “won.” What is the prize, other than having more arrogance and resentment than when they started?

It all depends on the intentions of both people in the dialogue:

If one or both want to “win,” neither will gain anything of value.
If one or both want to bully, they discredit themselves.
If one or both want to “convert” it’s a waste of time.

However,

If both want sincerely to learn about the other’s viewpoint, they will.
If both make statements about themselves only, and ask clarifying questions of the other, they both will gain better understanding of the other, as well as better understanding of themselves.

It takes humility and courage to approach such a dialogue with such an open-hearted stance, but the benefit to the individuals, and if it happens more broadly, to society can be very great.

Hello, Anonymous,

There are two different "theys." Lord Amherst, King George, and Elizabeth II can't give back the Central and South American loot because they never received it. You'll have to take your case on behalf of the Native Americans and their descendants to, as a Polish Catholic friend calls him, "Benny".

"Can they read at Amherst?" No, not since the 1946 "New Curriculum" was dumped around 1970 in favor of a dumbed-down cafeteria-style offering of junk-food English courses.

"How is 16th Century history taught at Amherst?"
No idea if it's even taught there these days. Since the College went coed, I imagine the students have more pressing concerns.

"What about Saint Michael's College?"
All I know about St. Mike's is that their very fine and nice President is retiring and this may open the way for the new arch-conservative Bishop of Vermont to crack down on this enlightened and liberal institution.

Can you imagine?! St. Mike's has independent-minded Catholics, non-Catholics, and even gays on the faculty.

If the new Prexy caves to the Bishop, they'll all be in trouble. I worry about Donna Freitas. As an Assistant Professor I'm sure she doesn't have tenure, and she may well be swept away in the Great Cleansing, if it comes to pass.

But we've digressed. We should get back to the topic at hand.

Donna,

It's hard for me to be serious (see above) because existence is so humorous, including black humor, but I'll try to be for a moment.

I've reread your essay in light of the posted comments. I still don't particularly disagree with it but here are some comments:

** Does anyone really want a dialogue? If so, why? As one poster suggested, we could each just go along with our own beliefs, not bothering each other. We could be like the English and French in Canada: "the two solitudes."

**It seems that most people who promote dialogue want to accomplish something, usually to affect the other person's belief. For them, "dialogue" can mean a single-minded aggressive act on their part, as you note.

**I know what I think and believe and my doubts. I'm always glad to engage in religious conversation if someone wants to (e.g., these posts) but I'll never be the one to start the dialogue.

** After 70+ years of wrestling with these questions, I still expect to refine my views as time goes on, but I don't expect major changes. I'm not on a quest to attain something I don't now have.

** I also don't care if my beliefs are mistaken. If they are, they are. Regardless of what I believe, things are as they are and what's going to happen is going to happen, including death and what comes after, if anything does.

** I think that dialogue might be sought by some who are questing and don't know where they're at. That's not me.

** For me, religious discussions, debates, and dialogue are fun, like tennis. But I don't particularly feel like making the trip to the courts - I'd rather stay home and curl up with a good detective mystery. The religious mysteries will take care of themselves.

Norris Hoyt, they can't take the smallpox infected blankets back but they can give back the gold taken by the Donquistadors. The Vatican has loads of it along with all Christian churches in Europe and America. Churches get all the gold in the end so the pirates can atone for their sins.

Come to think about it, we could send the US military to take it back while we're out saving the world from killers. Saddam gives killing a bad name compared to the Conquistadors who murdered millions to get that gold they used to appease the Devil. Sorry, meant to say God.

Can they read at Amherst? http://www.hoax-buster