pnze zypd nfdk pcotuq

pnfw

cyhvdxb trgycu ynbusl

estoyf wxgzeby

rwgh nvcpi hroaes

rwgh nvcpi hroaes

nftcr ravn fjzo

nftcr ravn fjzo

inwp zycq fqtwedk rsktae

wsprhl

ortusy npmz zcbfojg

roiv qoigbkz

I believe that nonbelievers will produce a great thinker and he or she will proof to the world that religion is the cause of 90 per cent of the world problems. If you do not have religion the world would be a better place to live in.

Secularism has no new ideas? The basic "ideas" in the major religions are all over 1000 years old. Doesn't seem to stop them from chugging on. Besides, tarring all secularists with the same brush that secularists are supposedly wont tar (for example) Muslims is about as useful as all such generalizations. Not all secularists think in soundbites, any more than "Jesus loves me, yes I know" is representative of the profondeurs of Xtianity.

PS if Hitchens is down on abortion (as he has himself suggested), is he the secularist that it's OK for religious types to like?

This article is referenced in the 9/2/2007 NY Times blog by Stanley Fish on “liberalism” and “secularism”

http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/liberalism-and-secularism-one-and-the-same/

E Fav:

Indeed, I now know several people at work who are non-believers- this wasn't the case even five years ago... well, maybe it was and I just didn't know it. Personally, I think the only reason the Post has run this series (as well as other magazines and news agencies similar coverage about faith) is because of the enormous political leveraging these past several years of the word "faith". That has ticked off a lot of people, and I think non-believers are starting to come out of the woodwork. As with many social causes, I think that when we hit critical mass then not only will we be culturally accepted, we may have the most credibility.

Thanks, Scott - I'll check out that book.

I think part of what's interesting these days, is that because of heightened awareness, there is a whole new crop of non-believers - and more of us are speaking openly -- because we have others to talk to.

Hi E Fav-
Actually, the tipping point for me was reading "The Fabric of the Cosmos" by Brian Greene. Although this book has zip to do with theology, it certainly changed my perspective on the nature of the universe, and my place in it. As I said, that was just the tipping point- I was pretty much there. The recent Harris and Dawkins books gave me the courage to be honest with myself.

It's been 18 years since the death of a loved one started me down this road. After all of the internal thought, and late night passionate discussions with family, it's rather cathartic to post some of my thoughts in a forum such as this- and to read posts that echo so much of what I've been thinking and feeling.

Regards,
Scott

thank you Scott - it's nice to get some positive feedback. I'm sick and tired of being told I'm going to hell. Even though I know it doesn't exist, I know it's being said as an insult.

Was this site or the recent books on atheism instrumental in your metamorphosis?

Mine just preceded the books. I heard about the Harris book in 2005 when I was already on the road to atheism. It made more sense than anything I'd ever read about religion.

I had arrived (via my own research on Christian and biblical history) by the time Dawkins came out, so it didn't open my eyes. It enboldened me, though.

A Hermit and E Fav

Like you, I merely bookmarked this page to get to it, but also there is an RSS feed to this page as well- that way you know if there is a new post without going straight to this page.

BTW, I love reading both of your posts- my metamorphosis to atheism/agnosticism took nearly 20 years. I had little but supportive family (a bunch of Presbyterians) to bounce ideas around- it's only been a year since I've been comfortable saying that I fully reject what was drilled into my skull as a child, but my path to this point has been my own. It's been very buttressing to find such articulate and thoughtful people who share my views as yours. I appreciate your contributions.

Regards,
Scott

what i find semi-interesting is that there seem to be alot of secularists on this blog-

would anyone care to comment on what is happening in turkey right now?

it's interesting and pertinent because in their political system, secularists have attempted to completely obliterate religion from the political landscape.
to the point of secularism being synonymous with the military in turkey right now-

but its a democracy.

so the forced secularism isnt working.

another interesting fact is that this democracy, based entirely on secularist principles, is in a country that is 99% muslim!

i saw the4 most absurd and ridiculous "opinion" from a guest here- i had to laugh out loud.

one of the faith files "news articles"

it was by a german man who claimed that "islamists" are trying to take over turkey-
(germany has a very large turkish population, and turkey has a booming german tourist industry)

its all too ridiculous.

(besides, the term "islamists is a post 911 invented word anyway)

so how do you all want it?

turkish elections are tomorrow-

arent democracies supposed to reflect the will of the people?

it will be interesting to see what happens.

but weve seen the 80 year old ataturk regime of pure secularism- become ossified into some caricature of some atheistic utopia-

except that it didnt work.

turkish politics are pretty deep and a quick run to google isnt really going to shed any light on the subject.

especially if you have an opinion formed before you know the facts, and try to force it to fit to prove a point-

just wondering if all the secularists out there have any idea what is happening somewhere outside of america.

any real and reasoned opinions out there formed from facts and past research?

im not holding my breath.

(i anticipate some instant google experts, but i still hope for a meaningful dialogue. well, i can dream, cant i?)

Hello Prasheel –

I didn’t read through 54 pages of footnotes, I just counted the number of pages, to ascertain that it was indeed a well-researched and referenced book. This made it even stranger to me that the author would begin with an unreferenced assertion – the kind which could be easily referenced (if a reference existed), and which would easily pique the interest of scholars and cultivated laypersons (to whom the author says the book is directed), with questions such as – “How does he know that? Who did the survey on that? How long ago? How large was the sample? What else did they learn?” Also, because the assertion about secularists being biblically illiterate is so different from my own experience, I began to wonder if the author was going on his own experience - speculatively, 3rd generation secular Jews in New York City. All these questions are unanswered because there is no reference. Yet, as an opening sentence it sets the tone for the book. Imagine a book that started out “In all but exceptional cases, today’s believers are biblically illiterate.” It could be true, but the author better have the stats to back it up.

By the way, the Dawkins and Hitchens books open with anecdotes, not assertions. Harris opens with a scenario of a suicide bomber. Dennett’s book opens with 2 referenced quotations and a referenced description of a biological phenomenon. I haven’t counted up their combined footnotes, but don’t doubt, as you say, they are fewer than Berlinerblau’s. Their books are more anecdotal and directed to the general public (as you suggest), so this is to be expected.

I don’t think my time has been wasted here and know that you have not accurately characterized the motives behind what I’ve written here. Like Berlinerblau, you seem inclined to make unfounded assertions and generalizations. I didn’t comment earlier on the hooligan remark, but like a couple of other posters, I sort of enjoyed it. I don’t think Berlinerblau brought any “beloved leaders” “down a notch.” If anything, I think he brought himself down a notch by doing exactly what he was accusing them of doing. Even if he had provided any evidence for atheist commentators’ bad behavior, it’s not a very classy way, in my opinion, for a Georgetown University professor to begin an essay.

I think for a worthwhile conversation on secularism, or any serious subject, for that matter, to begin, it’s important to learn the facts, to speak with respect for facts and to separate fact from anecdote, opinion and fiction (and in the case of the religion – dogma, legend, myth and tradition). I hope if Berlinerblau is reading this, he is able to do that and move the conversation forward.

A hermit-

it's sounds like we're going to just have to agree to more-or-less agree ;-)

Globo-Mojo; I guess it comes down to which definition of atheism you want to use; to me it just menas "an absence of belief in the existence of gods", which pretty much describes where I'm at.

In any case, "99% atheist and 1% agnostic" is a long way from the "worlds apart" you started with, isn't it? And for me, it's more a case of agnostic method producing an atheist conclusion; albeit a provisional conclusion, not an absolute certainty. But if you just ask me the simple question "Do you believe in God" my simplest answer is "no, I don't."

Of course, simple answers like that never tell the whole story, but that "no" to me equals atheism.

Regards

A Hermit

A Hermit -

Sorry for the delay. I have to follow the currents of the masses. If you talk to a christian, they will say they believe God is good. They will never say that they reserve some possibility that indeed satan is good, if that should be proven later. Likewise, atheists, at least the ones I've spoken with, are resolute in their conviction that no god exists, regardless of the obviousness of improvability. Someone who respects improvability and thus considers the possibility of the existence of a mystery-being as an significant component of their worldview, generally, tends to identify oneself as an agnostic. I used to joke that I'm 99% atheist and 100% agnostic, but in retrospect I realize that the 1% of me which prevented me from being 100% atheist, indeed, prevented me from being an atheist at all. I say this because of my experiences with *true* atheists, 100% atheists, who are very resolute in their conviction that there is no god, regardless of their knowledge that such a statement is unprovable (i.e. for them it is a matter of faith). I reserve the term atheist for them, and no longer for myself, because it is a significant difference and thus deserving of a unique term. If the two terms get indiscriminately intertwined, then we have lost a crucial ability to easily communicate a not-so-subtle difference of opinion.

For all Professor Berlinerblau's call for substance, I find this post bracingly devoid of substance, not to mention fundamental honesty.

For right from the start we have questions like:

"Can an atheist or agnostic commentator discuss any aspect of religion for more than thirty seconds without referring to religious people as imbeciles, extremists, mental deficients, fascists, [etc.]?"

To which I would respond with my own question: Can a critical reader of Dawkins', Hitchens', Harris' or Dennett's books desist in misleading his readers about these books? The answer being, of course, yes, some can -- but not, it would appear, Mr. Berlinerbauer. Not on this occasion, at least.

Here (http://richarddawkins.net/godDelusion#firstChapter), for example, is the first chapter of Dawkin's "God Delusion." Go forth, dear reader, and try to find in it even a tincture of the sort of generic attitude Mr. Berlinerblau suggests suffuses Dawkins' writing. ("Thirty seconds," indeed.)

Even if Dawkins is guilty of saying misleading things about Christians, the proper tonic surely is not saying misleading things about Dawkins.

I'd have to say that the answer to your first question is a resounding "yes." Actually, I think the whole paragraph makes more sense if you replace "atheistic or agnostic" with "devout believer." Having been surrounded all my life by militant theists (who are still omipresent) I think that this complaining about a few people who think before they argue is half-blind. "First remove the log from your eye" might apply.

The ideas of pop atheists might not be new, but do they need to be? Few people are aquainted with even the simplest of their arguments and I still hear theists complaining about straw man arguments that the atheists never made, so clearly they haven't been listening (see Peter Berkowitz's article last Monday in the WSJ editorial page for an eye-opening piece of broadcast ignorance).

I don't know, perhaps Hitchens, et. al. need to yell louder. It seemed to work for preacher on the street corner.

Prasheel - Please mention some of the good points Berlinerblau made in his essay. Then, if you’re so disposed, offer your thoughts on those points.

Thanks

Look you guys, I'm an idiot too - so don't take this as a comment from just another jerk who thinks they are smarter than anyone else. What appalls me in these posts is how casually we treat our thoughts and opinions as if they are actual knowledge or truth. Most of the time any resemblance between what goes on in our heads and the truth is purely accidental. In fact, we mostly think what we want to think, namely stuff that affirms our egos and that makes us feel good about our imagined place in the word and doing what we want to do. When any of this is challenged (in this case by people who think differently) we defend our preconceptions, often by any means fair or foul.

This process is at best only tangential to learning who we really are and what the universe is really like. Truth cannot be attained by pounding the circular universe into the square hole of our self-serving mental constructs, but that is what we do all the time. The first step to real learning is to abandon defending our notions and to commit ourselves to listening. We are such habitual defenders that most of us have lost any sense of what actual listening might be. But entry into the "school of the universe" depends upon it. As long as we are arguing, condemning, rationalizing, justifying, attacking or defending, we haven't yet entered the schoolhouse door...

Dear Mr. Berlinerblau,

Your arguments don't appear to be well reasoned.

First of all, you somehow link Secularism with Atheism or Agnosticism. When actually it is religious plurality that demands secularism.
In its most general sense, secularism would be construed as blind to an individual's faith, or lack thereof. But most certainly, Atheism and Agnosticism have not been the driving forces behind the idea of secularism in society and politics.

Your discussion laments the absence of a clear voice like Sartre among the non-believers, yet it seems to be grounded solely in the morass of religion based politics. Are there any other parameters to judge an idea?

One's religion, faith, belief or utter lack thereof is a very individual matter. Must all commentary on an idea be from the political or popular stand-point? Personally I believe in deep spirituality, but I think that a person who doesnt believe in God and has no religion, yet keeps his or her moral bearings, probably never needs religion. Such a person, if at peace with herself, displays a higher spirituality, strength and intelligence than the most deeply religious person alive.

Maybe it is a nonsensical idea that all religions and their representatives should disappear from the earth, but I for one would certainly hope that religion recedes from the political and public spheres, into one's home and in fact exist solely in our hearts.
That would solve 90 percent of the problems faced by the world today.

There. No hate mongering, no brilliant idea either. But then, most good things in life are simple and clearly reasoned.

But boring?

Mr. Berlinerblau wrote:
"The movement abounds in polemicists, but has not produced a thinker of real substance since perhaps the days of Jean-Paul Sartre."

Today's "reasonists" -- those placing reason and evidence above faith and trust -- are far more active, dynamic and less angry than the so-called ground breakers on the evangelical side. What argument has Jerry Falwell made about the case for God that seemed reasonable? How about the case for loving one another? Or Pat Robertson or many of the other public evangelicals who have demonstrated hypocracy at its finest? And although you may be right about the lack of political dynamism, the cost of such dynamism seems too high a price to pay for my taste.

So while people of religion preach love and acceptance, these same people are the last to do away with sodomy laws. Always ready to stand up for the sanctity of marriage, no one has been able to explain to me how gay unions threaten traditional marriage.

The same people who preach the love of Jesus are the first to want an eye for an eye. That's why that bible thumping state of Texas has the highest number of executions in the country.

The reality is that secular society has moved far ahead of religious communities in terms of compassion, equality and justice. We no longer throw people in jail for working on a Sunday. We no longer ostracize people for simply being "different". We no longer prohibit people from holding office because they are of a different religion from us (although Mitt Romney is finding out that Christian love does not seem to include Mormons).

We no longer throw people in jail for performing acts of phsical love with members of the same sex (although in the heart of the bible belt, some of these laws are still on the books, just not enforced).

These are the advances of secular society and have been made with religious people kicking and screaming their "love" all the way.

Dear Mr. Berlinerblau,

Your arguments don't appear to be well reasoned.

First of all, you somehow link Secularism with Atheism or Agnosticism. When actually it is religious plurality that demands secularism.
In its most general sense, secularism would be construed as blind to an individual's faith, or lack thereof. But most certainly, Atheism and Agnosticism have not been the driving forces behind the idea of secularism in society and politics.

Your discussion laments the absence of a clear voice like Sartre among the non-believers, yet it seems to be grounded solely in the morass of religion based politics. Are there any other parameters to judge an idea?

One's religion, faith, belief or utter lack thereof is a very individual matter. Must all commentary on an idea be from the political or popular stand-point? Personally I believe in deep spirituality, but I think that a person who doesnt believe in God and has no religion, yet keeps his or her moral bearings, probably never needs religion. Such a person, if at peace with herself, displays a higher spirituality, strength and intelligence than the most deeply religious person alive.

Maybe it is a nonsensical idea that all religions and their representatives should disappear from the earth, but I for one would certainly hope that religion recedes from the political and public spheres, into one's home and in fact exist solely in our hearts.
That would solve 90 percent of the problems faced by the world today.

There. No hate mongering, no brilliant idea either. But then, most good things in life are simple and clearly reasoned.

But boring?

Really! Is that the best you can do?

Honestly, I would much rather be on the side whose biggest criticism seems to be "They are boring", than the side whose criticism seems to be "They inspire people to fly planes into buildings, or burn people at the stake".

Your idea about political organization like the evangelicals shows how little you know about the subject you are spewing on. When was the last time you saw people organize themselves around the belief that UFOs dont exist? Non-believers by definition dont believe in God. That is the only common thread they have, and are very different from each other in almost all respects. How do you expect people to rally around a non-belief?

Btw, you may like to call them hooligans, but these spokespersons you talk about are not the ones telling their neighbors (whom they should supposedly love) that they will go to hell. If their well constructed arguments lead to the idea that the world would be better of without religion, either refute it with evidence or logic, or stay out of the discussion. Just because you liken the conclusion of a well reasoned discourse to hooliganism, that does not make it any less true.

Funny how the only argument you have against secularism (btw, secularism and atheism have nothing to do with each other, and a person can be secular and believe in god, and vice versa. Your careless usage of these terms further demonstrate your inability to think clearly) is nothing but an ad-hominem boiling down to "I dont like the way my chosen spokespersons for the other side speaks, so every idea the other side stands for must be stale and wrong"

Prasheel, in answer to your question, I have not read Belrinerblau’s book and have not criticized it except to say it has not sold nearly as well as other recent books on atheism. That is a fact, not a “baseless accusation” and if you find my comments uninteresting, just count me as another boring atheist.

>>This calls attention to one glaring problem with atheism and agnosticism today: it lacks new ideas. The movement abounds in polemicists, but has not produced a thinker of real substance since perhaps the days of Jean-Paul Sartre.>>

I would look at the writings of Don Cupitt, many sociobiologists and D. Midbar http://www.atheistprayer.blogspot.com

for some interesting new -- certainly post-Sartrean!! -- ideas.

Yes, I will remember that it is secularists who call the religious names when I hear a theist state with delight there is "no atheists in foxholes." In other words, I dont care if there are thousands of atheists saying they were atheists in combat, what is more important is disparaging their patriotism.

I note the comment "[a] second problem is that contemporary nonbelief lacks any discernible political dynamism, not to mention power." Most religion, especially in the US is by its nature organised. However, an atheist is by definition not interested in religion. Atheists are not organised any more that people who have no interest in football or classical music. By extension, those who wish to not have adherents of any philosophy or practice they do not subscribe to not intrude into their lives wish for secular practices in others. This is not an organised or political thing. People may organise a love of religion or football or rifles into a political force, but it doesn't follow that those who profess non-interest need make an equal and opposite political force to counter those who would intrude in their lives. They simply ignore those forces. Secularism is meant to be boring. It is not a force countering another. It is simply ambivalence.

Anti-religion books not only are being published today, as they never have been, but are hitting best seller lists, owing to various causes, chief being that some are such rousing good reads, Mr. Berlinerblau can't help but charge them with being boring! Isn't God everywhere, precisely because he is nowhere? Straight out of Orwell's book of lying propaganda! Criticism of organized religion is supposed to put people to sleep by reciting dry fact after fact. History? Science? Zzzzzz. In any case, secularism must never claim the moral high ground so painstakingly guarded by religion as to be immoral. This is the source of Mr. Berlinerblau's unwarranted suggestion of self-criticism. He thinks secularism ought to do what religion can't, or it would go up in smoke like a burning heretic.

I read B's book on secularism and the Bible a year ago. He's a high-culture type that doesn't really care much for the atheist-in-the-street. An atheist for sure, but weirdly conservative about things. He's a good writer though. I want to see what he does next.

The merits of criticisms and arguments of anything have NOTHING to do with how "interesting" they are. They have to do with how valid and logical they are. Furthermore, if the same old arguments remain just as valid in 200 years, why do we need new ideas? Answer the old arguments, and then we'll try to find new ones.

In science, a theory is accepted until new evidence arises to dispose of it. Nobody ever accuses a theory of being wrong just because it's old. Should we find a new theory for why we stick to the Earth, since gravity is so old? Even in religion, doctrine is accepted until new evidence arises to dispose of it (though, admittedly, it generally takes much longer than in science). Didn't the Catholic Church hold that the Earth was the center of the Universe for more than 100 years after astronomical data disproved it?

The Point of Inquiry podcast just did an interview with philosopher Philip Kitcher that's maybe more what's Berlinerblau's looking for:

"Friday, July 13th, 2007
In this conversation, Philip Kitcher explores the implications of Darwinism for both literalist religion, and for liberal faith, and to what extent the implications of Darwin’s theory for belief in God should be taught in the public schools. He also discusses the role and benefits of religion, and explores alternatives to it, such as secular humanism, and offers ideas for how secular humanism might become more popular in society."
http://www.pointofinquiry.org/?m=200707

Mr. Berlinerblau:

You seem to miss the point we are making. The argument here is not weather how entertaining the our debaters are. I dont think I need to tell you that facts are not dependent on how many subscribe to a hypothesis, or how many disbelive it. Nor does it depend on who sbscribes to it or not. It is also not a function of how brilliantly the oponents argue against it. At the end of the day only thing that carries the day is not sophistry and superstition but evidence. I dont give a @^$* if you think we are stuck in 1890 and have no new ideas. You are sophist to say to claim that ateist have no new ideas. The burden of proof is on you folks to muster arguments for existences of a deity. Do not be a cheap cheat, and claim that we don have no new ideas. The matter of fact is that your ilk has not been able come up with cogent arguments based on evidence for last 120 years. Shame on you, you jerk.

"dead god walking." That pretty much sums it up.

Amen.

Ryan Haber – Thanks – I appreciate your response. I must admit I got lost with the distinction between secularity and secularism.

Stephen R. Friberg – Berlinerblau is a non-believer. Does that qualify him as one of your “incendiary atheist friends?”

Ruth Robbins - Brava

Stephen, you wrote:

**For example, if they are going to catalog all the bad things done in the name of religion then they should catalog all the bad things done in the name of secularism. Contrast the body counts. Until that is done, its cherry-picking the data - ignoring what makes your side look bad. That is a no-no in both science and reasoned discourse.**

I, for one, didn't mention anything about religious atrocities until someone indicted atheists as having no moral compass because of our lack of belief. From what I've read on this forum, the mention of such atrocities have been made precisely because theists have made such silly pronouncements as : "...I find it preposterous for an atheist to defend his position by saying he can be moral in a conventional sense without a belief in God." In the wake of such silly arguments you are going to find a lot of responses that expose hypocritical actions made on "faith's" behalf. So please, spare me the rhetoric proclaiming that you suggest "incendiary atheist friends start infusing reason into their arguments."

I have been a secular humanist for over sixty years and I never have or felt the need to engage in name calling or a demeaning attack on theists who I have argued with. And I believe that holds true for the majority of my humanist colleagues.
If you want to experience real vitriol and outright intolerance of opposing viewpoints, just attend some of the more fundamentalist Christian services or listen to their bretheren on Bible radio stations. After an hour or two of their ranting, you'll understand what real boredom is all about.

Cambridge Dictionary defines a "hooligan" as someone who behaves badly or violently and causes damage in a public place. Methinks that this name better applies to the religious who in the name of each of their respective gods behave badly or violent and cause damage such as committing terrorism in the name of Allah, molesting little boys in Christ's house, electroshocking gays at the direction of a Latter Day prohet, forming mercenary armies in Iraq in Jesus name and the list goes on.

Just because someone doesn't buy into these sheep mentalities, doesn't make them any more of a hooligan than the so called rightous. The author claims he is not a fundamentalist Christian but he sure defends them as one.

Well said! As a start, I suggest that our incendiary atheist friends start infusing reason into their arguments.

For example, if they are going to catalog all the bad things done in the name of religion then they should catalog all the bad things done in the name of secularism. Contrast the body counts. Until that is done, its cherry-picking the data - ignoring what makes your side look bad. That is a no-no in both science and reasoned discourse.

If you are a militant atheist who thinks that religion offers testable scientific hypotheses about the universe, you are right. But it is not what you think it is. Religion describes the universe as knowable with the conclusion that science as possible. Argue with this one, not the miracles of intelligent design.

Steve F.

Well said! As a start, I suggest that our incendiary atheist friends start infusing reason into their arguments.

For example, if they are going to catalog all the bad things done in the name of religion then they should catalog all the bad things done in the name of secularism. Contrast the body counts. Until that is done, its cherry-picking the data - ignoring what makes your side look bad. That is a no-no in both science and reasoned discourse.

If you are a militant atheist who thinks that religion offers testable scientific hypotheses about the universe, you are right. But it is not what you think it is. Religion describes the universe as knowable with the conclusion that science as possible. Argue with this one, not the miracles of intelligent design.

Steve F.

Hello, Interested, I agree it’s disappointing that so many misunderstand Berlinerblau, but I can certainly understand why – He’s incendiary from the start. Atheists are primed for this disdainful approach and react accordingly. So, I’d like Berlinerblau to search his conscience, asking himself why he chose this approach. I’m completely serious. I think it’s very psychological and integral to his understanding and growth regarding this issue. I hope he has a good therapist or trusted confidant with whom to explore this. Considering that he’s an author and a university professor with bully pulpit, he could have much to offer if he resolved these issues.

I did read the Harris piece, now and when it came out. I think our different takes on it are indicative of the differences between academia and the educated public. I thought Harris was completely clear. Berlinerblau was muddled – as evidenced by the public response. It doesn’t matter if academics understood him - in this venue, his audience is the public.

I appreciate you attempts to translate for him and agree with some of your interpretations, but I shouldn’t need an interpreter. This isn’t bible study.

"For the past decade or so, only the most snarling and extreme variants of atheist and agnostic thought have been featured in Book Review sections, Op-Ed pages, and magazines of opinion. Sticking it to the Pope, taking on Islam in its entirety, or ridiculing Bible-carrying Christians has become the admission ticket for those nonbelievers craving media attention."
***********************

I wonder who is snarling at whom?

Berlinerblau's petite essay drips with the same kind of disdain he accuses some vague group of secularists of displaying. If Hitchens snarls and rarely offers original insight, it is because he is Hitchens, not because he is an atheist!

"the Evangelicals ... with their grass roots organizations, Beltway alliances, pressure groups, D.C. lobbyists and internet manifestos are the model of an efficient (and somewhat frightening) political juggernaut."
************

Yes, there seems to be a low-intensity war going on over control of government agencies and functions. Perhaps the snarling is to be expected? Perhaps neither side has a monopoly?

(Have you heard the Catholic Bishops snarling at the Catholic politicians who dare distinguish their responsibilities to their constituents from their responsibilities to their faith?)

Or perhaps we could adopt a Christian response, and when someone snarls in our left ear, we turn the other ear?

Shallom, Insh'Allah

Mr. Berlinerblau is quite presumptious saying there are only two constituancies of secular Americans.

There seems to be more rabid religious people trying to force their own beliefs on everyone else than people trying to force people to not believe in their own beliefs (does this make me a soccor lunatic?).

People who believe in separation of church and state are both religious people and secular people.

There are athiests, and people who just stopped believing, or don't know and have chosen to give up the belief system they grew up with.

And this is just in my limited experience.

Daniel-
You wrote:
**The path of atheism has been diminishing a belief in God and increasingly marching to the beat of science, but this has also been cutting into absolute notions of good and evil. This has made determining the both more and more difficult**

I submit that there are no absolute notions of good or evil-aside from that relative to personal existence-but nothing absolute in a cosmological sense. I think that much of what humans perceive as good and evil has to do with suffering. I believe that we are empathetic enough not to wish suffering on anything we deem "innocent". The fact of the matter is that nothing in nature, aside from humans, makes such distinction when it comes to hostility befalling an individual. Hurricanes don't- neither does the ravenous black hole at the center of our galaxy. Evil? I know people that wouldn't put their neighbors at the same risk that they put their own dogs- so you see, for many (not all) there is a uniquely anthropocentric definition to "good" and "evil". I'm making this a quick argument of this for bandwidth reasons, but suffice it to say that your "good" is often something else's "evil".

Now, you also write:
**As a closing note I would also like to say I find it preposterous for an atheist to defend his position by saying he can be moral in a conventional sense without a belief in God.**
You really think that? What do you mean by "conventional"? Do you mean beheading an infidel? Do you mean settling for $660 million for sexual abuse(really, just for drama, it should have been $666 million)? And do you think that if I substituted someone else's unprovable concept into that statement that your premise wouldn't look ridiculous to you? Let's try: "As a closing note I would also like to say I find it preposterous for an atheist to defend his position by saying he can be moral in a conventional sense without a belief in Clotho." Go ahead, google Clotho.
What does that say of you if you don't have enough empathy to your fellow living beings to answer questions of morality without weighing the consequential impact to those around you? Am I to accuse you of being deficient in moral fiber because you need a metaphoric shock collar to keep you in the metaphoric back yard? This, Daniel, is why atheists get incendiary.

It is "belief" that is dull and predictable. The canon has been written and preached over and over again.

It is the freedom from dogmatic belief that is creative and alive.

When I finally dumped the monkey of "god" off my back, life made sense and I was free to "live".

I am 80 years old - I have not hurt myself or others - I need no redemption, forgiveness or salvation. I have lived a great life and am not asking for more toys from "santa" because I have been such a good girl.

As for the Golden Rule - the monkeys in the zoo practice that -

If I had a religion, it would be something like this. My god would have all the power of a 9-volt battery and all the sentience of a gerbil. He woke up one day, nibbled on a singularity he found nearby, thereby kick-starting the universe (Big Bang), then curled up and went back to sleep.

And the rest is history.

Not much to worship, but makes a workable creation story.

Daniel

My guess is that you're very young,and you don't get out much.
You seem scared to death that maybe there is no God.
Relax.It doesn't really matter.What has God ever done for you? Or what has God ever done for anybody?
Where was God during the Asian tsunami when hundreds of thousands of people were swept away to their deaths,women,children little old ladies,most of whom
prayed 5 times a day facing Mecca?
Where was this wonderful God during Hurricane Katrina? And what kind of God talks to GWBush and doesn't tell him that invading Iraq will be a disaster killing countless thousands of innocent people.
If there was a God I'd expect him to do something for the starving masses in Darfur and elsewhere.
God never does a darned thing for anybody because he lives in the imagination,not in the real world.
To many of us,Daniel,God is as real as Santa.
But life goes on,and we do the best we can.
God is really unnecessary.

Daniel: You lost me with your argument. You seem to be saying that as an atheist, I need to test my disbelief in a deity by doing something to invoke an alleged deity's wrath???

If the act is wrong, I will not do it. I don't need a deity telling me. How do I know it's wrong? Well, if I've had a proper upbringing, pay attention to the world around me and learn what is considered out of bounds in my society, I will know. If I have doubts, I'll seek the counsel of a trusted advisor. None of this requires religion, although many folks do fall back on their religion in such situations.

If I'm told by a religious leader that to please god I should blow myself up in a crowded marketplace, or deny my child medical treatment in lieu of just prayer, or ostracize a friend because he violated some church doctrine, or reject my son because he is gay, or.... should I do that? I as an atheist say no, that's not right. Some theists say yes.

Where are the absolutes you seem to think that religion provides? What distorted view of atheist