pZ0VWZ vcxdsgcvb363454gdfgdbcv53435654

OK, let me repeat that… I feel like a fog. thanks for posting. drug vaigra

jugdknxzm rgopi enzdlt hwtcdam ykgah yctqbkv rdima http://www.ihods.aogxltp.com

bgyt chdgzoxa vngqwzucs ysdajtcm jhdev avjyclhu qowyrsd

bgyt chdgzoxa vngqwzucs ysdajtcm jhdev avjyclhu qowyrsd

last but not least, coop manhattan mortgage rate refinance

Yes, it's true! loan payday money tree

Here’s what
this is all about:fast cash faxless payday loans

What does all this mean to you? buy zenegra

But just keep reading. buy viagrra online

But you know what else? buy zenegra

I've just been hanging out waiting for something to happen.
lexapro vs paxil

I just don't have much to say lately.
lexapro and xanax

Not much on my mind today, but I don't care.
lexapro withdrawal side effects

I don't care.

Hi!! good :)
I find core hard xenadrine here!
.?

Hello all! nice domen :)
I find 1 capsule rfa xenadrine here!
.?

Crack of doom - The

I am a secular non-believer and really do not see any need for political mobilization as the political climate in the US is generally secular anyway. Evangelicals are constituents and paying lip service to them does not bother me a bit. As Mr. Berlinerbrau noted the secular believers have a healthy majority and my disagreements with any group of them are far more likely to be due to political ideology than religious identity.

I would also say that in my experience most non-believers do not loathe religion and think that it is generally a healthy influence on society given the primarily peaceful teachings of all major religions. The "New Atheists" are not representative of the general non-believing community. Again in my experience, most non-believers are in fact members of religions and appreciate the communal experience and the moral compass it reinforces in their children.

I think true atheists are subject to much of the criticisms they levy at believers as they are in fact believers of a different sort. Most agnostics do not make the leap (of faith?) that if the God of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam is a human creation, there is no God or divine presence at all. Agnostics generally think there are no good reasons to believe anything in particular about the divine or lack there of.

Excellent post.

I don't really understand agnosticism, atheism or religion. By that I mean - I don't understand the importance of religion or questions about the existence of a supreme being. Why do such questions really matter - except perhaps to the extent that such beliefs are used for sinister purposes?

I think of millions who perished in concentration camps and how they needed good people to refuse to be a part of such a terrible system. I also think of people supporting (presumably out of fear of the consequences of objecting to the holocaust) a system in which guards at concentration camps made decisions of life or death for millions - merely on the basis of a fortuity of birth that none of us has any control over. These notions cause me to wonder why anybody would want to support the notion of a supreme being that makes decisions over the fate of humans on the basis of a fortuity of birth that is beyond the control of any individual. (Some may argue, of course, that despite the fortuity of one's birth - human's are still free to choose the "right" path). But why should any moral person want to believe in a supreme being that will only grant salvation to those children of non-believers or "wrong believers" who reject the teachings of loving but perhaps "misguided" parents? How is such a supreme being (who condems a child of "wrong believing" parents to hell any different than the concetration camp guard (or rather the man made system of Nazi extrermination) that condemned millions of Jews and others to the gas chamber and crematorium. Why is such a notion so clearly unacceptable when imposed by humans but somehow worthy of faith when practiced by a supreme being and supported by a arrogantly proclaimed moral majority? Why would any decent person want to support such a twisted notion of religion? Why wouldn't any decent person feel compelled to object and advocate in favor of a different notion of a supreme being that is far more loving, accepting and tolerant?

Some may say that G-d is the way G-d is and we mortals have no power over such things. But I believe that we define God by our faith. Einstein argued, for example, against the religious beliefs of his day, that a truly powerful G-d would not construct a world that did not abide by the most beautiful and elegant principles of physics. In similar fashion, it is inconceivable to me that a supreme being would behave in a way that imitates the worst traits of humans. I can understand why Germans in the late 1930's and 1940's may have lacked the courage to object to the inhumane practices of the Nazis - but I cannot understand what fear compels citizens of our free society and our political leaders to cower and submit to the will of religious movements that advocate in favor of horribly dangerous notions of a supreme being that is less than completely loving and embracing of all. It was the job of all decent and moral people to find the courage to object to such twisted notions in the 1930s and 1940s. Given that the only consequence of making such objections now is little more than the fear of ridicule or not getting elected - it is difficult to understand the lack of courage on the part of our citizenry and our politicians. Enough is enough! Surely there must be a Barry Goldwater among us.

Excellent post.

I don't really understand agnosticism, atheism or religion. By that I mean - I don't understand the importance of religion or questions about the existence of a supreme being. Why do such questions really matter - except perhaps to the extent that such beliefs are used for sinister purposes?

I think of millions who perished in concentration camps and how they needed good people to refuse to be a part of such a terrible system. I also think of people supporting (presumably out of fear of the consequences of objecting to the holocaust) a system in which guards at concentration camps made decisions of life or death for millions - merely on the basis of a fortuity of birth that none of us has any control over. These notions cause me to wonder why anybody would want to support the notion of a supreme being that makes decisions over the fate of humans on the basis of a fortuity of birth that is beyond the control of any individual. (Some may argue, of course, that despite the fortuity of one's birth - human's are still free to choose the "right" path). But why should any moral person want to believe in a supreme being that will only grant salvation to those children of non-believers or "wrong believers" who reject the teachings of loving but perhaps "misguided" parents? How is such a supreme being (who condems a child of "wrong believing" parents to hell any different than the concetration camp guard (or rather the man made system of Nazi extrermination) that condemned millions of Jews and others to the gas chamber and crematorium. Why is such a notion so clearly unacceptable when imposed by humans but somehow worthy of faith when practiced by a supreme being and supported by an arrogantly proclaimed moral majority? Why would any decent person want to support such a twisted notion of religion? Why wouldn't any decent person feel compelled to object and advocate in favor of a different notion of a supreme being that is far more loving, accepting and tolerant?

Some may say that G-d is the way G-d is and we mortals have no power over such things. But I believe that we define God by our faith. Einstein argued, for example, in opposition to the religious beliefs of his day, that a truly powerful G-d would not construct a world that did not abide by the most beautiful and elegant principles of physics. In similar fashion, it is inconceivable to me that a supreme being would behave in a way that imitates the worst traits of humans. I can understand why some Germans in the late 1930's and 1940's may have lacked the courage to object to the inhumane practices of the Nazis - but I cannot understand what fear compels citizens of our free society and our political leaders to cower and submit to the will of religious movements that advocate in favor of horribly dangerous and ethnocentric notions of a supreme being that is less than completely loving and embracing of all. It was the job of all decent and moral people to find the courage to object to such twisted notions in the 1930s and 1940s. Given that the only consequence of making such objections now is little more than the fear of ridicule or not getting elected - it is difficult to understand the lack of courage on the part of our citizenry and our politicians. Enough is enough! Surely there must be a Barry Goldwater among us somewhere.

Excellent post.

I don't really understand agnosticism, atheism or religion. By that I mean - I don't understand the importance of religion or questions about the existence of a supreme being. Why do such questions really matter - except perhaps to the extent that such beliefs are used for sinister purposes?

I think of millions who perished in concentration camps and how they needed good people to refuse to be a part of such a terrible system. I also think of people supporting (presumably out of fear of the consequences of objecting to the holocaust) a system in which guards at concentration camps made decisions of life or death for millions - merely on the basis of a fortuity of birth that none of us has any control over. These notions cause me to wonder why anybody would want to support the notion of a supreme being that makes decisions over the fate of humans on the basis of a fortuity of birth that is beyond the control of any individual. (Some may argue, of course, that despite the fortuity of one's birth - human's are still free to choose the "right" path). But why should any moral person want to believe in a supreme being that will only grant salvation to those children of non-believers or "wrong believers" who reject the teachings of loving but perhaps "misguided" parents? How is such a supreme being (who condems a child of "wrong believing" parents to hell any different than the concetration camp guard (or rather the man made system of Nazi extrermination) that condemned millions of Jews and others to the gas chamber and crematorium. Why is such a notion so clearly unacceptable when imposed by humans but somehow worthy of faith when practiced by a supreme being and supported by an arrogantly proclaimed moral majority? Why would any decent person want to support such a twisted notion of religion? Why wouldn't any decent person feel compelled to object and advocate in favor of a different notion of a supreme being that is far more loving, accepting and tolerant?

Some may say that G-d is the way G-d is and we mortals have no power over such things. But I believe that we define God by our faith. Einstein argued, for example, in opposition to the religious beliefs of his day, that a truly powerful G-d would not construct a world that did not abide by the most beautiful and elegant principles of physics. In similar fashion, it is inconceivable to me that a supreme being would behave in a way that imitates the worst traits of humans. I can understand why some Germans in the late 1930's and 1940's may have lacked the courage to object to the inhumane practices of the Nazis - but I cannot understand what fear compels citizens of our free society and our political leaders to cower and submit to the will of religious movements that advocate in favor of horribly dangerous and ethnocentric notions of a supreme being that is less than completely loving and embracing of all. It was the job of all decent and moral people to find the courage to object to such twisted notions in the 1930s and 1940s. Given that the only consequence of making such objections now is little more than the fear of ridicule or not getting elected - it is difficult to understand the lack of courage on the part of our citizenry and our politicians. Enough is enough! Surely there must be a Barry Goldwater among us somewhere.

Jacques Berlinerblau - another pre-posterist - putting a propositional cart before the necessary conceptual horses!

Mr Berlinerblau essay is a nest of conceptual confusion, at best, and rhetorical disingenuousness, at worst. Let's assume - under the principle of charity - the former.

His use - like that of the American populist evangeloids & theocrats - of the paternalistic term "non-believers" shows both conceptual and epistemic ignorance, maybe carelessness.

Like the earlier appropriation of the word 'gay' for the self-designation of a cultural sub-group, the appropriation of 'believer' & 'belief' & 'faith' by another - sometimes overlapping - subgroup sows conceptual confusion & serves only to accelerate the decay of American English.

Briefly: How may & should one designate a belief for which there is not or - in principle - cannot be empirical evidence?

Simply: Faith: Pistis! [Trusted Beliefs]

Hence: Everyone is a "person-of-faith" since everyone lives by mental states that can only be described as "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen", including scientists in both their empirical & theoretical endeavors.

The cognitive state of faith, therefore, is constitutive of human nature. To think otherwise is itself a paradoxical mental state!

As a person somewhere between Category 2 and Category 3 on the aforementioned atheist scale, let me defend the 3's by saying that they don't question your right to believe in God, they just thoroughly exercise their right to call you an idiot for it.

Chip - I like snarky

SML - must be hard working at a place like that.

MCVOTAW: "In my experience, nonbelievers tend not to be a rather youthful demographic, but aging hippies and other intelligentsia."

Right - in your experience - the atheist group group I hang out with is of all ages, and skews young -20's-30's.

Here's my feeling - because we've been so quiet and hidden until recently, we really don't know what we're like, and make false assumptions based on limited personal experience. We need to find out what we're like.

E favorite, thank you. That's very kind of you to say. I'm not sure I completely agree though. I have my snarky days too!

LTU, I've also been impressed by this particular discussion, especially by how the prevailing attitude of the atheists represented here isn't so much anti-religious, but rather pro individual freedom.

SML writes "The books on the best seller list are proof that there a lot of us are in the closet, how long will it be before the rest of us can speak our minds without fear of retaliation?"

I think the answer to that question depends on people like you, not on those who would retaliate against you. Freedoms are won by generations of people willing to risk their personal comfort and security for the sake of principle.

In my experience, nonbelievers tend not to be a rather youthful demographic, but aging hippies and other intelligentsia.

When GWB was elected, our state anti-discrimination office started to receive an avalanche of complaints from people who were fired because they "weren't Christian enough".

As for where I work, I work at a private school. While they advertise as an EEO employer, there's a clause about how anyone that they hire has to have a philosophy "compatible with ______", a specific religion.

Mr. Mark,

I agree to your observation about the "tongue in cheek" character of Mr. Berlinerblau's contributions. The term "godlessness" can only be meant ironically.

But I had the same feeling as you to start with, lol!

LTU - When Chip contributes, it tends to elevate the conversation.

In answer to your question,"Can people just accept that atheists/agnostics want to do good just because it's good?" Sure - but first they have to know a good few atheists/agnostics, meaning we have to identify ourselves to them. They don't know we're there unless we tell them.

Mr (Dr? Prof?) Berlinerblau's columns used to really set me off, until I realized that they are not-so-subtle parodies loaded with sarcasm.

If one reads them with the understanding that they are supporting the position OPPOSITE to what they seem to support, then they make a lot of sense and are sort of fun to read.

It would help if Berlinerblau's writing included a few more-obvious clues as to what he was actually about in these columns.

I think this is the most intelligent discussion by "non-believers" that I have seen on WaPo. I agree with Chip 100%. The definition of a good human being to me is doing good things for our fellow man without being forced to by some carrot in the afterlife or being damned for eternity. Can people just accept that atheists/agnostics want to do good just because it's good?

But belief in a Supreme Being does not imply support of religion or approval of religious doctrine, much of which seems to be morally dubious and to have no actual historical provenance. It is without question that the Bible in use today has been rewritten and added to- The oldest New Testament-Codex Siniaticus- contains no Christmas story, therefore no virgin birth and no resurrection. These were provably added to the Bible some hundreds of years later. Many believe that it is religious doctrine and religious heirachies(particularly when politics claims legitimacy by hiding behind religion) that stand between a closer relationship of man to the divine. Why would a Supreme Being, Creator of a Universe that has more stars than the Earth has grains of sand, require political boasters and so called ordained purveyors of doctrine to tangle up religious science and God's evolutionary morality with their narrow and petty political concerns?

But belief in a Supreme Being does not imply support of religion or approval of religious doctrine, much of which seems to be morally dubious and to have no actual historical provenance but many claiming Faith have been too lazy to look outside the narrow confines of doctrine and examine the historical legitimacy. It is without question that the Bible in use today has been rewritten and added to- The oldest New Testament-Codex Siniaticus- contains no Christmas story, therefore no virgin birth and no resurrection. These were provably added to the Bible some hundreds of years later. Many believe that it is religious doctrine and religious heirachies(particularly when politics claims legitimacy by hiding behind religion) that stand between a closer relationship of man to the divine. Why would a Supreme Being, Creator of a Universe that has more stars than the Earth has grains of sand, require political boasters and so called ordained purveyors of doctrine to tangle up religious science and God's evolutionary morality with their narrow and petty political concerns?

I think many of you are missing the author's point. There are political groups that are pro-choice, and groups that are anti-abortion; groups that are for gun control, and the NRA. There is no united group that is giving any pushback to the religious encroachment on the U.S. government, and so they tend to lose to the very well organized Christian Right on issues like goverment support of faith based charities, gay marriage, etc.

An article in the Post recently declared those who want to remove "In God We Trust" from money as "extremists". Why is that considered extreme? Because few are effectively expressing the secular side of the debate.

by A.C.Grayling

Religious belief is humankind's earliest science. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are young religions in historical terms, and came into existence after kings and emperors had more magnificently taken the place of tribal chiefs. The new religions therefore modelled their respective deities on kings with absolute powers.

But for tens of thousands of years beforehand people were fundamentally animistic, explaining the natural world by imputing agency to things - spirits or gods in the wind, in the thunder, in the rivers and sea.

As knowledge replaced these naiveties, so deities became more invisible, receding to mountain tops and then to the sky or the earth's depths. One can easily see how it was in the interests of priesthoods, most of which were hereditary, to keep these myths alive.

With such a view of religion - as ancient superstition, as a primitive form of explanation of the world sophisticated into mythology - it is hard for non-religious folk to take it seriously, and equally hard for them to accept the claim of religious folk to a disproportionate say in running society.

This is the more so given that the active constituency of all believers in Britain is about eight per cent of the population. A majority might have vague beliefs and occasionally go to church, but even they do not want their lives dictated to by so small and narrow a self-selected minority.

The disproportion is a startling one. Regular C of E churchgoers make up three per cent of the population, yet have 26 bishops in the House of Lords. Now that religion is bustling on to centre-stage and asking for everyone's taxes to pay for faith schools and exemptions, this anachronism is no longer tolerable.

And all this is happening against the background of atrocities committed by religious fanatics in America, Europe and the Middle East, whose beliefs are not very different from the majority of others in their faith.

The absolute certainty, the unreflective credence given to ancient texts that relate to historically remote conditions, the zealotry and bigotry that flow from their certainty, are profoundly dangerous: at their extreme they result in mass murder, but long before then they issue in censorship, coercion to conform, the control of women, the closing of hearts and minds.

Thus there is a continuum from the suicide bomber driven by religious zeal to the moral crusader who wishes to stop everyone else from seeing or reading what he himself finds offensive. This fact makes people of a secular disposition no longer prepared to be silent and concessive.

Religion has lost respectability as a result of the atrocities committed in its name, because of its clamouring for an undue slice of the pie, and for its efforts to impose its views on others.

Where politeness once restrained non-religious folk from expressing their true feelings about religion, both politeness and restraint have been banished by the confrontational face that faith now turns to the modern world.

This, then, is why there is an acerbic quarrel going on between religion and non-religion today, and it does not look as if it will end soon

SML - without giving too much away, can you say what kind of job you have and why you think you'd lose it. While I don't doubt your concerns, wouldn't it be illegal to fire someone on the basis of their beliefs?

I think the term Non-Fundamentalist covers it.
My religious beliefs have nothing to do with how our country should be run.
Look at the ill-effects of what the, to quote Karl Rove, 'Christian Nuts' have done.

Why don't I organize? Become more outspoken? Simple, I'd like to keep my job. Prominent academics protected by tenure can speak out. My job would be forfeit if I discussed my long held (over 35 years) beliefs.

The books on the best seller list are proof that there alot of us are in the closet, how long will it be before thre rest of us can speak our minds without fear of retaliation?

"On Thursday, I unveil my proposal for rescuing nonbelief from its current malaise."

Berlinblau is what the bloggers call "a concern troll."

Gerry isn't sufficiently explicit about the link between Hitler's regime and Mr. Berliner's theme. A focusing question is why people who are unpopular with a large and currently politically successful group (the religious Right) might not want to be listed members of organizations which could be targeted for discriminatory actions by government agencies and activities. Many threads intertwine here. The implications for civil rights are frightening.
One thread is the long history of religious pogroms, from the Catholic Inquisitions to Nazi persecutions to Taliban atrocities which even today assassinate teachers of anything other than their fundamentalism.
Contemplate Stalin, the East German Stasi, and secret police in totalitarian governments world-wide, used to establish and hold power, some with religious motivations, others more clearly financially motivated, all corrupt but effective in their time and places.
Another thread is the U.S. history of governmental involvement in threats and actions against unpopular groups, from J. Edgar Hoover's blackmail lists to Sen. Joseph's McCarthy's "Communist" lists, the House Un-American Activities Committee blacklists, Richard Nixon's enemies lists, and now George W. Bush's no-fly lists, Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib un-named prisoner lists, FBI undisclosable "letter" lists, secret courts, secret wiretaps, secret email taps, dozens of clandestine military "special ops" groups and who knows what else, established and funded by a compliant, pandering and incurious Congress which seems oblivious to the lessons of history, in the name of "fighting terrorism". Victims are virtually defenseless. Bush spares no effort to avoid checks and balances, while his administration vacuums in graduates of Regent University Law School. Who doubts whether there would be official tyranny by the "majority" of Christians of various stripes if a Pat Robertson were in the White House? Bush is too close to being a surrogate for the taste of many voters and most non-theists.
Finally, Nazism wasn't just a political movement, it also was a religion, with blood lines, martyrs, symbolism and ceremonies, and a comprehensive government-run organization to stoke popular fervor. Mixing government and religion while blaming Germany's problems on other religions and on other non-Aryans such as Gypsies enabled and led to extermination campaigns which "secretly" killed millions.
When might we read Mr. Berlinerblau's view of the religious aspect of Nazism, and possible parallels with religious fundamentalism in Islam and the U.S.A.?

Soja,

the unfolding of your categories, the meaning of which amounts to zero, is not enhanced by repeating it. There are even some more people with the ability to peruse "On Faith".

Nobody, even the category 3 atheists, doubts your right to believe in god!

The limits of your thinking, however, becomes very clear by this sad attempt to put your fellow humans in 3 (!) practical drawers. Is that all your religion can equip you with?

Talent is the ability to hit a target using skill. What do you call the ability to hit a target others can't even see?

I classify atheists into three types:

1. Nominal atheists: Those who don't particularly care about whether God exists or not. They don't believe in a God because there is no place in their life for such thoughts. They are the equivalents of believers who say they believe in God when asked, but don't particularly care if God exists or not and don't let their belief play any role in their lives. This group probably constitutes the vast majority of atheists and are open to ideas in the books written by Dawkins et al.

2. Dyed in the wool atheists: Atheists who have seriously considered the question whether God exists and have come to a rational conclusion that He doesn't. They don't stuff their atheism down anyone's throats. They respect the freedom of other human beings to believe in God and are able to recognise good when they see it, no matter where. This group agrees in general with the ideas of Dawkins et al, but do not share the religion-bashing fervour.

3. Religion-bashing-atheists: They are a special brand of atheists who are convinced that nobody has the right to believe in God simply because they don't. They are fundamentalist and evangelistic like any religious group, making it a point to attack believers for their faith - not just the wrong practice of religion but ALL practice of religion, no matter what good fruits it produces. Professor Dawkins and Mr Harris belong to this minority and they have their disciples who feel a sense of mission to spread the bad news of religion-bashing-atheism.

First posted by SJT on Richard Dawkins blog
September 17, 2007 3:38 AM

Why should "humanist", even "secular humanist", be such a bad name for us?

Latest brain neurology and latest psychology suggests, that our brain is not wired for negatives. A golfer never says: "The ball may NOT fall into the water". Instead: "The ball must hit that particular part of the green". Or: "Can you concentrate on NOT imagining a pink elephant"?

So "non-believer" (similar to "a-theist") is a very bad name and furtively suggests "believer", see above.

Religion must be abolished from inside its own constituency, a process we can already observe (starting with "secular believers"). As has been mentioned, there is no political movement of "non - stamp collectors", nor is there a necessity for it.

Human dignity is based on the fact that we can think for ourselves. There always were (and are) so admirable independent anti-religionist minds around. Mark Twain, Thomas Jefferson, John Locke, Thomas Paine, Voltaire, all the superb minds of the European enlightenment, come to mind. Their "deism", if it existed in the context of their historical times, amounted to nothing more than to believe that the universe, that life, that society is (or should be) "good" or "valuable", whatever that may mean to them. Compare these people to the abysmal demagoguery of the Pat Robertsons, the Ted Haggards, the G.W. Bushes, the John Hagees and, alas, the majority of people (voters!) who swallow this poison because they depend on the superstition of the prescribed religions to legitimize their cowardice. Religion is based on nothing but fear ("god-fearing"). What about the "land of the (god-) fearing"?

Hitler (he was democratically voted into office!) brought the Germans behind himself by appealing to the most primitive human feelings: Fear and revenge (revenge after the treaty of Versailles). Those feelings were genuine in the German majority in 1933, just like they are genuine in US voters today.

In Philadelphia other areas there are Meetups, at which people of similar interest get together to discuss Separation of Church and State, Atheism and other topics. This is just a tiny fraction of the topics on which Meetup participants get together. The Philadelphia Meetup group occasionally brings in speakers on topics of interest, at a local restaurant, at a Unitarian church and at other locations. Usually just its members attend to discuss topics and events of mutual interest.
At local colleges, whether public, denominational or evangelical, speakers for viewpoints related to atheism, separation of church and state, and related topics are invited to seminars, at which non-students also may be in the audience.
Americans United for Church and State (www.au.org) has a lively web site for people interested in the topics in which it takes an interest. Its newsletter and web site keep interested people informed. It encourages local activities on relevant topics, and encourages contact with public officials from Congress on down.
You also may be aware of the Freethought Society.
Skeptical Inquirer magazine is a thoughtful periodical which also keeps interested people informed. It's related organization, the Center for Inquiry, is getting off the ground.
So you can see that there are venues and media which are meeting places for minds and bodies who are interested in topics not limited to religion and its adherents. Some are organizations which do the kinds of community service that churches are known for. Others simply strive to preserve the freedom to think which benefits all U.S. citizens.

The USA - like the Vatican - increasingly functions under structures of deceit, though the USA is unique in that it is driven by collective self-deception.

Both the so-called "believers" & the so-called "non-believers" all believe that this is the most "religious" nation in the western world. But - pragmatically - for americans, there is only one religion, the quasi-economic religion of consumption & status, mixed in w/ more "cosmetic correctness" than "political correctness"

All the rest is pious chintz!

Politicans and their Roves on all sides do not care what we the people think, they only care what the actual voting public things.
It seems the only people actually voting these days are prone to the pander. They don't slice and dice the crap coming out of the politician's mouths, they only seem to taste it for the correct flavor and odor.
Does it fulfill their preconceived ideas, bigotries and prejudices?
Does it tell them that they are better people for believing it, better than people who don't believe it?
Do they have to *do* anything to believe it, or can they just be agreeable?

This is why I worry about the religious running the government. The fundamental core of religious belief is unquestioning blind faith. I don't mean the parts you do question, I mean the primary first assumptions are not to be questioned.

Some Pat Roberston comes along, seesm charismatic, seems smart, tells you about what you really believe when you say you believe, when all he really wants is power - and now he has a large group of followers who don't know better than to question this creep.

If it weren't for the believer, there would never be a pat roberston, an osama, a stalin or hitler or mao.

Sully wrote:
"You think atheists and agnostics will stay home? You think only atheists and agnostics benefit from the separation of church and state? Me thinks you do not understand that the separation benefits the religious MORE than the atheist since it is religion, both the one in favor and the ones not in favor, that suffer when the separation is not maintained. The separation is as much there to protect religions, all of them, as it is to protect the atheist. When the religious believers fight to protect the constitution, they will be doing it for selfish reasons, and the atheists, as always, will be working quietly and cooperatively next to them as they do today in ever aspect of life."

My post did not suggest that atheists and agnostics benefited more or less than religious believers who champion the First Amendment nor that atheists/agnostics will sit on their hands and permit the continuation of the assault on the First Amendment by extremists of any stripe. Since this blog was about the political state of atheists/agnostics (which is, apparently, a non-concern to many atheist/agnostic posters) versus that of religious believers, I was responding to that argument.
As for motivation, we all act out of self-interest, enlightened or otherwise. My point was that given the overwhelming numbers of religious believers, most of whom are common sense people, the political impact would be greater than from what I assume (perhaps I'm wrong) is a small percentage of the politically active population. And to say that atheists/agnostics will benefit from the efforts of religious believers is not to say that atheists/agnostics are not "working quietly and cooperatively beside them". As I posted, "I am as concerned as any atheist, agnostic or religious believer about the encroachment on the First Amendment by this administration and the base which helped bring it to power." I believe that statement acknowledges the common efforts of all classes mentioned in this blog. It does not, however, imply that atheists/agnostics are idiots or morons, despite the displays of irrationality on the parts of many who have posted to this blog.

I think J. Berlinerblau misses the bigger picture of the lack of political inclusion of the secular vote by both parties. The epistemological differences between secular atheist/agnostics and secular believers is not a very big separation. We are lost to the big parties primarily because of their central political philosophies, not because of our secular epistemological differences.

We are given the choice between four flawed political philosphies which most of us find totally unappealing. They server either Big Government, God, Mother Earth, or Big Business. On the progressive left there is tax and spend on big government social programs and the curtailing of the free market by organized labor. The religious right offers free markets, but with a dose of moral interventionism obliterating individual liberty. The religious left worships at the altar of "Gaia" instead of "God", with a healthy dose of hatred for free trade and free market. Finally, the big-business right refuses to respect any borders, exporting imperialism and importing cheap labor.

There are a lot of us disaffected secularists who could care less whether anyone believes in God or doesn't. We just want government to leave our businesses alone with a healthy helping of individual liberty to guarantee our right to make epistemological decisions in freedom.

I think most of us atheists don't care about representation in government. We just want the government to get out of the business of taking sides on metaphysical issues, and instead focus on governing.

MIKEF wrote: "The counter-insurgency against extreme religion-based assaults on the constitution will come in large part from religious believers who are also secularists, and the atheists and agnostics will continue to reap the benefits, just as they have for a good part of this nation's history"

You think atheists and agnostics will stay home? You think only atheists and agnostics benefit from the separation of church and state? Me thinks you do not understand that the separation benefits the religious MORE than the atheist since it is religion, both the one in favor and the ones not in favor, that suffer when the separation is not maintained. The separation is as much there to protect religions, all of them, as it is to protect the atheist. When the religious believers fight to protect the constitution, they will be doing it for selfish reasons, and the atheists, as always, will be working quietly and cooperatively next to them as they do today in ever aspect of life.

I'm not convinced the issue is athiests and agnostics inability to organize and politicize, but the issue that seems to bother every moderate at every turn: how do we realign the country to a more "sane" path? I think some confusion comes about because there are no powerful moderate parties or organizations. When looking for something or someone to fight what they are against, people look to what is naturally opposite. Want to fight the republicans? Turn to the democrates? Want to fight facism? Turn to Capitalism? Want to fight the Religious? Turn to the non-religious.

Unfortunately, this ignores the the fact that because we are non-believers, or as I like to call us "rational", we don't organize. We don't politicize.

What we, athiests, agnostics, secularlists, humanists, "brights" - as the Brits call em - need is a party and canidate more interested in trying to undo the damage to our political system and "unalienable" rights, than in placating an intolerant percentage of the population.

DNMN: "Of course I'm not suggesting that non-believers can't be compassionate; and I'm not suggesting that all religious people are compassionate."

Good - that's what I thought - glad to have it clarified.

" I was responding to "Eric's" statement that people with religious beliefs are "morons" -- also, according to a more recent post, "dumber than a box of rocks." Apparently my personal experience is different from theirs."

Then please don't start acting like them. I was recently a christian and have many good and intelligent christian friends. I think some of their religious beliefs are dead wrong - the supernatural stuff -- but still think they are OK as people. I bet Eric has some similar experience.

I suggest you try not to focus on some of the extreme statments that atheists make and think instead about the more reasonable ones - some of which still might be very threatening to your faith.

Mr Berlinerblau says:

"Nonbelief is in a state of complete political disrepair"

That's because it isn't a political structure, Mr. Berlinerblau. Last time I checked, nonbelief was a stance on metaphysical concepts, and that is all. Your statement would have merit if you were talking about conservatism or liberalism, but not nonbelief. (Sadly, theocratic Christians don't realize this also applies to their religion too.)

There are also many organizations for nonbelievers. There is the Secular Coali