EVERY night is a good night to be an atheist.

E Favorite- That is a really creative way to write {{{Scared}}}
good job!

"Is the comfort in your current rejection of God really worth the uncertainty and possibility of an unpleasant afterlife?"

Oh, I'm {{{Scared}}} very {{{Scared}}}

Sign me up for Christianity and please pass the collection basket.

Jed,

Why do some people postulate a good god and others postuate an evil one? What evidence would support the likelihood of either theory? Why do you suppose more people don't postulate the existence of "unconcerned" deities, to use Justice Scalia's term, and and why do you suppose Scalia dismisses that postulation as though it's something horrid?

"Again, the atheist claim only attempts to disprove the existence of a Christian-type benevolent God."

Some atheists see that as disproving gods in general, although the claim oesn't address the possibilities of gods being evil or indifferent or even unconscious. But the claim has merit in showing how some elements of Christian doctrine appear to contradict the idea of god benevolence.

"Is the comfort in your current rejection of God really worth the uncertainty and possibility of an unpleasant afterlife?"

Absolutely because then your god is a monster and a tyrant and we all know happens to tyrants.

JED- "Putting religious symbols in government offices is ESTABLISHING religion."

the idea is that the government cannot promote ONE religion OVER ANOTHER- in other words, a state sanctioned religion.

and-

"If the government were to put up a sign in the courthouse
saying: "There is One God and Muhammad is His Prophet" I suppose you would would recognize that the government thereby establishes Islam. Right?"

WRONG-
1) That's not even the statement made by Muslims- it would likely confuse muslims to see it-
2) Plenty of public spaces now include mehorahs, amd people with very little of worth to do with their time fight to make such things happen-

"If people tried to install an Islamic symbol (or for that matter an Atheist Pronouncement) in your local school or courthouse,..."

Go for it! Frankly, I'm surprisd no atheist has petitioned for the humanist credo to be displayed already-

"you would not not only suddenly see the wisdom of this, you would be outraged -- I guarantee."

Outraged? OUTRAGED? AT A SYMBOLIC REPRESENTATION? a THING???

Please don't project your own low threshold of rage onto me-

"Why do not not see that your own religious symbols are just as uncalled for as any other?"

Symbols are imbued with meaning- some powerful to some- me? I don't have much of an interest in even my own religious symbols- actually- my own religion is kind of anti-symbols specifically for the reasons you have illustrated.

Symbols have so very little meaing for me that not only do I actively eschew them- I won't even wear clothing with labels on them-

I am so disinterested in my own symbols that my apathy to symbols is absolute.

Live and let live is my motto.

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826), Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82

I don't have the abundance of time, financial security, and lack of real problems necessary to get outraged over what others hold valuable or sacred.

I reserve my outrage for injustices against people- I have no interest in things or what people do with them.

VICTORIA wrote:

"Why don't you show us where the constitutional amendments demand that we the people remove religious symbols-"

FROM THE PUBIC SQUARE, Victoria. Not from your house or church or privately owned shopping mall.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

Putting religious symbols in government offices is ESTABLISHING religion. It is hard to imagine a more clear way of establishing something than putting up a sign in favor of it. If the government were to put up a sign in the courthouse
saying: "There is One God and Muhammad is His Prophet" I suppose you would would recognize that the government thereby establishes Islam. Right?

If people tried to install an Islamic symbol (or for that matter an Atheist Pronouncement) in your local school or courthouse, you would not not only suddenly see the wisdom of this, you would be outraged -- I guarantee. Why do not not see that your own religious symbols are just as uncalled for as any other?

Fate-
" What you see as removing christian symbols from government, as the constitution demands, is just America living up to its ideas of the separation of church and state, and in the process tolerate all religions equally."

Why don't you show us where the constitutional amendments demand that we the people remove religious symbols-

Not even the Supreme Court, or the ACLU make such a declaration.

Also, show us where the wall of separation between church and state is in the constitution, or bill of rights.
in this age of instant research- such ignorance of the basic tenets of the laws and framework of our country are inexcusable.

Google the Danbury Baptists- Madison, and Jefferson- and the 1st Amendment.

The government cannot ESTABLISH a state sponsored religion- but there is nothing there anywhere about preventing people from expressing their beliefs. O, yes, that is also protected under the 1st Amendment.
Well, you'll discover it when you read it (apparently for the first time.)

Separation of Church and State is a good thing. In fact it was due to the persecution of Baptists in the early years of America that prompted its creation. It was established so a person can FREELY WORSHIP GOD in a way he/she chooses.

But today, the IDIOTS are using that law "WISELY" like serpents to prevent many people from worshipping God. Stealthily and very slowly they want the "government" TO BE COMPLETELELY DEVOID OF Godly worship.

Imagine, what religion would think that PRAYER BEFORE MEALS (in the navy) is hindering them from their worship?

***

Gowadia moved to the U.S. from India in the 1960s for postgraduate work. In 1968 he joined defense contractor Northrop Corp., now Northrop Grumman Corp., where he designed elements of the B-2.

He became a U.S. citizen in the 1970s and retired from Northrop in 1986, two years before the B-2 made its public debut.

He is now accused of helping China build a STEALTH cruise missile. If successful, the U.S. anti missile weapon system would be deemed USELESS.

God has protected this country from the ravages of war during WW1 and WW2. With so many IDIOTS now living in the States, that protection is lost.

Doomsday is just around the corner. And IT'S MAN-MADE.

Separation of Church and State is a good thing. In fact it was due to the persecution of Baptists in the early years of America that prompted its creation. It was established so a person can FREELY WORSHIP GOD in a way he/she chooses.

But today, the IDIOTS are using that law "WISELY" like serpents to prevent many people from worshipping God. Stealthily and very slowly they want the "government" TO BE COMPLETELELY DEVOID OF Godly worship.

Imagine, what religion would think that PRAYER BEFORE MEALS (in the navy) is hindering them from their worship?

***

Gowadia moved to the U.S. from India in the 1960s for postgraduate work. In 1968 he joined defense contractor Northrop Corp., now Northrop Grumman Corp., where he designed elements of the B-2.

He became a U.S. citizen in the 1970s and retired from Northrop in 1986, two years before the B-2 made its public debut.

He is now accused of helping China build a STEALTH cruise missile. If successful, the U.S. anti missile weapon system would be deemed USELESS.

God has protected this country from the ravages of war during WW1 and WW2. With so many IDIOTS now living in the States, that protection is lost.

Doomsday is just around the corner. And IT'S MAN-MADE.

Danny Mack wrote: "I don't mean to make Christians look like some down trodden people, but I see their symbols and that heritage that helped build this nation into a proud nation being taken away piece by piece, cast aside because it's no longer convenient to have/use/say."

Really? I went to church last christmas and there were christmas symbols everywhere. A tree, wreathes, a cross on the alter. In my home there was a tree, lights outside, wreathes, and even a bible on the nightstand. No one is saying I cannot do these things. I went shopping. Guess what I saw in the mall? Christmas trees, wreathes, and even a Santa.

So I have to wonder where you think christian symbols are being cast aside. Oh, probably in public places, and by public I means government, like courthouses, money, etc. Well, it might interest you to know that until around the 50s Americans kept religion out of government, all religion. But with the cold war against the godless communists, christians helped pass legislation to bring christian symbols into the government (for example, that's how the "under God" got into the pledge of allegence). Now that this nation is more mixed and other religions are finally being recognized, they are being taken out from where they should not have been put in the first place.

Danny Mack wrote: "It simply looks like the tolerance we try to push on the rest of the world doesn't work so well at home."

Yes it does. We push for christians in Egypt to not have to follow Islamic laws. We push for religious tolerance in many places. What you see as removing christian symbols from government, as the constitution demands, is just America living up to its ideas of the separation of church and state, and in the process tolerate all religions equally.

I'm wondering how you equate pushing christian symbols into government to be "tolerance". Just for 5 minutes pretend the symbols were a star of david or muslim cresant. Then ask yourself if its tolerant to put those symbols in government, because as our nation continues to diversify, one day that might happen. I will fight it then as I fight christian symbols in government now, except I expect you to be there beside me in that case.

Spidey is like some lost soul out of the dark ages. I assume he self-flagellates and wears hair-shirts.

SPIDERMAN2,

"FALSE religion" is the deadly ingredient? How do you identify a false religion from a true one? Is there a definitive reference you can cite? You must be a member of Heaven's Gate, and that comet's coming back around, right???

Tonio wrote:

"The question is whether predestination is factually correct, or whether a god is indeed accountable for history. We cannot discount the possibility of either being correct. The degree of perversity in predestination has nothing to do with its correctness."

Not quite. Many people postulate that God must be good. He is inherently benevolent. Father Schillebeeckx probably feels this way. If it is shown that God is perverse, their definition of God is wrong. Some theologians have proposed that God exists but he is evil. (That puts an interesting twist on Pascal's wager, by the way: if you pray you may go to Hell if God is perverse.)

"Suggesting otherwise would be mirroring the common atheist claim that the existence of suffering for innocents disproves the existence of a god."

Again, the atheist claim only attempts to disprove the existence of a Christian-type benevolent God.

I don't see evidence for either God, good or evil, but anyway those are the claims.

- Jed

Concerned, numerous assertions and speculations about gods do not seem to match common sense. In the interest of intellectual honesty, we cannot flatly reject them as impossible, and we can't make any kind of assumptions about what would or wouldn't be possible with gods. That doesn't relieve the assertions of the burden of proof or or of the obligation to produce evidence. The same is true of free will, which some philosophers suggest may be an illusion. While we require evidence for the idea to be taken seriously, we can't dismiss it as impossible either.

The ability of man to annihilate itself coincides with the proliferation of gay marriage laws around the world. Does Sodom and Gomorah sound familiar?

Doomsaday is just around the corner. And IT'S MAN-MADE.

psychoanalyst wrote "Our ability to deliver increased technological devastation on one another has increased exponentially in the modern era since the time of the Great War - and religion coupled with the impulse to war inevitably makes matters much worse....."

Instead of the word "religion", replace it with a phrase "FALSE religion". There is truth to your words. The trouble is, you don't understand what you're saying.

Doomsday is just around the corner. And IT'S MAN-MADE.

Danny Mack wrote:

"Under God in the pledge?"

You are free to say the pledge all day long, continuously, therefore you are not oppressed. The issue here is whether you have any right to force the rest of us to say it!

"10 Commandments at the court house?
(I actually am a little sad there gone, with the two about God or not, who wouldn't want to live next to a neighbor who tries there level best to live by the rest right?)"

Again, you can put copies of the 10 commandments in your church, your house, or any other property you own, communal or by yourself. If you were oppressed in any sense, you would not be free to do this. BUT you can't put one in my house or my court -- and it us just as much mine as yours. That would by YOU oppressing ME with your superstitious beliefs.

"Gay Marriage?
(I mean it's pretty anti-Christian, ask the nut job Fred Phelps.)"

If someone forces you to marry a person of your own sex, THAT would be oppression. If a person who is not Christian wants to marry someone of his own sex, that is not none of your damn business. It does NOT oppress you when other people do as they please, and as they see fit. That's called "freedom."

In short, you think that you are being oppressed solely because you are not allowed to lord over others, impose your values on others, and oppress them. You demand the right to tell us how to live, and if you don't get it, you say we are pushing you around!

- Jed

Tonio wrote:

"Microscopic events occur spontaneously, without cause, and they trigger larger events, such as weather"-- Can you provide some scientific background?

See, for example:

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec14.html

I said "microscopic" but I should have said subatomic. Quantum effects may seem to have no influence on macroscopic events, but they do. For example, they govern fission and fusion which in turn affect events on the larger scale. Take radioactive decay, for example. Imagine an atom of radon in a basement that either does or does not decay at a given moment. Suppose that if it does, it will affects someone's health and trigger cancer, and changes his life history, which changes the larger history of the world . . . And if it doesn't history comes out differently.

If we believe modern physics, even God cannot trigger or predict that decay, and there is no "cause" or chain of causal events that lead up to the event. In the 19th century physics and classical theological sense, it has no cause. You cannot predict it even in principle no matter how much information on the state of the atom you have.

- Jed

Tonio, Tonio, Tonio,

It is called common sense and the innate gifts/character of the human species that of free will and future. You have all three. Think about it for a few hours and you will see the light.

How do we know a god when one shows up?

Easy - we (mankind) define what a god is, what his attributes are, even what he or she looks like.

Strangely, most gods look and act like human beings on steroids. They have arms and legs and heads. They breathe. They talk. The seem to have all the characteristics of human emotions as well: they love, they hate, they're indifferent, they're angry, they're jealous.

But what elevates the gods above mankind are (according to men) all the things that gods can do that men cannot do. Into this category falls eternal existence, omnipotence and omniscience. But how does man KNOW that the gods (unlike man himself) are eternal, omnipotent and omniscient?

Well, lets take those in reverse, shall we?

Are the gods omniscient? Comparison of any elementary school science book with the scientific knowledge that the gods deigned to let us in on in their holy books rather proves that they are hardly omniscient.

Are they omnipotent? In the case of the Bible, one would have to say "no" - neither Yahweh nor Jesus seems to have the power to deliver on the omnipotent front. Jesus, because he didn't have the power to return to the generation he was born into (as he PROMISED he would), and God the Father because it turns out that diseases that he supposedly inflicted on men because he was displeased with them can now be easily undone by men themselves through science and medicine.

That brings us to whether or not the gods are eternal. It would seem that we have only their word on that front. For the incessant babbling the gods engaged in for centuries, they gone strangely silent with the advance of science and reason. Unless one believes the voices they hear in their own heads, god ain't out there telling the world he around these days. No asses or burning bushes or even clouds speaking to man to let us know he's around.

Considering their batting average on the omnipotent and omniscient fronts, I'm disinclined to believe the gods on the eternal front.

What do you think?

Concerned,

The doctrine of predestination may indeed be "perverse, unhealthy and inhuman." And it may indeed be unjust to pursue the alternative of making a god "the great scapegoat of history." But I would like to know the basis that Father Schillebeeckx used for his assertion that his god doesn't know the historical future. The question is whether predestination is factually correct, or whether a god is indeed accountable for history. We cannot discount the possibility of either being correct. The degree of perversity in predestination has nothing to do with its correctness. Suggesting otherwise would be mirroring the common atheist claim that the existence of suffering for innocents disproves the existence of a god.

I like what Tim L said, and I actually considered the possibility that the commentator was not making a serious declaration in the first place. He may have just been injecting some levity into the conversation, and perhaps the writer is being entirely too sensitive here.

Whether it be home run contests, baseball games, winning the lottery, floods or hurricanes, Father Schillebeeckx, the famous theologian got it right when he said.

from his book, Church: The Human Story of God,
Crossroad, 1993, p.91 (softcover)

"Christians must give up a perverse, unhealthy and inhuman doctrine of predestination without in so doing making God the great scapegoat of history."

"Nothing is determined in advance: in
nature there is chance and determinism; in the world of human activity there is possibility of free choices. Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."

Jed,

"I am saying it is impossible to know which is more important."-- I agree.

"Most definitions of God have him omniscient and omnipotent. Otherwise 'He isn't God' they say."-- If the question is simply about the god's role in a baseball game, the god would simply have to have enough power to influence the game. In reading the Greek and Norse myths, different stories and different writers attributed different powers to the gods. It's very likely that the omnimax definition for "God" arose out of convenience or assumption.

"Microscopic events occur spontaneously, without cause, and they trigger larger events, such as weather"-- Can you provide some scientific background?

"A burning bush (lowercase, not the President) or a virgin giving birth to a male child would certainly make me reconsider. Statistically significant better recovery from heart surgery in response to prayer would be a plus. That is what Templeton was hoping to find."-- I would require a thorough investigation into all the possible natural causes of such events. It's fascinating that, to my knowledge, no one attempted to attribute the virgin shark birth in the Belle Isle Aquarium to divine intervention. (I can imagine a South Park episode about a shark-worshipping religion stemming from that event, if the show hasn't already had such an episode.)

On a separate note, I keep seeing the "a great night to be an atheist". When is it not a good night to be an atheist?

Stantheman and God Wanna Be.

You really don't think that we (America) are not going after Christians? And you make statements about us being a "default" Christian nation. I mean you have valid arguments, the money, the Bible swearing in, both good points. Maybe you can help me with these issues.

Under God in the pledge?

10 Commandments at the court house?
(I actually am a little sad there gone, with the two about God or not, who wouldn't want to live next to a neighbor who tries there level best to live by the rest right?)

Gay Marriage?
(I mean it's pretty anti-Christian, ask the nut job Fred Phelps.)

The growing trend of calling it Winter Holiday instead of Christmas break?

For that matter, whats wrong with Christmas trees?

I don't mean to make Christians look like some down trodden people, but I see their symbols and that heritage that helped build this nation into a proud nation being taken away piece by piece, cast aside because it's no longer convenient to have/use/say. It simply looks like the tolerance we try to push on the rest of the world doesn't work so well at home.

Tonio wrote:

"'But if He did exist, he would be forced to care as much about seemingly trivial events..."

Why? In your scenario, couldn't the god have no interest in the effects of its actions, or have interest only in some of the effects? Or couldn't the god simply not have power over some events or all events?'"

Well, I didn't define God: the original poster did. He claimed that God does not care about baseball games because they are trivial but He does care about curing alcoholics (the player, in this case). I am saying it is impossible to know which is more important.

Most definitions of God have him omniscient and omnipotent. Otherwise "He isn't God" they say.

"The burden of proof is on anyone who asserts certain behaviors for gods, even people who seek to disprove their existence."

Well, I am not asserting any behavior, but only trying to map out what behavior or knowledge would be needed to influence events to the extent people claim God is capable of.

"The uncertainty principle doesn't disprove assertions of omniscience or omnipotence."

I believe it does. Omniscience, especially knowledge of future events, depends upon a complete chain of causality. This was the 19th century notion that given enough Observation and computing power if you know the position and motion of every particle in the universe, you can predict every event as far into the future as you like. We now know that is not the case. Microscopic events occur spontaneously, without cause, and they trigger larger events, such as weather, which -- as I said -- can bring about the creation or destruction of nations and whole species. There can be no complete chain of causality, because some events have no cause and cannot be predicted in advance even in principle.

"But any such assertions are so extreme that they require an astronomically great evidence."

Well, small-scale evidence would sway me. A burning bush (lowercase, not the President) or a virgin giving birth to a male child would certainly make me reconsider. Statistically significant better recovery from heart surgery in response to prayer would be a plus. That is what Templeton was hoping to find.

- Jed

"But if He did exist, he would be forced to care as much about seemingly trivial events..."

Why? In your scenario, couldn't the god have no interest in the effects of its actions, or have interest only in some of the effects? Or couldn't the god simply not have power over some events or all events? The burden of proof is on anyone who asserts certain behaviors for gods, even people who seek to disprove their existence. The uncertainty principle doesn't disprove assertions of omniscience or omnipotence. But any such assertions are so extreme that they require an astronomically great evidence.

Jim wrote:

"While I appreciate the writer's thoughts, remember that Josh Hamilton (and millions of others) who have found recovery through AA, NA and other 12 Step Programs, do not believe they did anything by themselves."

People may not believe they "did anything by themselves" and they may credit God instead, but they are (probably) wrong about that. What people believe to be true may have no bearing on what is actually true. People are often wrong. In this case, they have no logical or rational basis for their beliefs, and no proof, so it seems likely they are wrong.

In short, you have made logical fallacies:

Appeal to Belief

Appeal to Common Practice

Burden of Proof

Questionable Cause

See: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

- Jed

Charles wrote:

"1. Any truly religious person does not believe that their God cares about any sport or how it unfolds."

How do you know that? God might have good reason to care about a baseball game, because a baseball game could bring about the deaths of millions of people and the destruction of a nation. One thing leads to another, after all . . .

Imagine a player hits a high fly, and gust of wind makes it a home run. A fan is thrilled and goes home to celebrate with his wife. Nine months later, she has a baby as a consequence. The baby is a genius with an amazing ability to speak and sway people's emotions, but unfortunately no moral sense. She grows up to be President, and she leads the nation into a disastrous war that kills millions.

Wind is caused by random events in the sun and the atmosphere, not by God, because God does not exist. But if He did exist, he would be forced to care as much about seemingly trivial events such when you tie your shoe or who wins a baseball game as larger events such as whether an alcoholic recovers or a president decides to start a war. He would spend as much care and attention on each gust of wind and fall of sparrow as he allegedly expends advising President Bush.

This is all a fantasy, because the uncertainty principle shows that is impossible for anyone (even God) to predict or control things like wind days in advance, and since we cannot predict these events, we cannot know what chain of events they might set in motion, or what the outcome might be. Omniscience is impossible, even in principle.

- Jed

While I appreciate the writer's thoughts, remember that Josh Hamilton (and millions of others) who have found recovery through AA, NA and other 12 Step Programs, do not believe they did anything by themselves. The First Step is for people to admit they are powerless over their addiction and the Second Step is to point to a higher power to help restore their sanity. While AA is not specific to any religion, it is deeply spiritual and talks about "God as we understood him." Addicts do not recover on their own. Its a community effort and I'm sure Josh Hamilton will be the first to talk about all the many people who helped him regain his sobriety.

"But it certainly does not describe an infinite and therefore indescribable God."

What basis is there for asserting that gods areinfinite? Or for that matter, what basis is there for asserting the existence of finite gods? How would one know if gods are finite or infinite? How would one determine the probable natures or properties of gods?

Everyone,

Please stop responding to Spiderman2. The man obviously has serious mental issues. He litters these posts with nonsensical postings that are just partial quotes from the bible, regurgitated non-stop. He also claims to be able to see the future and the coming death of millions of people. The more you respond to him, the more dark and disturbing his posts get. I hope someone at Washingtonpost.com is monitoring his postings because I would hate to find out some day that this guy snapped and killed a bunch of "non-believers".

John Robert : "It appears that many atheists including Nica Lalli and believers who are looking for God to give them home runs have something in common. The God whom they embrace or reject is a rather small god and thus not a God at all, a Santa Claus, tooth fairy Easter bunny god if you will."

Now you've gone too far. Santa, the Tooth Fairey and the Easter Bunny all have evidence of existence, and proof of the good they do. Don't taunt these powerful gods! What they have done in the world certainly beats what the christian god has done. You don't see them just helping baseball players. They help everyone, and you don't even need to believe in them to get their unselfish help. They are true gods.

It appears that many atheists including Nica Lalli and believers who are looking for God to give them home runs have something in common. The God whom they embrace or reject is a rather small god and thus not a God at all, a Santa Claus, tooth fairy Easter bunny god if you will. Such a simplistic view may give the believer comfort and provide the atheist something to kick against. But it certainly does not describe an infinite and therefore indescribable God. By definition that which is infinite cannot fit into a finite mind, be it the mind of a theist or an atheist.

"Everything else equal, it's the humble who always win the gold medal in almost every game I see."

Either you don't watch much on TV, or you lie. Humility is in short supply among athletes.

" So it's not a wonder if THEY THANK GOD FOR WINNING. They are just being humble."

Anyone who thinks a god has singled them out for special favor is arrogant and ignorant. Talk about a fat head. And I repeat: why would any deity help out a sports person when war, hunger and totalitarian rule create massive human misery *every day*? Why doesn't this god get on the ball, get something real done? Sounds like a worthless, low-power god to me.

People like these publicly religious ballplayers actually make their own deity look bad. Any "god" helping someone hit a home run while there's thousands dying of hunger every day describes a useless god who does *not* universally love or help anyone.

That's more unlikely than the idea of a god in the first place.

Fate,

Thanks for the scientific background on those emotional reactions to reality. My point is that those reactions are subjective. The burden of proof is on any claim that love, beauty and so forth have some objective absolute truth. Such a claim would have to establish how such truths could exist, either in the human mind or outside of it.

Tonio wrote: "This is entirely separate from issues of good or love or beauty or peace, since there's no evidence that any of those have physical substance. (Yes, love has a biological basis, but I'm talking about the experience of love.) Without such substance, the likelihood of any of those issues having absolute objective truth is extremely low, although I don't rule out the possibility."

Consider that these emotions have been measured using functional MRI studies and can even be brought forth in an individual through stimulation of specific parts of the brain. So though they may not have any physical reality they do exist within the structure and workings of the brain and are interpretations of reality that point to our brains being a sort of artificial interface to the world, providing pictures that are interpreted, like a false-color image shows the same object but in a different light. Love, beauty, peace, etc, are emotional reactions to reality that have evolved to guide us toward things that help us survive and away from those things that do not. We are born with the ability to interpret reality in terms of love, beauty, etc, and really have little choice in the matter, unless we use instruments to do the measuring for us which do not have these built in interpretive mechanisms.

Al,

I recognize that the mind interprets and filters the data from the human senses. I also recognize that humans also impose narratives on that data. But the mission of science is to minimize that interpretation and narrativization as much as possible, to determine to the best of human ability the exact properties of the physical universe.

While I'm no expert in quantum physics, what I've read suggests that there is some physical cause for electrons showing seemingly contradictory behaviors. Attributing those behaviors to relative points of view sounds to me like giving up, like saying there's no point in investigating those behaviors.

I'm not sure how one could consider nothing to be independent of the human mind and not suspect that there is no such thing as physical reality. Solipsism seems hostile to science on a fundamental level, because it rejects all observation as absolutely subjective and therefore worthless. If two people carry out the same scientific experiment and get the same results, but both believe that what they observe resides entirely in the human mind with no connection to any physical reality, why bother doing experiments at all?

This is entirely separate from issues of good or love or beauty or peace, since there's no evidence that any of those have physical substance. (Yes, love has a biological basis, but I'm talking about the experience of love.) Without such substance, the likelihood of any of those issues having absolute objective truth is extremely low, although I don't rule out the possibility. Here is where relative points of view comes in - since people's experiences of those things is so subjective, we need not be concerned with notions of objective truth about them. We can instead focus on the commonalities of human experience without needing to prove that one person's experience of love or beauty is more or less valid than another's, or without insisting on some universal meaning or purpose that everyone must follow.

Spiderman2 - I gather from your comments you're Thomas Baum's alter-ego.....he sees the good side of God while you see the nasty side. This is why most folks think T. Baum is not such a bad sort, while the persona you portray leaves much to be desired. There is religious fantasy and then there are recurring dark inner visions that should alert us to severe interpersonal issues.

I suggest your preoccupation and obsession with these dark visions of destruction, mayhem, and apocalyptic ruin are a message from your psyche that you need professional intervention. And obviously you like the attention - so how about growing up and acting your age (assuming you've over 16)? Your nuttiness is scattered throughout these various threads like a drug-resistant bacterium.

As an aside, humans have long been preoccupied with war and make it on one another with great frequency. Unless or until humans can rise above the need to make war, they need no help from real or imagined Divine entities to bring down Armegeddon on themselves.

Our ability to deliver increased technological devastation on one another has increased exponentially in the modern era since the time of the Great War - and religion coupled with the impulse to war inevitably makes matters much worse.....it's like a phospherous fire - water (religion) only spreads the fire and makes it burn all the brighter. This is essentially your problem and your fixation.

Suggest you get yourself another obsession -

"He's a sportswriter. Relax."

I bear no grudge againt Reilly himself - you're probably right that he had no serious intentions behind the remark. The joke would have probably been funnier if it had come from a self-proclaimed atheist, because it would have shown a willingness to laugh at one's self. The joke would probably have been arrogantly offensive if it had come from a fundamenatlist Christian. It's the difference between the jokes that Jews tell about their own people and the jokes that Gentiles tell about Jews. Even if it's the same general joke, the context changes the meaning. Also, in the latter category, the joke tellers spin the material to criticize or condemn the joke target's otherness.

_________________________________
Tonio:

"The irony is it takes faith to ultimately realize that what we can't know, we can be."

Al, would you explain? I suggest that faith belongs in the "human universe," meaning human-created concepts like love and beauty and meaning and purpose. Here, one would have faith in one's self, or faith in another person, or faith in one's country, or faith in the future. But faith would not apply to the physical universe, meaning those objects and phenomena that exist independent of the human mind. Is that what you mean by "getting beyond concepts and beliefs of mind"?
________________________________

Tonio, I think you are on the right track and I have much sympathy with what you are saying.

Much could be said here and words, beliefs or mental concepts are never "the truth" or adequate, but that notwithstanding let me just say briefly that in my experience nothing in the physical universe is independent of the human mind.

The physical universe is ultimately created in the mind. We might say the mind interprets whatever is "actually there", and that is our world. Perhaps most of us see with the senses the shadows of a deeper order of existence.

Paradox too seems woven into manifested existence. We all know a simple example from physics: an electron at times behaves as a particle, at times a wave. Both observations are true from a relative point of view. Is there a deeper perspective? Become the electron to know.

Wise teachers of every age point to an order of reality beyond being and not-being. The experience of this they suggest should be our goal.

In other words, we can't know the Truth with the mind, but we can become Truth itself. We can't know (with the mind) the ultimate of good, love, beauty and peace; but we can become them in essence.

These teachings about reality are a paradox from the ordinary human state of awareness; and such as we are discussing cannot be proven or disproven through logic or human reasoning, but perhaps they can be sensed or intuited.

I tend to believe a portion of Plato’s teaching which in essence said: Act as one's intuition guides and have faith and courage, for true growth seems to forever require a measure of both.

What we are after is an experience of continuity on the simplest level of awareness; the experience, not beliefs or mental concepts, is the key in my understanding.

Everything else equal, it's the humble who always win the gold medal in almost every game I see. So it's not a wonder if THEY THANK GOD FOR WINNING. They are just being humble.

Wow, you're taking this way too seriously.

The commentator was sportswriter Rick Reilly, who was basically there to make humorous quips and observations about the derby.

I think he was just making a playful comment relating to how this particular player felt that God had helped him get back on track. It was an off-the-cuff remark that was ultimately harmless.

I've been reading Rick Reilly for years as a columnist with Sports Illustrated and now with ESPN. I've never known him to inject much in the way of religious comment into his writings. In fact, for all I know, he's an atheist himself.

He's a sportswriter. Relax.

Ms. Lalli, as a Christian, I agree with you on the point about the Derby. As for Josh's life, yes, I believe that God is the one who has turned it around. I daily experience God's presence in my own life and have seen God change my heart and life in many ways. But we can agree to disagree about that.

Nevertheless, as to the point about the announcer attributing Josh's success in the Derby to God, I want you to know, first, that I think it was silly for him to use Josh's success in the HR Derby to delegitimize your belief that there is no God. It does no such thing.

Second, I'm offended as a Christian - that announcer took the name of God, who cares about the profound concerns of our lives, and trivialized Him as just another baseball fan - albeit one who has the power to magically transform His favorite player into a winner. You know, sort of a reverse Mr. Applegate (from "Damn Yankees").

Third, the announcer displayed his utter ignorance of the nature of God and the Christian faith. He would have been well-advised to follow Mark Twain's advice to keep silent & let people think you a fool rather than open your mouth & remove all doubt. In a sermon a couple of years ago, my pastor said, "the next time I hear some athlete thank God for helping him win the game, I'm going to throw up!" Amen.

Shanks wrote: "Certainly everyone is entitled to their opinions, but I always am saddened when somebody believes they are smart enough to know that there is no God."

Its not a question of knowing there is no God. I would be happy to accept God if He presented himself to me or showed a scrap of evidence of Himself. You can point to the bible but all the words in it were written by men. God's hand used to be shown in the sun shining, the air we breath, in clouds and stars, until all those things were explained through scientific study. God does not make mountains, plate techtonics and volcanos make mountains. The sun does not shine by God's grace, it is nuclear fusion that causes the sun to shine. Clouds are just fog in the cold upper atmosphere. Stars are not light shinging through cracks in the firmament from heaven but are other suns.

Over the eons the "proofs" of God's existance has been shown to be explainable natural phenomenon. Even the bad stuff like plagues are explainable and do not require magic to make them happen.

So with no proof that a God exists I find it interesting that you would think that someone would need to think they are smart enough to say a God, which has no proof of existing, does not exist. What I find surprising is those who believe in a God with no proof, though they will do anything to find any shread of proof, such as Jesus' face on a piece of toast, and believe in silly things like the healing powers of the waters at Lourdes. If the waters actually healed doctors would be sending their patients there, but none do because the waters do not heal. More imaginary magic to prop up a claim with no evidence let alone proof. Its like those who "believe" in UFOs. At least they have grainy photots. Believers in a God have much less.

To believe in God is to believe in other myths and legends, such as fairies and leprechans. They also have no proof yet you probably think you are smart enough to "know" that they do not exist.

Edgar, I don't fully understand the concept of Hell.

For me, it's like gravity. You don't mess with gravity, do you?

Gravity is not evil, is it? Mess with it and you'll die.

But, Spiderman... we rightly regard humans who burn up those who don't go along with them in large numbers (Hitler, Stalin, Mao) as "monsters." So how is it OK for God to do it? Such a god would be the prime instantiation of evil in the world, no?

Arminius:
CapitalCat:

BIG laugh, thanks! I am a believer and a Braves fan, and am having the same doubts. Why would a benevolent God inflict such a DL on my team?

-----------------------

Oh yeah, try being a Christian and a Nats Fan. Talk about "faith being the substance of things HOPED for and the evidence of things NOT SEEN."
(and I thought the Orioles were bad.)
=(

Frank J Witt: "To ignore the beauty of life and the world around you, is to ignore GOD."

I guess you never spent a week in an emergency room where God's hand at killing people was stopped by the hard work of many doctors and nurses.

Frank J Witt: "Go for a walk, listen to the birds, smell the flowers and ignore GOD, I'll say Thank You LORD for you."

Visit Sichuan province, smell the death, see the broken families and lives, see the children crushed when their schools collapsed, see the destruction. Visit New Orleans where people were left by their government to die and where survivors still live in FEMA trailers. Visit Iraq where 10s of thousands of people have died at the hands of a Christian president. Then Thank the Lord, but not for me.

Certainly everyone is entitled to their opinions, but I always am saddened when somebody believes they are smart enough to know that there is no God.

Edghar, the KEY is "they will heed my voice." The voice or words of Jesus Christ.

AK wrote: "When you give things over to a Higher Power and realize that everything in your life is due to that, it allows you to have that extra boost of confidence to excel that much further and will be there to pick you up when you are at that rock bottom."

So what do you tell those believers who are not hitting home runs? That they are not as deserving? Its easy to take a success and claim it is God's hand. It is a little more difficult to explain to believers how their suffering and inabilities and mistakes are due to God ignoring them, and even harder to explain God is helping someone like Hamilton while ignoring them. The other side of your shiney coin.

AK wrote: "Faith works wonders. Personally it doesn't matter what you believe in, but faith creates determination."

Does it? Do you have evidence of this? Are believers more successful in life than atheists? I'd love to see the study. Or are you talking about the determination of suicide bombers? In that case I agree, faith makes murders more successful.

I gotta go, Spiderman. But open up to the idea that God (if there is one) would necessarily be bigger than your conception, and might have some regard for those with different ideas from yours. "And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice." Jn 10.16

You don't think that God is really going to burn all of us who disagree with you, do you? What kind of supreme being would that be? More like Hitler, I should think!

Brian wrote "Have you ever thought about why birds sing and flowers smell nice? It's called SELF-INTEREST."

I really wonder what is the science behind "self-interest". A flower or a bird has a self-interest? Can self interest grow me wings to fly? Is science slowly becoming superstitious?

"The irony is it takes faith to ultimately realize that what we can't know, we can be."

Al, would you explain? I suggest that faith belongs in the "human universe," meaning human-created concepts like love and beauty and meaning and purpose. Here, one would have faith in one's self, or faith in another person, or faith in one's country, or faith in the future. But faith would not apply to the physical universe, meaning those objects and phenomena that exist independent of the human mind. Is that what you mean by "getting beyond concepts and beliefs of mind"?

Edgar, I've experienced and seen the power. In fact I know the next big events that will engulf this world soon. And it's not a very good picture for millions of people.

In response to the following from Frank J. Witt: "To ignore the beauty of life and the world around you, is to ignore GOD...Go for a walk, listen to the birds, smell the flowers..."

How is nature any more or less beautiful whether it arose on its own or was created by an invisible being? Have you ever thought about why birds sing and flowers smell nice? It's called SELF-INTEREST. I used to believe the stories too, but to believe in such superstition after childhood just means you never learned to think for yourself. I've created my own narrative, and it's based on a combination of reason and appreciation of beauty in mystery. I don't need a silly back-story.

It is just a reminder of how far we still have to go in this country that people feel they can make off handed insults to atheists without even thinking about it.

I don't understand the venom that some theists have for atheists, but don't have the same attitude towards other theists, even though they must believe that the other person is believing in 'false' god(s).

It is a good night to be an atheist.

...darth

What makes you think that THAT is the true religion, Spiderman? Just asserting it by quoting the Bible isn't very convincing.

Okay, now I'm disappointed. I wanted to read JJ's comments since so many people railed against him. But I can't find it. His comments must have been removed. I didn't think that ever happened. Now I'm going to wonder what was actually written.

Efavorite, Rick Reilly did also on the air that all the participants on the Derby this year were white. He said, "No disrespect, but...I question the selection...we got 8 white guys here. It's like a Kiwanis club meeting."

Crashinghero: "'Atheists' think of their counterparts as weak, naive, and (at worst) destructive,"

I was recently a believer and looking back on it, I was none of the things you mention. I was (mildly) indoctrinated in christian teachings, uneducated in religious history, regularly exposed to christian images and ideas in the secular culture and comfortable following along with mainstream thinking in the US.

I think that applies to a lot of believers - certainly a lot of the believers I know.

This is the true religion :

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:6)

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For WE ARE HIS WORKMANSHIP, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, " (Ephesians 2:8-10)

But YOU have the TRUE religion, right, Spiderman?

Good for the player that overcame the negative in his life. Good for the atheists of the world too.

Some sages say there is something beyond god.
And we should seek that.

I think these discussions show the wisdom of getting beyond concepts and beliefs of mind, whatever their nature.

The irony is it takes faith to ultimately realize that what we can't know, we can be.

Edgar in Geneva quoted "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god."

There is no truth to that. False religions and atheism are the biggest headaches of history.

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. In neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." -- Thomas Jefferson

I am not an atheist. Having said that, I do believe that the commentators remark was inappropriate. I personally do not doubt at all that this kid's faith in God moved him to overcome his problems. But I also agree with the writer that God is not particularly focused on who wins a silly little game with no high stakes in the spiritual realm. I also agree that people ought not use "success" as a benchmark for spirituality. As a person of faith, it bothers me when other people of faith fall into this pit. "Unsuccessful" people are less spiritual than "successful" people (depending on how you define "success")? Not particularly a spiritual thought, heh?

Bud wrote "But God loves us, right?"

John 3:16 says "For God so loved the world...that whosoever BELIEVETH in Him should NOT PERISH.."

That is a promise for believers. Unbelievers will perish.

"but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born." (Matthew 26:24)

Of course god favors home run hitting heroes over most. Otherwise, why would home run hitting heroes make so much dough? My suggestion to the writer is to get on down to the batting cage, pick up the bat and face the pitching machine.

In fact, think of the pitching machine as a stand-in for god - a mechanical test of your faith and of your ability to sublimate your mind and elevate the mythos of god-as-savior. The proof will be in the hitting.

If you are able to sublimate your thinking and commence believing and your RBI percentage improves dramatically, then you have faced the Faith Demon and have proven yourself worthy.

On the other hand, if you continue to whiff on pitch after pitch, it will be a definite sign that you are doomed to spend eternity in Hades.

Remember, keep your eye on the ball.

Has anyone given a thought to the fact that people aren't giving honor to God as saying that "God made me win, and made me better" they are thanking God for allowing them to be successful and healthy enough to play their best. I was HUMBLED by the turnaround of Hamilton. His story is inspirational to ANYBODY. He is living proof that the old saying "you have to believe in SOMETHING or you will fall for ANYTHING" has a bit of truth.

When you give things over to a Higher Power and realize that everything in your life is due to that, it allows you to have that extra boost of confidence to excel that much further and will be there to pick you up when you are at that rock bottom.

Faith works wonders. Personally it doesn't matter what you believe in, but faith creates determination.

fyi -
"ofer" stands for 0 for 4. Get it, ofer, 0 for four?

I can understand why you are an atheist. You speak out of ignorance of all things around you and I feel sorry for you and your likes. To ignore the beauty of life and the world around you, is to ignore GOD. You can ignore HIM but he will give you one last chance at REDEMPTION, even if you say you don't believe/deserve one.

Go for a walk, listen to the birds, smell the flowers and ignore GOD, I'll say Thank You LORD for you.

"That's how a certain type of faith works: when good things happen to you, they get attributed to God. When bad things happen, they don't."

I think it works more like this: when good things happen to you, they attribute it to God. When bad things happen, they blame it on Bill Clinton (wink).

spiderman2 says:
I think God doesn't care about baseball. Neither does he care who wins or not. But the surest thing is God will BURN atheists.

But God loves us, right?

What this writer doesn't realize is that GOD in
Christ is the one great reality of our existence
and that many believers draw strength, power,
and love from believing in and doing the work
of GOD. That is a large reason for why this
young man has turned his life around and excelled
again at the great American game --- baseball.

I can understand why you are an atheist. You speak out of ignorance of all things around you and I feel sorry for you and your likes. To ignore the beauty of life and the world around you, is to ignore GOD. You can ignore HIM but he will give you one last chance at REDEMPTION, even if you say you don't believe/deserve one.

Go for a walk, listen to the birds, smell the flowers and ignore GOD, I'll say Thank You LORD for you.

It has always intrigued me that some sports figures believe that some deity will favor them over others. Turning that around does that mean that this deity is punishing them when they don't succeed? I personally find it offensive as well as ludicrous that reasonably intelligent people can stoop to such nonsense.
Billy Nobels
Lakefield
Ontario

Nica,

Interesting column, a young man is redeemed and is blessed for it. Everyone seems to see that, even you to some small extent, "Josh Hamilton's young life story is a great one - complete with a horrible fall and a rise to glory."

For all of your well reasoned arguements the simple fact remains that Josh knows he is blessed. Why wouldn't anyone want to be blessed?

So you like being an athiest, wouldn't you prefer the kinds of blessings that Josh has? I wonder how many of the 'me tooers' who have posted here prefer their lives to that of truly blessed folks like Josh. The simple truth is anyone who walks with Christ is truly happy regardless of their financial or physical station in life.

I see lots and lots of anger and envy in the posts of those who agree with you. That makes me sad.

Anonymous: “had it been the other way around and he had said 'it's a bad night for Christians' or 'it's a bad night for Jews' or something, sure.. then the religious group could feel attacked. because the announcer would be attacking an actual religion. an actual belief system”

It sure sounds like you’re saying atheism is inferior to any belief system because it is not a belief system.

What if there had been a lot of commentary about how the player turned around his life through is activism in the Republican Party, or in Global Warming – would it have been OK for the announcer to say – it’s a bad night for Democrats or for carbon fuel producers – would that be acceptable?

What if he had mentioned something totally unrelated, like “It’s a bad night for ‘Mothers against drunk driving’ or Chihuahua owners. Would that make any sense?

What if the player were white and the announcer said “It’s a back night for Blacks!”

I hope you’re getting the message here.

I see where many atheists are coming from. It seems ridiculous to me that I should call myself an atheist, as I see no more reason to point out that I don't believe in god than that I don't believe in Santa Claus. What's the word for someone who doesn't believe in Santa Claus? Normal. Many "atheists" aim to create broader acceptance of their views, making "atheist" more synonymous with "normal." Fine. But there are people out there who need religion. A cynical part of me wants to write "need religion in the same way that lunatics need a straightjacket or alcoholics need bourbon," but I could also write "in the same way that a husband needs a wife or a student needs a teacher."

The fact is (and no atheist should have trouble agreeing with this) that every person is different, and every person has different needs. I don't need god. Other "atheists" are simply other people who don't need god, it's just that there's a special word for them. Religious people, Christians, Buddhists, Pagans, etcetera, are people who do need god (to varying degrees). It is human nature for people with differences like these to want to wallop on each other. "Atheists" think of their counterparts as weak, naive, and (at worst) destructive, while "religious" people view their counterparts as bitter, misguided, and (at worst) damned. I think all these viewpoints have been expressed in the comments on this article (and many others).

I don't believe in Santa Claus, but there was a time when I did. Sometimes I still long for those days, when I was so sure that a big fat man with a beard could fly around the world and still find time to stop and give me presents. I don't believe in god, but when I see a homerun hitter point to the sky, it reminds me of a time when I did; when I was so sure that He was up there, looking after me. It was comforting, and I hold absolutely nothing against those that need god.

I'm also not so sure of myself to think that I'll never need god. I can easily imagine a time where something catastrophic happens in my life that my brain can't handle, and I need to find reassurance that it's all part of some plan, that we're not all alone. Or, perhaps as I near death I'll become born again in faith, as I'll need reassurance that death is not the end. I wouldn't say these scenarios are likely, but they could happen. Even the most firmly rooted feelings can be ripped away by the unrelenting hands of time, and that goes for believers and non-believers alike. There's a stigma against change in both camps, a desire for community and solidarity, but, whether by processes of natural selection or intelligent design, change is human nature. Fifteen years ago I thought Hulk Hogan was the greatest man who'd ever lived. Fifteen years from now, I may think my current views on god are just as naive. But, then, dear reader, who knows what you will think in fifteen years?

We are all different, we are all on our own path, and we are all at different places on our own individual paths. There is nothing inherently wrong with atheists, nor is there anything inherently wrong with believers. However, there are some in each group who insist on their own temporary beliefs, who lash out from behind the walls of their closed minds, and there is something wrong with them. Those that argue with such vitriol have much more in common than they would like to believe.

Great piece. I'd just like to point out that it should be extremely offensive to people who believe in "God" that he apparently intervenes in Josh Hamilton's life and seems to ignore Darfur.

That's how a certain type of faith works: when good things happen to you, they get attributed to God. When bad things happen, they don't.

It's a lot like Bush's attitude towards tax cuts.

Rhetoric does no one any good. There is material for a very good discussion but it would be helpful if people would take the time to understand both sides instead of each side denigrating the other over myths.

1. Any truly religious person does not believe that their God cares about any sport or how it unfolds. What they do believe is that God cares about them, their belief in that God shapes them, and thanks is given for their abilities which come from their God.

2. No one should be demeaned for their beliefs. As any belief goes it is based on the personal (and even spiritual) experiences of the individual and should be respected.

3. Good and Evil have nothing to do with a person's expressed religion, belief or view. How that person acts, what deeds they do, and how they express themselves do show their true heart. Both professed Athiests and Religious people have been on either side.

The bottom line of this article is spot on. By singling out athiest the commentator went way over the top and everyone should recognize that this was wrong. It is no one's place on this earth to decide a particular belief or view is wrong. And I say that as a staunch Christian.

I'm hoping the announcer made an error in judgment when he referred to it being a bad night for atheists. I'm hoping after having time to reflect on it he would recant that statement. If this isn't the case he should be dismissed from announcing for being too stupid be on the air live.

I'm a huge sports fan (baseball, football, basketball, golf, but not big into hockey) and as much as I love sports I hate seeing sports metaphors used in other areas of the society. If an individual derives their drive to succeed through a belief in a divine entity that's OK with me. If an individual derives their drive to succeed in absence of a belief in a divine entity that's OK with me as well. I watch and participate in sports for the game itself and could care less about the socio-economic-political-religous crap that many people find a way to interject into a game.

On a personal side I'm glad the ball player was able to reshape his life and become a contributing person in our society. I'm glad he didn't end up in jail or dead. If it took a belief in a divine entity to make this transformation take place all the power to him. In his case a belief in God may have well saved his life and certainly saved his career. It's on par with other professional athlete's that do important charitable work. It's simply a good human interest story and deseves to left at that. Elevating this story to it being a bad night for atheists was an uncalled for and ignorant remark that I hope the announcer wishes he had never said.

Your fourth paragraph described an almost-180-degree-turnaround of a young man's life in many words that were fairly concise.

The English language provides the single word - redemption - which, for many readers and writers who know the many levels of its meaning, is the precise descriptive word that could have been used in an economy of words.

Redemption from what? Going down the wrong path of life...leading to a second, mortal, death? Redemption from SIN?

But, for some reason, you did not use the word "redemption."

Jeremiah 50:34 Yet their Redeemer is strong; the LORD Almighty is his name. He will vigorously defend their cause so that he may bring rest to their land, but unrest to those who live in Babylon.

Any of your readers, who may be living in a "Spiritual Babylon" may need to know that they, too, can be redeemed from the paths they have chosen, just as the ballplayer was redeemed from his path.

Thank you for your article. You point out the hypocrisy that led me to convert myself. I used to be a practicing catholic who's faith was based on the fear that someday the pearly gates would close on my face. It took time for me to come to the realization that all my life I had been wrong. But the more I think about it the better I feel about myself today. I actually feel pity for those who still believe in as the late George Carlin used to call "a little old man, who sees everything you do and will have you burn in a firery hell if you disobey him - BUT HE LOVES YOU.

I agree whole heartedly with Nica. I have been a baseball fan for nearly 60 years and never have seen any evidence of a god or other diety helping a ball player. Their faith is their own business and to impose that on others is not right, as in the ESPN announcer's case. I too have been sickened by the constant praise that a god gets when something good has happened on the field. These guys are elite atheletes and that is what they are supposed to do.

While I respect Ms Lallis beliefs(or lack thereof)I invite her to experience the joy and comfort of believing in, and feeling the presence of God, one that has literally nothing to do with the "business of religion" that man has created.

Bravo! to Nica.
Well put.

"attempting to be away from him and ignore his presence is certainly hard."

What presence are you talking about? I've never felt or detected such a presence at any time in my life.

wow. before i say anything, this is an opinion based article and the author clearly expresses that. any attack at her would be foolish. an attack at her arguments, though, is legit.

as i scanned the comments, one made me laugh out loud. someone said 'if you think being a christian is hard, try being an atheist.' i got a chuckle out of this because this country is still so blind. it's unbelievable. it's hard to be an atheist because it's against our nature. we were crafted, molded by God. attempting to be away from him and ignore his presence is certainly hard.

also- is atheism a religion? i thought it was lack of religion. a lack of belief. why do you complain like you're religious? had it been the other way around and he had said 'it's a bad night for christians' or 'it's a bad night for jews' or something, sure.. then the religious group could feel attacked. because the announcer would be attacking an actual religion. an actual belief system. atheists don't go to church or gather or anything to my knowledge. why act like you're now all united against espn. united in your disbelief.

Thank You Nica I really appreciate this commentary.

I too heard that statement during the home run derby and it has totally stuck with me for the last few weeks. It totally dampened my mood and baffled me when I heard it. It really shows disrespect and how certain religious people tend to disregard other people's beliefs.

Thanks for your well written post.
Daniel Parker

http://www.danielparkermusic.com

Exactly.

I think God doesn't care about baseball. Neither does he care who wins or not. But the surest thing is God will BURN atheists.

"but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born." (Matthew 26:24)

I always find it curious when someone credits god after they win this or that as if god favored them over their competitor.

OK, let's have a laugh at the expense of the Xians:

An atheist, a priest and a fundamentalist preacher go into a nudie bar. As they sit down at the bar, they notice a frog sitting at a small piano.

"Wow," says the preacher, "I've never seen anything like that, Can that frog actually play?

"Play," says the bartender, "He can play AND sing AND talk. Why not ask him yourself?"

OK, says the preacher.

So, the three of them go up to the frog, and the priest says, "Excuse me, but the bartender says that you can play and sing and talk. Is that true?"

To which the frog replies, "What the hell are you and the holy roller doing in a nudie bar?"

By admitting that you are an atheist, you have destroyed any chance of ever holding public office due to the bigotry of churchgoers. Black men, women, convicted felons and dead people all have better chances of being elected than an atheist.

Bravo! "Thank you, Jesus, for rewarding my faith today and, in the meantime, despising my opponents and all their hard-won abilities. Thanks, Lord, for betting on ME!"

It's always a great day to be an atheist. So much better than struggling to reconcile God with all of those nagging doubts in your head and all of the senseless agony in the world.

Living in the REAL world is simply a far better way to go.

Well put! As an atheist, I too have no problem with others using religion to better themselves or if it makes them happy. Unfortunately, there are many who think "God" plays a role in everyday life, including whether or not someone hits a homerun. It would truly be sad if a God exists and decides to play favorites. So God decides to give someone athletic prowess, and terminal cancer to an 8 year old. Or is the latter the work of the devil?

Yes, it's a great day to be an atheist.

TTJ, you say "They (atheists) have no outside code by which to measure their actions". First, an outside code is not needed. As humans we have evolved reason and empathy. I do not need a book to tell me that it is wrong to rape and kill. Of course, if I were to rely on such a book to tell me that, it would certainly not be the Bible for that is not the message I got when I read the Bible in its entirety.

The reason I don't rape and kill and steal is because I do not want to live in a world that condones such behavior. I know I don't want to be raped or killed or robbed so I feel it is wrong to do to other people.

TTJ, the way you worded your post implies that the only reason that you don't go around stealing, killing, and molesting children is because of your religion. If that is indeed true, then please, PLEASE continue being religious. If that is the only thing that keeps you in check then I certainly don't want to mess with it.

To people who believe that morality comes from the Bible or their respective religions I ask this: By what method did you determine that the morals expressed in your religion are good? You must have used some external compass to determine the teachings were worth following. Think about it.

Guys, stay away from this one. When she says shes love you, she is lying. It's not love, it's nothing but a bunch of chemical reactions.

Why does this newspaper continually put opinion pieces from avowed athiests in the "On Faith" section. Would they put columns from avowed racists or KKK members along with the "being a black male in America" pieces? I think not. Maybe if they continue to push the leftist secularist agenda, we foolish God believers will finally snap out of it, grow a brain, and believe what they do. It would be hard for any objective observer to not see that athiests and agnostics have an overwhelmingly disproportionate representation in these opinion pieces.

Well, I see the usual 'debate' taking place when someone who does not believe in a god or goddess expresses a minor dissent to someone who has been more or less in their face about "...it is a bad night to be an atheist." The real point of the story is that no announcer would ever say, "... it is a bad night to be a Christian." They would be fired in a trice... yet no one has been released, fined, or as far as we can tell even reprimanded for saying something that, if said about Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or probably any other religion, would be seen as mortally offensive and decried by management as 'over the top.'

The problem, as you can see, is that there is no real freedom of belief in this country. If we cannot see what has happened here, then our freedoms of religion and of speech, and our religions themselves have become trivial.

I am personally offended by some of the new breed of 'in your face Atheists.' I do not believe that any any person holding a belief [and let's be frank and admit that there is no proof that any god does or does not exist - because, you see, it is not a matter that is amenable to proof]* should, in public, ridicule, denigrate, or otherwise malign the belief of any other person. Even Atheists. All are are free to present their opinions, and to express the reasons that they believe as they do; and, having done that, they are, by the rules of polite society, obligated to listen to mine. Without ridicule. Disagreement, of course, is fine.

*Some would say they are "non-overlapping Magistaria."

Dear Nica, I happen to be a strong admirer of Christ's central teachings(and I attend church) but I agree with your point of view and that the "god" the announcer spoke of is a projection of small mindedness...I believe in a Creator that is bigger than all religions and operates in ways that are ineffable(indescribable)...I thank you for speaking your truth and energizing the dialogue... Buddha recommended individual investigation/study of life and it seems that this idea honors that which brought us into being...Whatever we come to believe or experience, it seems best to honor each person's conclusions and respect their journeys and ask only that others respect ours.
There is alot more to say about people's diminishment of God or the Creator or Yaweh or Allah or the Un-nameable/Unknowable...but I believe your reponse to the announcer's statement lifts the conversation higher and for this I am very grateful. As the Dali Lama says, "Let's have a religion that is higher than all religions, WORLD PEACE..." ,very sincerely Cheryl.

Arminius: "It puzzles me that our non-believer crew here would find such offense at the announcer's inane comment. If the announcer had said "It's a bad day for Christians", I would have laughed."

And I bet you would have been one of the few laughing. The rest would have been after his head.

You're right, much worse has been said about us atheists. Does that mean we should not comment when something not-so-bad is said? On a loud speaker? As if everyone would agree with the comment?

Hey! Great item. Thanks.

Mark, I think what happened to the Rockies was that most of the men were secretly beating off in the showers.

Unfortunately, the term "atheist" creates a negative connotation among most believers. They tend to see people who don't believe in a supreme being as evil. They don't realize (and never will) that atheists and agnostics do good for their themselves, their families and for all of mankind without seeking approval from a deity . . . in other words, they do good things when no one else is watching. Why do I never see players point to the sky when they strike out or make an error? Aren't these low points part of God's plan too? I mean, maybe the pitcher who struck the guy out needs to be commended by God this time, right?

I don't find that to be the case at all Anthony.

Here is a pretty good story:

http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/Schlicht.Hurricane.pdf

There are far more atheists out there doing wonderful things for our human family that never really make print on a daily basis because they are rightfully fearful of what people are told about atheists.

That is one reason why I decided to step up and address these issues in the open and fully identified.

It is wrong what these people say about atheists even if they are just projecting the bias of others who tell them what to think about us.

Let me know what you think about those events and experiences before, during and after Katrina...and please consider sending me an email so that we can maybe find some common ground.

Take care,

Steve Schlicht

Its never a good time to be an atheist. It always a good time to be a Christian. I can believe because I have seen what God can do for people. I have never seen an atheist do anything but complain about Christians and try to take us out of the picture. Glory to the good God in heaven!!!

Like most religious people, ballplayers are a pretty dim lot. I recall three years ago the Colorado Rockies made a big deal that a run of success they were on was due to the regular prayer meetings they held, and their strict Shar'ia Law run clubhouse (no drinking, no girls, no whatever). They were on a winning streak, and it was all because of God. The media dutifully covered it.

Then their season went sour in August (I think). We never did get that follow-up story from the media that had hyped what God was doing for them in July. Did God go on vacation? Did their piety drop off along with the team batting average? Did God get interested in lawn bowling? The media left us high and dry. I wish they would cover God's fickle attention span as well as they cover his supposed public interest projects. But then, journalists are a pretty dim lot too these days, so I guess it goes with the territory.

To be clear, I find that Hamilton's religious needs and comforts are wonderful displays for him to draw strength and hope from.

The issue at hand, however, is whether it is acceptable to specifically target and insult others in the process of supporting his in-group in a world of diversity.

My view, sitting there with family and young children, was that it certainly was uncalled for and an odious mis-characterization that supports the entirely false notion that atheists cannot ever derive their own moral and ethical standards that provide goodness, strength and hope...without belief in God(s)ess(es).

The truth is important and no one should assume that there way is the only benevolent way to live a good life or find supporting love in dire times.

It really is important that people know that and this forum is a good place to start.

Many thanks to Nica Lalli for expressing her views so well. They certainly are appreciated by this baseball fan!

Steve

Types of Humanism:

In the religious arena, many words have a number of different meanings. Some examples are: Christian, cults, Humanist, pagan, Satanist, Witch and Witchcraft. The terms Humanism and Humanist are essentially meaningless when used by themselves; their meanings only become clear when preceded by an adjective, as in:
bullet Christian Humanism: a philosophy based on Christian beliefs about the nature of God, and which advocate people's fulfillment by personal effort.
bullet Cultural Humanism: A concept that knowledge can be obtained through rational thought and experimentation. It has its roots in ancient Greece and Rome. It developed into the scientific method and is the major underpinning of all sciences today.
bullet Literary Humanism: pursuit of the humanities (languages, literature, philosophy, history, etc.)
bullet Modern Humanism: a generic term encompassing both Religious and Secular Humanism.
bullet Philosophical Humanism is a philosophy centered upon the needs and interests of people.
bullet Renaissance Humanism: A movement starting at the end of the Middle Ages which renewed an interest in classical studies and promoted the concept that truth could be discovered by human effort.
bullet Religious Humanism is similar to secular humanism, except that it is practiced in a religious setting with fellowship and rituals, as in Ethical Culture Societies, congregations associated with the Society for Humanistic Judaism and groups affiliated with the Unitarian Universalist Association.
bullet Secular Humanism a non-religiously based philosophy promoting humanity as the measure of all things. It had its roots in the rationalism of the 18th Century and the freethought movement of the 19th Century.

Modern standards of ethics and morality were derived from religion and the bible. Listening to athiests talking about concepts of good and evil and heartening stories about individuals rising above circumstances is the equivalent of listening to someone blindfolded on a cloudy night without a compass guaranteeing they will point you in the direction North. Athiests have no foundation for telling anyone what is good and evil, because good and evil for them is entirely relative to their own personal justifications. They have no outside code by which to measure their actions, and if they claim they do it will no doubt be traceable back to religion and the bible.

>>Of course god cares about baseball. It even says so in the very first words of the Bible: "In the big inning..."<<

Not only that...If you read the Baseball Encyclopedia, you will see the name "Jesus" mentioned more than a few times.

Unfortunately Nica misses the whole understanding of God as Creator of the universe and God the Redeemer who reaches out in love to us, fallen humanity.

Josh is simply a story of a young man who hit rock bottom and found his way back only through divine intervention. He gives the Lord Jesus the credit and rightly so. Josh would not have made it with out Him.

To lift all of us from our fallen estate, we need Jesus who is "the way, the truth, and the life," John 14:6 Jesus also said "you will know the truth and the turth will set you free." John 8:32.

Josh has come a long way but he is still going to need encouragement, prayer, and Biblical support. I wish him well in both his Christian walk and his baseball career.

Chuck Spong

I don't like the term 'atheism' because it's an ". . . ism" and NO ideology is broad and flexible enough to deal with all of the vicissitudes of this thing we call 'life'. But I don't believe in 'g-o-d', i.e., the fairy-tale myths purported by the various organized religions of the planet. Contrary to the Jewish and Christian bibles, I contend man created 'god' in his--HIS--image. And, write it down, religion is all about the male of our species, of which I am one. But religions are frozen in time--almost prehistorical time--a very long time ago. Religions have their gaze fervently--and often feverishly--glued to what used to be--maybe. Who knows? One of the more violent 'isms' even eschews anything 'modern', i.e., anything after about the 8th century. I prefer to keep my eyes and mind open. This gray matter between my ears is good for more than just doing crosswords. And the more I learn about the incredible workings and interconnections of our fabulous universe, the more I am mystified and amazed. I believe that everything is somehow connected. Tell a youngster that the iron in our blood came from the broiling furnace in the core of a star and see the amazed reactions. And we're learning those interconnections now, often painfully, as we corrupt our planet's environment. Who knows what 'The Truth' really is? I have no idea, but I do know that it is more weird, wonderful, amazing, and awe-inspiring than the old myths and folk lore contained in the 'sacred scriptures' put together at some 'council' or other centuries ago. Religions are all bound up and held down by earthly politics. Unfettered spirituality is not. I believe anything is possible--but I need proof. Can't get that with religion. So I'll keep watching and seeking and learning. Maybe one day, if I'm lucky, I'll catch a glimpse of a shadow of 'The Truth'. Or maybe I already have, as in the joyous laughter of a child.

Victoria says “I am always amazed when atheists, seemingly intelligent and well educated- continue to cite Pascal's Wager as though it were a theorem of some proof- “

Ma’am you show your ignorance. This was always a religious proof, never an atheist proof.

This is VERY basic, like Philosophy 101.

SusanB:

Apparently the Shrub (aka Bush, aka Darth Dubya), needs professional help. I'm sure he can find some at the Hague War Crimes Tribunal.

"Just as offensive was the implication on the part of Rick Reilly that there is no one but Christians and atheists."

That's a common assumptioin. I hear many Christians describe most or all non-Abrahamic religions as monotheistic, when most are nothing of the kind. This may be simple ethnocentrism - it's possible that the members of those religions perceive the Christian pantheon of saints as simply a Western version of polytheism.

"The atheist may disagree with the theist, but they are not supposed to really care if the theist won't see things their way. There is no real impetus for atheists to feel the need to convert theists."

I admit that I might be tempted to convert fundamentalists and dominionists, if that were the only way to keep them from hijacking my children's schools. But I much prefer other methods of accomplishing the same objective.

Question posed here;
What is the sound of one atheist hand clapping?

Answer:
The same sound as one Christian/Muslim (you pick it) hand clapping!!

My Question:
Who was George Bush really speaking to when he said he talked it over with his "Father' about those WMD in Iraq?

we know he didn't talk to his dad....
and we know there were no REAL WMD in Iraq.

Any takers???

What is the sound of one Spidey shouting?

It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

"What is the sound of one atheist hand clapping?"

Clapping for nothing, that's a different story.

Much ado about NOTHING!

What is the sound of one atheist hand clapping?

"In truth the Monday night of the Home Run Derby was a great night to be an atheist. Here was a true story of the human spirit rising above adversity, here was a human success story, a tale of a person who came back from the ashes."

Unless it was a story about procreation, it's hard to imagine how this was about a human success story in your worldview. There is no place for such nonsense as honor or rising above in a worldview that lumps us together with every other species...might as well cheer for the monkey that finally got that elusive banana. I find it especially ironic that the author used the term "human spirit" when an athiest surely must believe in nothing of the sort.

It's hard to discuss with people whose STANDARD is NOTHING. You have no idea what chapter they are discussing with their INVISIBLE BOOK.

Of course god cares about baseball. It even says so in the very first words of the Bible: "In the big inning..."

This was so well expressed...I, too, watched and, as a high school coach I cannot agree more with your observations.

I didn't realize so many fans of Marvel comics were into theological debates. Maybe I should change my name to Razorback, as he was always one of my favorite Spidey characters.

On a side note, I'd just like to say all the Spiderman movies sucked, especially the last one.

The bottom line is that there is no real conflict between atheists and theists. Theists don't have to be anti-atheists and atheists don't have to be anti-theists. To be anti- is to go against the very definition of theism or atheism, at least when it comes to Christianity.

To a theist, an atheist is supposed to be the same as a lost sheep. The non-believer is not supposed to be chastised and made an enemy of... they are supposed to be converted (or at least attempted to be converted). For being blind to God, they are supposed to be pitied and given mercy.

To an atheist, a theist is supposed to be neutrally reacted to. The 'a' in 'atheism' means 'not'... it does not mean 'against'. The atheist may disagree with the theist, but they are not supposed to really care if the theist won't see things their way. There is no real impetus for atheists to feel the need to convert theists.

Last but not least, sportscasters are known to be blowhards who will yak about anything between pitches, between innings. I wouldn't let it get you too bothered that a TV sportscaster said something stupid and empty.

Speaking of "godly idiocy", here's a part of my conversation with Paul C. just recently.

Paul C. wrote "Peter came into contact with others preaching the Gospel and told them to stop but Jesus told him that whoever was not against him was for him. Why can you not see it that way? This is the basis of the ecumenical movement."

My response :

Actually, all religions that is part of the ecumenical movement are false religions. My focus is on catholicism because it is the biggest snake among the group. When Christ said to beware of the LEAVENED BREAD, he was talking about FALSE religions.

Satan is a wise creature and much wiser than humans. Therefore it is not a surprise when many will gravitate to a false religion. Catholcism conceal its evil deeds very wisely. Preaching loudly against contraception (which is not a sin), but NOT FORNICATION. The Bible said that if one cannot contain it, IT IS BETTER TO MARRY THAN TO BURN. For this reason, many priests will BURN simply because they don't know that their master is the DEVIL. They are not allowed to marry despite the obvious fact that they cannot contain.

For centuries, they tried to keep the Bible AWAY from their flock. Read Jose Rizal's letter to see what this religion has been doing thru-out the centuries. This religion is SO GREEDY WITH POWER just like the owner of it which is the DEVIL.

http://emanila.com/philippines/2008/04/18/to-the-young-women-of-malolos/

Between Spidey and JJ, this blog is pretty thoroughly corrpted. I'm sure both are rejoicing. A shame, we had some good conversations going.

Spidey,

I rest my case - you have proved it true once again.

Arminius, "a pay toilet in a diarrhea ward" could be SOMETHING to believe in. That's NOT even closely comparable to NOTHING.

What Nica doesn't know is that she is ignorant about the fact that there are TRUE believers of God and there are IDIOTIC believers of a god.

If Nica was referring to "godly idiots", he might as well DESCRIBE YOU.

Spidey, why can't you tell when to give up? No one will understand what you say, because you don't know how to say it and apparently never will. Frankly, you make as much sense as a pay toilet in a diarrhea ward.

Nica is the author of "NOTHING: Something to Believe In"

Do you guys know how to read? What is in the word "nothing" that is not clear? Not any thing or nothing at all. NADA

Amoronivich:

As far as I can tell, Spidey is in a weird class by himself.

He claims to be Christian, but never in his hate-filled posts has ever mentioned Jesus, or the love that Jesus preached.

Strange.

He and I have sparred many times, and finally I learned to ignore him. Not that that does any good.

great essay! "A lousy night to be a Christian" indeed. Atheists should get more than the benefit of a doubt compared with those that assert that their is some super-being, no evidence for which has ever been produced.

B-Man,

Apparently the demented JJ has it out for both of us, and has not the merest shred of intelligence to tell the difference.

I am on his fecal roster because about a year ago I made several pleas to have him banned from On Faith. The only result was his continued attacks on me.

Agreed, apparently he is in the closet and needs to come out.

spiderman2 is curiously like a trolling moron, how else to explain it?

Not believing in something is not the same thing as believing in nothing. Is this concept a little too esoteric, a little too arcane for that flustered brain of yours?

The first is simply a lack of belief, this is where the "a" part of atheist comes from. Asymmetry, apolitical ... these are words that describe something "which is not". They do not describe what they are.

The latter is a positive assertion, it does describe something which is, a belief.

Why is this so hard for the believers to understand? Hmm, the very description "believer" kind of says it all doesn't it? Somehow these people are incapable of looking out from the hood they're wearing over their head and seeing that other people don't wear those hoods.

Don't worry about JJ. In fact, i find it quite interesting to actually read paranoid-schizophrenic rantings instead of just overhearing them on the street.

Those afflicted do tend to refer to recta quite often (like the 19th century judge in Germany who wrote about god speaking to him through rays of light shooting from his rear), or activities involved therewith (check out the scatology in Kool Keith's oeuvre). What crazy people go on about often highlights certain aspects of our own culture, to wit: the taboo of poo.

Don't take it personally, just wonder at the public library system and how it doesn't require patrons to get shots of Risperdal.

Spidey - as usual, nothing in your post makes any sense at all. Invisible books? Atheists stupid? Can you elucidate?

Danny Mack - as requested, I'm letting you know that you're wrong. Here are a few things I think you are wrong about:

* That "Christians are persecuted in America in a similar fashion as they are in the rest of the world." How are they persecuted? And have you been to Saudi Arabia lately?
* That Christians are "shunned, ridiculed, and mocked." I agree that they are occasionally mocked on sites like this one, when their illogic demands it, but shunned? By whom?
*"The only people who get more grief the Christians are Catholics, and they are usually tied into the same boat. Why is that?" Um, because Catholics are Christians? In what sense do Christians get more grief than anyone?
* That an athlete claiming that Islam turned his life around would not get much media coverage. Jesus-saved-me stories are a dime a dozen; Islam would be a new wrinkle.

I'm perplexed by your efforts to make Christians out to be a persecuted minority. Can you explain? Being Christian is still the default, expected religion in this country. You swear on the Bible in court. God's on the money. People in positions of authority can express belief in supernatural intervention in worldly affairs without being thought less of, if they are Christian. You could not run for president without being Christian.

If you think being a Christian is hard, you should try being an atheist.

Amazing that people can believe in a god who helps one guy knock out a few homers while the gathered audience is asked to pay $5 for a single hot dog.

Nica is the author of "Nothing: Something to Believe In"

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." (Psalms 53:1)

The Bible is that accurate. A person who believes in nothing like TALKING TO NOTHINGNESS is a fool. Soon, these people would be reading INVISIBLE BOOKS.

Believe in nothing? How STUPID these people can get? It seems that they don't even have a brain.

Amen to that. Religion has its rightful place in American life, but not in a baseball game. If there is a god, he/she/it cannot possibly favor one particular player or team. What kind of god would that be?

Danny Mack - Christians persecuted? Seriously? Are you talking about America? Ever heard of a little thing called "Reality? No? How about "History"? You might want to check them out.

Anyway.....

So let me get this straight. If your batting average increases, you thank me for "blessing you". If your batting average decreases, you thank me for "testing you". If your success or failure leads you to drugs and alcohol, and you die of an overdose, then it is said that I "work in mysterious ways". I sure wish I were god - man, what a sweeeeeeet gig!

Will one of these gods get me a date with that hot chick in accounting? I'll thank and believe in whichever one does, I swear I will.

Of course if she turns out to be a wretch of some kind, I'll have to stop believing that god won't I?

That'll show him

Boy. I guess if Josh had said John Smith helped him recover from his drug use, Nica wouldn't believe that either. I find it amusing that just because Nica has never encountered John Smith (or Jesus) then he obviously doesn't exist regardless of what folks who have met him say. I guess I don't exist either.

God is now into Home Run Derby? God is into water sports. God is a singles hitter. Why does God tell us not to worship the idol with the golden glove? God is the player to be named later.

Thank you for setting things straight about god and baseball. I too found Rick Reilly's comment offensive, not to mention ludicrous. Why do these people think their god actually cares who wins the home run derby. Doesn't he (or she) have more pressing concerns? The American obsession with religion in all parts of our lives from politics to sports is inane and insane.

I'm not god, but at least I'm real

Nica Lalli is, it seems, more civil in her scold
than I would be. People who embrace a very simplistic and Disneyesque faith add nothing at all to the dialog other than to make it insulting, silly
and fruitless and make life yet more absurd than it otherwise would be. The person who thinks that god
watched the game and helped him win is an idiot. Nice guy, perhaps, but an idiot just the same. And because so many subscribe to this goo and immerse
themselves in it, out of the brute incapacity to think or having not the courage to deny the common and comfortable path, we remain a nation unskilled in the art of reason and we will forever be, as Fitzgerald said, "...ships against the tide, borne
ceaselessly into the past".

Just as offensive was the implication on the part of Rick Reilly that there is no one but Christians and atheists. Johnny Oates did the same thing in an interview he granted shortly after Tim Hulett's young son, Sam, was killed by a motorist in Baltimore. He said (I'm trying to remember his exact words), "It doesn't matter whether you're Christian, or atheist, or whatever...[you feel the same sense of loss]." So that's it. I'm a whatever. As if the only way to not be an atheist is to be a Christian.

I wonder if Reilly would have been so loose-lipped if Shawn Green were at the Derby, or Jason Marquis or Khalil Green, for that matter, were an All-Star this year.

CapitalCat:

BIG laugh, thanks! I am a believer and a Braves fan, and am having the same doubts. Why would a benevolent God inflict such a DL on my team?

It's funny to me, the the world has America labeled as a "Christian" nation. Bunch of non-sense. Christians are persecuted in America in a similar fashion as they are in the rest of the world. No they aren't usually beaten, killed, maimed, but they are shunned, ridiculed, and mocked.
The author of this article is an Atheist, and thats fine. I don't lose much sleep over other peoples beliefs. My problem is the way Christians are put down and attacked. If Josh Hamilton had professed that by turning to Islam and following Mohammad's footsteps he was able to turn his life around, I don't think this would have gotten much of any coverage. Maybe I'm wrong in the way I see this, let me know. I realize this is a vary charged issue, but try to step back and look at it. The only people who get more grief the Christians are Catholics, and they are usually tied into the same boat. Why is that?

Phil wrote:

"Yes, it is perfectly reasonable to thank God for blessings such as performing at the best of your ability, but this does not mean that everyone who did not win was less favored by God or something of that sort. This kind of oversimplification reflects a view of God more like a machine than a personable being."

A "personable" being is an interesting phrase. I assume you mean "pleasing in personality or appearance, attractive." (Or do you mean "like a person"?)

If a person acted the way you described, and did not respond to thanks and did not treat people differently depending on what they said or did, I would not thank him. I don't consider that personable. It seems more machine-like. In a sporting match it does not seem "perfectly reasonable" to thank someone who is either helping you or helping the opposition and you can't tell which and there is no detectable bias or favoritism in either direction. It is tantamount to not helping either side. Isn't it?

Actually, as far as I can tell, you are describing the behavior of a machine that is turned off, malfunctioning, or non-existent. Deus ex machina programmed by Microsoft. It reminds me of an airconditioner of mine that ran for a few days before I realized the fluid had leaked out and it was not lowering the temperature or reducing humidity at all -- it was doing nothing.

"Also, while God's blessings can at times be material and tangible, they are not always so tangible."

If that were true, you could test it and show that prayer or belief in God produces a statistically significant improved outcome, in sports, growing plants, the outcome of disease, or what-have-you. Many people throughout history have tried to measure such effects, including many pious people such as the late John Templeton. They have ALWAYS failed. So, I advise you to distance yourself from that assertion, and say, instead, "we can never measure or detect God's grace, but we know in our hearts that it is there." That assertion cannot be tested, confirmed or falsified.

- Jed

It was just a dumb comment from the announcer. You did note that they had a lot of time to fill. But what I don't understand is why the players point to the sky as if God was sitting up there on a cloud. I thought God was everywhere, so shouldn't players be pointing in all directions?

How could a loving, benevolent Creator give us George Steinbrenner, Bowie Kuhn, and Bud Selig?

(And in the interest in full disclosure: I believe in a Supreme Being and the Washington Nationals and both have me questioning my decision more often than not.)

Further comments on this tempest in a teapot:

As a believer, I have no problem with a player thanking God. I do not think, however, that he/she should be so public about it.

I am a huge baseball fan, but there is only one quotation about religion and baseball that I like:

"When I go into a ballpark, I feel like I am surrounded by angels, and God's hand is on my shoulder."
- - - Hammerin' Hank Aaron, still the true Home Run King

I think you are oversimplifying Christian theology. Yes, we do believe that things like that are certainly a blessing, but God is more complex than an overly simplified relationship between faith and material blessing. Yes, it is perfectly reasonable to thank God for blessings such as performing at the best of your ability, but this does not mean that everyone who did not win was less favored by God or something of that sort. This kind of oversimplification reflects a view of God more like a machine than a personable being. Also, while God's blessings can at times be material and tangible, they are not always so tangible. I do, however, appreciate your acknowledgment of his right to thank God for his accomplishments (even though you respectfully disagree) just as I acknowledge that others have just as much right to not thank God if they so choose or to thank anyone else they feel has enabled them to get where they are (spouse, family, coach, etc.)

Mr Mark,

That poster, JJ, just did it again. With his usual ad hominem attack on me. The On Faith filter is severely flawed (long string of expletives deleted). When, oh when, will these benighted people get their act together, or at least scan the blogs for scatological posts such as JJ's, and delete them?

Can someone tell me how an obnoxious post like the anonymous one of July 31, 2008 4:58 PM in this thread makes it through the WaPo censors when other perfectly innocuous posts are often embargoed for review by the site watchdogs...and never end up being posted at all? (Let's face it, at On Faith, "being held for approval" is a euphemism for "you've been deleted").

It makes no sense.

I loved the article and I'm a Christian. I agree, Christians are quick to assign "good" to God, ignoring the obvious arrogance in their statements. If Josh is "blessed" because he hits home runs and make lots of money doing it, am I not blessed because I just lost my $10 an hour job? I think not.

The condition of my heart can not be measured by my bank account. Success in God's eyes isn't measured by the things I do well. Who I am is what matters, arrogance and false pride are as big a sin in His eyes, as lying and stealing. They all cheapen the quality of our lives. And the "quality" of my life is of the utmost importance to my God.

Some people, ball players included, need something larger than themselves to believe in. They have to believe they couldn't do things without God's help. Just look at our President, and it's easy to understand why some feel this way. And then ask why God hates America, to have given us that moron.

Funny how with all of this talk of god and baseball, nobody has brought up statistics. Situation remedied!:

God's statistics

Plate appearances since 33AD 000%

Batting average v scientific study 000%

Batting average v non-deistic religions 500%

On-base percentage 000%

Batting average with runners in scoring position

000% (mostly due to having no runners in scoring position)

Times traded 700%

Retired by opposing pitchers 160%

World Series Titles 0

Fun with numbers! ;)

"I figure you're trying to be nice, but I want you to know that it doesn't come across that way to this atheist. It hit me the way the announcer's atheist comment hit Nica."

It's very common for believers to give their gods the credit for the good things that happen in people's lives. I agree that most such believers are trying to be nice and trying to wish well. But the logical conclusion from that belief is that such gods would also get the credit for the bad things in people's lives. Some people do explicitly believe that their god causes such things as just punishments. Do the trying-to-be-nice believers also hold that belief? If not, then why not? If one is going to assert that divine intervention is a fact, one must address the question of divine motives. Since the context is baseball, one must consider such possibilities as Bill Buckner being justly punished for some transgression, or him doing something to anger a god or gods, or such beings simply being Yankees fans. If one doesn't know the motive, then how can one claim to know that gods were involved at all?

This is all very interesting, but one possibility, the one that seems most likely to me, hasn't been mentioned. Maybe the comment was just a joke. The comment could have been made as easily by an atheist as anyone else, because we've been talking all evening about Josh Hamilton's Christian faith, and look at all these balls flying into the upper deck. Must be God! It's funny because it's preposterous. It's only not funny if you take it seriously.

Do ball players also blame god for when they strike out or do they attribute only good things to god? Seems to me that is god can be responsible for home runs, god can also be responsible for all the times they strike out too.

bored: "Did you actually gasp? You are rather easily shocked, aren't you? "
********************************************
try and put yourself in our shoes. like she said, it would have sounded a lot worse if the announcer had said, upon his defeat, "well it's a lousy night to be a Christian."

E Favorite,

You said,
"Would you be flattered if an atheist said you were so wonderfully reasonable that you certainly must be an atheist even though you thought you were a Christian?"

This has happened to me here, although it was inferred and not direct. I was somewhat amused, having, as you know, been there done that. I have had Pagans said that I am close to their faith, and I took that as a compliment.

It puzzles me that our non-believer crew here would find such offense at the announcer's inane comment. They have endured much worse on these blogs, and answered rationally. If the announcer had said "It's a bad day for Christians", I would have laughed.

Textbook case of a tempest in a teapot.

Of course the bible god cares about baseball! This is the same guy who puts his family pictures on cheese sandwiches, kittens' tummies, and crumbling concrete bridges in Chicago. He makes tacky statues weep and talks to Pat Robertson. Baseball is absolutely sublime by comparison.

S. Heriger says, "He certainly appears to be at work in the heart of Ms. Lalli, regardless of her personal beliefs."

I figure you're trying to be nice, but I want you to know that it doesn't come across that way to this atheist. It hit me the way the announcer's atheist comment hit Nica.

Would you be flattered if an atheist said you were so wonderfully reasonable that you certainly must be an atheist even though you thought you were a Christian?

My feeling is that religious people just need to grow up. If you think Jesus helped you accomplish some great feat, you have no way of knowing that your belief in Jesus is not just a placebo. (Which it is, IMO)

What religion denigrates is the power of the human mind. The mind can be (and usually is) a delusional influence on humans. But it can also be put to use to overcome the very delusions that it causes. Jesus doesn't have anything to do with it.

Grow up, religious people, and take responsibility for yourself.

Im ust be getting cross-eyed. I meant re: WHAT's comment

Time for a nap.

re: Tom Tubes comment ---

Tom, I think you missed the point. Nica talks about why she thinks it was a great night to be an atheist, which is an obvious reference to the comment by the announcer that it was a bad night to be an atheist - an obvious slight that you would jump all over if the word atheist were replaced by christian. As it is, I think you're unfairly criticizing Nica who is expressing her feelings about her atheism in a very humble, non-threatening way.

I'm an atheist, and I loved the article! Even though I'm not a fan of baseball and therefore did not see the homerun derby or hear this man's comment, I've always resented just those types of comments. Or rather I resent people's ingorance not only to atheists, but to the concept of "self-propulsion" for lack of a better term. People "thank god for giving them the strength and endurance to do...whatever". GIVE YOURSELF SOME CREDIT!!!

I think the writer of this article needs Jesus.
It's sad that even being an atheist, you can't even allow someone to let their faith be made known or let others speak out about what they believe. Even if you disagree, it was his right to thank whoever he wanted to thank.

I just want to thank most of the people that have responded to this article. I have been reading the On Faith section for quite a while and I cannot recall a more civilized collection of responses. Most of the time these blogs turn into something totally unrelated to the topic and the discussion gets angry. Not so much this time. Way to keep it civil. Bravo.

Oops, ... jumped to a conclusion there. Nica is a woman and not a professional ballplayer. the love of the game came through so strong that I assumed it was written by a participant!

I believe.
In a tiny monkey called Tony who lives in the clouds...yes, he is tiny, but he has an enormous head...larger than any of us mere humans can imagine.
Tony is laughing at you.

Tony bless xx

Ricky Credulous, NY

[oh, and he says he's going to destroy the world in 3 years. Tinkerty-tonk! x]

BeowulfthePolitician wrote:

"A scientist I am not. My knowledge of evolution is limited to the Biology & Chemistry classes as posited by the Prince William County board of education (Northern VA). Throw in a little George Mason University (Go Patriots! NCAA Final Four, baby!) and a scientist I am not."

I am not impressed by the county's standards, but perhaps you were not a diligent student. My daughters learned the basics of evolution quite well in public school.

If you are not a scientist and you do not know much about science then I suggest you refrain from discussing scientific topics. If you knew nothing about C++ programming, you would not publish assertions about how best to program in it, would you? If you are not familiar with Japanese grammar, I do not think you would join a discussion group and insist that "it is possible to extrude any adjunct from a converted sentence and epithmatize it . . ." Why, then, do you consider yourself qualified to make broad assertions about biology? What is it about darwinian evolution that makes people think they understand it, when they clearly do not?

"So I will research seriously your objections and better articulate my stance at a later date.

Much later, please, after you have read and understood several books about evolutionary theory.

"I encourage you to watch the movie, "Expelled" with Ben Stein."

Stein is full of appalling nonsense. He wants to apply religious standards to science, which makes about as much sense as trying to apply the rules of baseball to poetry, or music theory to municipal garbage collection accounting.

"There are many interesting interviews with your messiah, Richard Dawkins, including some interesting concessions he makes."

Dawkins is not my messiah. No one is -- that's the point. I suggest you read "The Selfish Gene" because he writes well, but if his atheism bothers you, you can find books written by biologists who believe in God. Some do, albeit not as many as the general population. Science does tend to make people into atheists -- or perhaps atheists gravitate toward science.

- Jed

What a great article by this ballplayer! He hits the nail on the head when he notes that no announcer would ever dare to say "looks like its not a great night to be a christian." But Nica rises above the prejudice, and tells it like it is without having to slander anyone, and does it with humility. Most of those who believe in a god or gods would do well to follow his example, and be a better person for it.

Although the existence of god really doesn't matter for how well an athelete plays. It would be interesting to see if a strong regigious faith correlates to good athletic performance.

I'm not going to believe that some omnipotent being is helping them play, but the belief that some higher power is helping them make actually make some people better athletes...sort of a religious placebo effect...

BeowulfthePolitician writes:

" I encourage you to watch the movie, "Expelled" with Ben Stein. There are many interesting interviews with your messiah, Richard Dawkins, including some interesting concessions he makes."

It's extremely disappointing to see you promoting Ben Steins' mendacious POS of a movie on this forum. Perhaps you are not aware of the back story that went into producing this ignorant and dishonest piece of intellectual hog swallow, but you SHOULD know the kind of people who made this thing. It matters not that almost no one saw the movie, especially when people like you cite it on a respectable site like On Faith.

See here if you wish to know the real story behind "Expelled": http://www.expelledexposed.com/

You may also read Richard Dawkins' account of the movie and the "concessions" that he DID NOT make here:
,,,http://richarddawkins.net/article,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins....

Your citing Expelled is more proof that a lie can circle the Earth before truth has gotten out of bed.

Beowulf,

I suggest that any religion that would limit heaven is unjust in the first place, but that has nothing to do with the factual accuracy of the religion.

"Religion, if you change one facet of the religion, then you change it all."

If you're talking about the central thesis of a religion, then yes. But the central thesis is different from the collection of claims that a religion makes - those individual claims stand or fall on their own merits. Think of human biographies, where different biographers may take the same basic facts of a person's life and arrive at different conclusions about the person's basic drives or mindsets. Their conclusions are subjective and not claims of absolute truth, and do not change the basic facts of the life in question.

"It's the random events that seem to work Outside of our physical laws that we are grappling with."

We cannot assume that they are indeed working outside of those laws. It's more likely that these have purely natural causes that haven't yet been discovered. That's certainly not proof, but the burden of proof is on any claim or assumption that the cause is "supernatural."

Dear Victoria -

Pascal's Wager may have been a 50/50 proposition when it was first formulated, but surely, the odds have been stacked firmly against god's existence in the intervening years!

At one point, people believed that there was a 50/50 chance that a particular disease was caused by evil (the devil) or by god's displeasure with you. Turned out that, in actuality, neither imaginary entity was a player in the cause of diseases. Unless I'm mistaken, the lie was put to that particular set of odds by science and not by any religious philosopher.

If the 50/50 nature of Pascal's Wager is still operative, then why not apply the same odds to things mentioned in the holy books outside of the "god question."

For instance, the Bible says that unicorns and fire-breathing dragons exist. OK, Should we still hold that the odds are 50/50 that such a belief is true? Are the chances still 50/50 that the Earth is flat? That the sun revolves around the earth? That the stars are tiny little lights affixed to a firmament? Should we trust religion here, or science?

How about winged horses? Are the odds 50/50 that such things existed and bore the prophet on his heavenward journey? Hmm. That's tough. Does religious dogma really deserve 50-percent odds on this one, or can we give science the 99.9999% odds that horses have never had and never will have wings? You tell me.

If the answer to any of the above, moderately mundane questions is "no," then I would be led to ask this: if the holy books can't get it right on the mundane things, why do you give them a 50/50 chance of being right on the BIG things (like the existence of god)?

BTW - I don't knock people of the pre-scientific age for holding to pure conjecture and ignorance in forming their beliefs. After all, what did they have to go on? However, I don't allow the same latitude for people of the modern age who willfully ignore the proof that lies before them that argues against gods exiting (at least, the gods as they have been presented to mankind in all of our various myths like the Bible and the Koran. Surely, we can agree that these gods can't possibly be THE real gods, can't we?) while at the same time treating myth as plausible fact.

Thanks for listening. I'm giving 50/50 odds that I receive an answer that actually addresses what I wrote above and that doesn't get off on some unrelated tangent. ;)

"The atheists claim they know there is nothing beyond what they do not touch or see, which further adds another repulsive dimension to their repertoire"

AMH,

Another misconception about the meaning of the term atheist. As an atheist, I lack any belief in gods but I certainly don't claim to know for sure. Based on what we know, I would claim that it is highly likely that no gods exist but I don't know for sure. Nobody does. So I am both an athiest (because I am without belief) and also an agnostic (because I don't know with absolute certainty). So please don't pity me for something I am not! Rather, celebrate my freedom to live peacefully and happily without any belief in the supernatural.

Do you believe in Odin, Zeus, or Vishnu or any of the gods from the numerous other faiths? How can you be sure they don't exist? Unless believe in all the other gods, then you are atheist too! I just extend that same disbelief to all gods. So tell me AMH, does your disbelief in all these gods add another repulsive dimension to your repertoire?

Jed,

A scientist I am not. My knowledge of evolution is limited to the Biology & Chemistry classes as posited by the Prince William County board of education (Northern VA). Throw in a little George Mason University (Go Patriots! NCAA Final Four, baby!) and a scientist I am not. So I will research seriously your objections and better articulate my stance at a later date. Having said that, I encourage you to watch the movie, "Expelled" with Ben Stein. There are many interesting interviews with your messiah, Richard Dawkins, including some interesting concessions he makes.

Peace,

Beowulf

Tonio wrote:

Looking at a given individual religion, some of its claims may be true and some may be false, or all may be true, or all may be false. The issue is that most religions make exclusive claims of absolute truth. So looking at two conflicting claims from two such religions, the claims could both be false, one could be true, but they could not both be true.

"Until, we can evidence the hidden order in the apparent randomness, it's still random. (Innocent until proven Guilty, Random until proven Ordered.)"

That's unnecessarily binary. The order in the universe is not hidden at all - we have devised physical laws for classifying and encapsulating it. With true randomness, one could make the same billiards shot exactly the same way 10 times, and each time the ball would go in a different direction.

-----------

Re: Religion, if you change one facet of the religion, then you change it all. If you demote Christ to a prophet, then all of Christianity is in error. If you open up all the world's religion to "heaven" then Islam is wrong for limiting heaven to "Muslims, Jews, Christians, & Sabeans" (Sura 6:1).

Religion is not Burger King. You can't "Have It Your Way". However, you make my point when you say, "..the claims could both be false, one could be true, but they could not both be true." So while my 50/50 result seems overly-simplistic, it's agrees with your final thought of "they could not both be true." By 1 being true, the others then become false. Thus 50/50, again.

You Continued:

"That's unnecessarily binary. The order in the universe is not hidden at all - we have devised physical laws for classifying and encapsulating it."

The "random" we are discussing IS the "True Randomness". I wasn't referring to the order of the "universe" with regard to the laws of Physics, Gravity, Thermodynamics, etc. I was referring to the previous poster's assertion that randomness in nature we perceive may not actually be randomness simply because we fail to understand how it works. It's the random events that seem to work Outside of our physical laws that we are grappling with. Not the basics of Physics 101. Since true randomness is not explained by the laws of the universe, thus the "unnecessarily binary"-ism.

HumanistFamilies, I don't seem to fit into atheism since I don't flatly reject the possibility of gods. But I also don't seem to fit into agnosticism, which seems to treat the existence and non-existence of gods as equally likely. What you defined isn't quite atheism - a better word would be skepticism.

"The wonderful world of human experience, emotion, art, love and subjective feelings are just as valid as any other person whether or not they believe in invisible deities beyond space and time or not." -- Well said.

God clearly doesn't care about war, famine, oppression, disease or poverty, so it's hard to see him getting worked up over a baseball score.

Curiously, most people I know aren't agnostic about fairies, leprechauns or any one of a number of other fanciful beings for which their actually is no evidence.

They simply don't believe in them because there is no objective empirical evidence for them.

This is the standard provision we use in our every day lives whenever people pitch their sales to us.

For me, claims about God(s)ess(es) and religious views also fit into that category.

They are open to critical examination and assessment for accuracy. If they fail to meet the basic standards of objective evidence then there is no reason to believe them. In coming to such a conclusion based on available information it is reasonable to simply not believe in the claim.

One can then be identified as an atheist.

The wonderful world of human experience, emotion, art, love and subjective feelings are just as valid as any other person whether or not they believe in invisible deities beyond space and time or not.

I certainly don't think that believers are any more or less human, which is a good thing and a more productive way to live this one life, in my view.

Nica,

Nice piece... I enjoyed it, and it got me thinking.

As an atheist/athlete, I played 12 seasons of sports in high school and 4 years of college football. I don't think the believers got any special powers on the fields (tracks, mats, diamonds) for having prayed before the games. Indeed many of the great players in my experience (and in pro-sports) didn't exactly lead a godly life -- on or off the field.

I don't remember sitting through very many prayers over the years -- we mostly had moments of silence, which I used to throw gas on the fire of rage I had for our opponent.

Ironic, ain't it?

Best regards,

James Underdown
Executive Director, Center for Inquiry-Los Angeles
Chair, Independent Investigations Group
(323) 666-9797 ext 101
www.cfiwest.org

Victoria, would you explain what you mean by "some element of creative and interesting construction"? In other threads I've proposed a new type of religion that would involve no beliefs about the physical universe at all. Since we have no evidence that meaning and purpose have existence outside the human mind, the proposed religion would talk about these concepts as purely human creations, determined on an individual basis. The religion would leave the physical universe to science. Lalli is on the right track when she says that "we are responsible for our actions and directions in this life, and that we ultimately must judge ourselves and take the best path we can forge." The proposed religion would possibly formalize and refine that idea. Would Tao or Zen come close to my idea?

BeowulfthePolitician:

"It is truly a tremendous leap of faith to study the composition of DNA and attribute its myriad of complex formations to random chance, mutations, and the like. The probabilities of such, when calculated out fully, defy the imagination."

That is completely incorrect. You know nothing about evolution. It is NOT governed by "random chance." The probabilities of life arising by natural causes by are high, not low. It takes no leap of faith to conclude that it is real, but only patient study and attention to the facts.

I suggest you learn something about evolution before commenting on it. You might start with Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene" because it is very readable, without much technical jargon, and it addresses and corrects all of the misapprehensions you have expressed here.

You do not impress people who know about evolution by posting ignorant statements about it. Whether your audience consists of believers or atheists, they will see that you know nothing about the subject. You should first LEARN and then discuss.

- Jed

My prayer:

Dear God, please protect me from your followers.

Amen

"At the end of the day, religion is either true or it's false. 50/50."

Looking at a given individual religion, some of its claims may be true and some may be false, or all may be true, or all may be false. The issue is that most religions make exclusive claims of absolute truth. So looking at two conflicting claims from two such religions, the claims could both be false, one could be true, but they could not both be true.

"Until, we can evidence the hidden order in the apparent randomness, it's still random. (Innocent until proven Guilty, Random until proven Ordered.)"

That's unnecessarily binary. The order in the universe is not hidden at all - we have devised physical laws for classifying and encapsulating it. With true randomness, one could make the same billiards shot exactly the same way 10 times, and each time the ball would go in a different direction.

I am always amazed when atheists, seemingly intelligent and well educated- continue to cite Pascal's Wager as though it were a theorem of some proof-

"Pascal's wager was never a very convincing argument for belief"

Nor was it meant to be- it is more likened to a coin toss-

i fonud beowulf's statement rather interesting- which was really what he was writing about , yet received no commnet.

"purely mathematical improbabilities of the universe simply coalescing on its own."

Also, I found his tone repsectful of, and not denigrating of atheists.

As a muslim who posts here, i am constantly called to self critique my own beliefs and held responsible for the actions of over 1 billion people.
Well, it's not really fair- but I do make attempts to explain with intelligence and reason my own beliefs and why i believe them.

But I find no such reciprocity in the psots of athesits, no self-critique, no possibility that there is room for growth or investigation from an intellectual POV-
but a great deal of finger-pointing at believers-without which- there seems to be nothing else of substance to say.

Isn't there an atheist out there whose entire reasoning process and thoughts are not derived from a reaction against religion or belief, but actually has some element of creative and interesting construction?

It seems the critiques only go one way- outward-
Not exactly illuminating nor edifying- and certainly not very interesting.

Mr. Mark wrote:

"If Mr Hamilton's case of "defying the odds, so there must be a god" reinforce your belief in a god, then what do you make of the defying-the-odds recovery of Lance Armstrong, an atheist? It must have been pretty difficult for the announcer in question to watch as atheist Armstrong won the Tour de France seven years in a row. There was a case of a bad couple of YEARS to not be an atheist!

BTW - why drag out old Pascal's full-of-logical-holes Wager? I woulda thunk that the believers woulda stopped pouring energy down that sink hole long ago."

Thank you Mr.Mark for taking the time to reply to my post.

I certainly agree that not everyone that climbs out of a negative situation was only able to do so because of divine intervention. However, that doesn't Rule it out either. The author of this article implied that Mr. Hamilton's belief in a god, rather than the god itself, caused his reversal of fortune. My point is to demonstrate that the God of the Universe can, in fact, intervene in the lives of mortals, even if it doesn't happen in every situation. She presents it as a delusion. I present it as a plausibility.

Regarding Pascal, not being fully well-versed in Pascal, I simply rely on the tenets of the world's major religion juxtaposing them to all of them being false. At the end of the day, religion is either true or it's false. 50/50.

Though, I Do like a previous poster's comment about how not all things are random simply because we can't detect their order, in the end, to quote Donald Rumsfeld, "We go in with the army we have, not the one we Wish we had." Until, we can evidence the hidden order in the apparent randomness, it's still random. (Innocent until proven Guilty, Random until proven Ordered.)

"The atheists claim they know there is nothing beyond what they do not touch or see, which further adds another repulsive dimension to their repertoire."

That's certainly unscientific, and a big reason that I don't consider myself an atheist. (I acknowledge the possibility of those things but demand evidence for them.) But what is repulsive about it? I would use that word only for acts that cause gross harm to others, such as if someone enjoyed hurting children or animals.

AMH writes:

" The atheists claim they know there is nothing beyond what they do not touch or see, which further adds another repulsive dimension to their repertoire."

Compared to the religionists who "claim they know there is SOMETHING beyond what they do not touch or see."

Following your own logic, does that not make religionists people to be pitied? Does not their belief "further add another repulsive dimension to their repertoire?"

Steve said:
“As an atheist I did feel hurt and embarrassed that others might actually believe the inference that we are cold, heartless nihilists.”
I, for one, never felt that way about atheists. I always thought they are to be pitied. More so than the agnostics who simply admit they do not know. The atheists claim they know there is nothing beyond what they do not touch or see, which further adds another repulsive dimension to their repertoire

Beowulf,

It's a mistake to assume that the only alternative to agency or design is "random chance." There is no such thing as true randomness. Every event has a cause, meaning a specific series of preceding events leading to the outcome event. Some outcomes appear to be random only because we do not know or can follow all the preceding events. True randomness would mean no causality at all.

Scientists do not assert natural origins for life and the universe as irrefutable facts. Any theories about either are not "beliefs." There is much that we don't know about those origins, and we must live with that unknown. While it's possible that gods may exist, it's unscientific to assume that they exist simply to bridge gaps in our knowledge. That ignores the possibility that such gods may have had nothing to do with the origins of life and the universe. When confronted with an event that cannot be explained scientifically or logically, it's intellectually irresponsible to create an explanation through assumption.

Whatever the odds for a natural origin for the universe, the created-by-gods explanation is much weaker because it involves too many assumptions. It assumes the existence of gods with certain specific properties and not other ones. It assumes that order could only have been consciously designed. And the explanation is asserted as absolute truth.

If gods exist, it's possible that they may care about human concerns and it's possible that they may not care. We cannot assume that they would care. That's partly because the assumption brings up other questions, such as why they would care, which are usually answered with more assumptions. In particular, if we assume that such gods would manipulate human events, it's very easly to arrive at the anti-human belief that Mr. Hamilton was somehow more deserving of divine intervention and that his colleagues weren't. Anti-human partly because it treats Mr. Hamilton as if he had no role at all in his achievements.

Dear BeowulfthePolitician -

If Mr Hamilton's case of "defying the odds, so there must be a god" reinforce your belief in a god, then what do you make of the defying-the-odds recovery of Lance Armstrong, an atheist? It must have been pretty difficult for the announcer in question to watch as atheist Armstrong won the Tour de France seven years in a row. There was a case of a bad couple of YEARS to not be an atheist!

BTW - why drag out old Pascal's full-of-logical-holes Wager? I woulda thunk that the believers woulda stopped pouring energy down that sink hole long ago.

A very well-written piece, even though I'm a Christian. I, too, often wonder why people attribute so much of their personal successes to God, yet never take the time to ask themselves why this same God isn't creating such success for other devout believers who are subject to rape, torture, genocide and starvation elsewhere in the world.

I believe in God, but don't believe He works the way many Christians think he does. If it's true that we're all here to love one another the way that Christ loves us, then why aren't these multimillionaire athletes spending more of their millions to lift up others who are oppressed? I do believe God helps those who believe in Him, but only in ways that are in accordance with His will.

But I also believe that He helps those who don't believe in Him, teaching those in tune with their inner selves to care, love and show compassion to all in the hope that they too come to know Him someday. He certainly appears to be at work in the heart of Ms. Lalli, regardless of her personal beliefs.

This is a clear case of the announcer engaging in one of the few acts of open discrimination against a particular group that is still considered to be just fine and dandy by most of the American population. I doubt the announcer gave it a second thought, just as he wouldn't have given it a second thought 20 years ago to make fun of a woman or a black (oh, wait, Don Imus did that just a few years ago with his "natty-headed ho" "comedy.")

I lived in Las Vegas from 2003-05, and I well remember a local TV weatherman who was fired when the words "Martin Luther Coon" slipped out of his mouth during a b'cast. To imagine that anybody living in these United States in the 21st century would be in situations off camera where such a demeaning and racist phrase was used often enough that it would make an unscheduled appearance as it did is appalling. We delude ourselves when we imagine the country has moved beyond such things (just take a look at the racial undertones the McCain campaign is launching against Obama).

Perhaps the author is correct in saying that it was a great day to be an atheist, but not in the way she imagines. I'd say it was a great day to be an atheist because it shows that atheists are becoming more visible, forcing society to take notice of us at an unprecedented level. It's the old Gandhi thing about first they ignore you, then they mock you etc - the steps involved in a minority or oppressed group triumphing over prejudice and injustice.

So, keep it up, Mr Announcer. With every mention of "the atheists" you decrease the pariah status of the group while offering sympathetic voices an opportunity to counter your knuckle-dragging life view.

Pascal's wager was never a very convincing argument for belief in invisible beings beyond space and time.

It is better to live your one human life as if there are no Gods, and try to make the world a better place for your being in it.

If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those loving friends and family you left behind.

If there is a benevolent God, She will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in Her.

If God is not benevolent, then there is no way of knowing what He will do to anyone whether or not they believed in Him.

If there is a God, but you picked the wrong one, then misery and malevolence may still await you.

It is my hope that many more evangelicals can understand the value and significance found in this atheist's wager and that it may provide some thoughtful reflection.

Thank you for your article, Ms. Lalli.

As an Evangelical Christian, I understand your unbelief in a Supernatural Being that can neither be seen, heard, felt, tasted, or smelled involving Him/Her/Itself in a baseball game. There is no empirical test that can be performed to evidence such a being.

Believing in a higher power is a curious trait of humanity, touching every culture, society, & ethnicity throughout the ages. Perhaps it is due to, as science teaches, that if a certain portion of the brain is stimulated, a religious experience ensues.

How then can an educated 21st century person still hold to a a belief in an unquantifiable concept of a higher being?

When one experiences a consistent string of events that defy mathmatical probabilities on a regular basis; when, in your hour of crisis, an event occurs that has no scientific or logical explanation, alleviates your crisis; when crisis-alleviating events such as these occur regularly, you begin to re-examine your paradigm. Thus, was the case with Mr. Hamilton.

I won't insult your intelligence with any esoteric "evidence" for the existence of God, (such as the proverbial "burning in the bosom"-type feelings) but I will ask you to consider the purely mathematical improbabilities of the universe simply coalescing on its own. It is truly a tremendous leap of faith to study the composition of DNA and attribute its myriad of complex formations to random chance, mutations, and the like. The probabilities of such, when calculated out fully, defy the imagination. If you think winning a $100 million Jackpot is difficult, try assigning similar odds to every necessary step of evolution. You would have to win that Jackpot numerous times over to equal the probabilities of the evolutionary model.

As a man of logic and mathematics, the faith required to believe in statistical improbabilities of random self-coalescence of the universe is far greater than I can muster. It is more mathematically probable that the universe had an intelligent designer at it's helm.

Statistics are of paramount importance in baseball, too. In a sport based on intense physical disclipine and attention to detail, the numbers tell all.

Mr. Hamilton realized his life defied the odds. The statistics were stacked against him. He realized that random chance & self-reliance wasn't enough to pull him out of his mire.

If "God" does exist, and is an impersonal force (like Electricity), what would impel it towards action on the behalf of anything? If God is a sentient being, with a will and intellect, would it be so implausible to speculate that, yes He/She/It, in fact, can manipulate human events (like baseball games) to achieve a certain purpose?

Mr. Hamilton didn't need to "win" the Home Run Derby to have come full circle, but his admirable showing may have been assisted by a greater Sentient Will to work out a purpose in Mr. Hamilton's life.

That purpose, though invisible to you, Me, and everyone else, can exist independent of our 5 senses and our natural world.

If the atheist view of the life is accurate, and life ceases at death, when you die, you will never know you were right; for your consciousness will be extinguished when your neural activity ceases.

However, if atheism is wrong, and Hinduism/Buddhism is accurate, there too, you will never know it, for you will have reincarnated into something/someone else with no memory of your current existence.

If however, one of the 3 Abrahamic faiths hold the truth of life-after-death, then unfortunately, you will know that you were wrong for all eternity.

Is the comfort in your current rejection of God really worth the uncertainty and possibility of an unpleasant afterlife?

Hi Nici, it is wonderful to read that we have others who shared our feelings and experience that night.

My family and I thoroughly enjoyed the Home Run Derby. The only disappointment came when Rick decided to offer a rather ill-conceived insult toward atheists.

As a husband, father of three wonderful young children, veteran police officer, community
volunteer and atheist I did feel hurt and embarrassed that others might actually believe the inference that we are cold, heartless nihilists.

I wrote to ESPN to explain how this national display played among my family, my kids and friends who know us.

It seems that more atheists are needed in the public media, perhaps even here on this forum, to bring their honest perspectives to the table.

After all, if folks really want find out more about how we feel, we should be here to let them know and not allow these pre-suppositions to keep getting re-inforced in society.

Granted, it isn't the greatest sorrow in the world...but it is one of many elements to a recipe that leads to tragedies that can be prevented with just a bit more care, concern and civil discussion.

Anyway, it was a GREAT night Nici, and the All-Star game was even better with Justin Morneau as the winning runner at the plate in a photo-finish call for the American League after a Michael Young sac fly in the 15TH inning!

Awesome, just awesome.

Steve Schlicht
Biloxi MS
humanistfamilies@hotmail.com

I'm a Pagan, not an atheist, but I know where you're coming from. I'm constantly rolling my eyes at Christian athletes who thank God for their athletic prowess, etc. I attended a Christian camp for many years, so I understand the concept behind giving all glory to God, yadda yadda yadda. But, seriously... do they really think that God cares how many home runs someone hits? No wonder there's so much suffering in the world - because God is too busy manipulating the HR Derby to care about Darfur. :p

I wonder what would happen if one of the many Hispanic players who follow Santeria would mention the spirits or loas whenever they hit the long ball?

"If he thinks that God, or his belief in a god or gods, had something to do with his new direction that is fine with me."

I'm sure he's quite glad he has your approval.

Did you actually gasp? You are rather easily shocked, aren't you? One can barely imagine what your over reaction might be to a REAL injustice.