All Comments (73)

Hello!не могу понять
.vaigra

Quid pro quo

My husband and I

A safe pair of hands

Farmers

Farmers

McCoy - The real

Ring-fencing

Red in tooth and claw

Stand up guy

Et tu, Brute

Green eyed monster

Rack your brains

Best bib and tucker

Best bib and tucker

traveler auto insurance Like a moth to a flame

traveler insurance phone number Tilting at windmills

traveler car insurance Play ducks and drakes

delta dental insurance usa (The) unkindest cut of all

Another member of the Cults of the Imaginary Friends (a.k.a., the theists) spews cloaked hatred toward the people who threaten the world's largest pyramid schemes (a.k.a., religions).

There is no "atheist regime" in the U.S. What there is is a significant minority (approx 15% of the US population, and growing!) of rational INDIVIDUALS who are tired of irrational theist babble.

Trolls, unicorns, gods ... they're all the same. Time to grow up, people. Aren't you too old to have an imaginary friend ?

Prof. Marty's comparison is a complete failure.

Religion MOTIVATES many atrocities. Atheism does not.

The 20th century communist slaughters were not done in the name of atheism, but rather in the name of communism. The leaders were not motivated by atheism, but rather by power. The people of the countries who supported those leaders did so in the name of communism, not atheism. Communism's appeal to the people (however foolish) was for political and economic justice, not atheism and the end of religion. One needs only consider the very religious Russian people to see this. Atheism was completely incidental: the communists did not gain power because of their atheism, their barbaric actions were not done in the name of atheism, and any public support for those leaders was not based on atheism.

For religious atrocities, it's often the reverse. It's of course true that religion has been used to justify many evil acts that are clearly mainly motivated by other terrible reasons. But in many cases, it's also true that religion is the primary cause. In those cases, it's the source of the leader's power and popular suppport; and those who support the slaughters do so for religious reasons. History is filled with such examples.

Is it any surprise that when someone has a sincere belief that God has somehow approved for them to kill, that they then do proceed to kill - often with great enthusiasm? The motivating belief is not in doubt in such cases.

Consider the current Muslim "martyrs who attain paradise" by blowing themselves up in some crowded market or bus. What are their last words before turning innocent women and children into bloody chunks?

"God is Great!"

Prof. Marty's comparison is a complete failure.

Religion MOTIVATES many atrocities. Atheism does not.

The 20th century communist slaughters were not done in the name of atheism, but rather in the name of communism. The leaders were not motivated by atheism, but rather by power. The people of the countries who supported those leaders did so in the name of communism, not atheism. Communism's appeal to the people (however foolish) was for political and economic justice, not atheism and the end of religion. One needs only consider the very religious Russian people to see this. Atheism was completely incidental: the communists did not gain power because of their atheism, their barbaric actions were not done in the name of atheism, and any public support for those leaders was not based on atheism.

For religious atrocities, it's often the reverse. It's of course true that religion has been used to justify many evil acts that are clearly mainly motivated by other terrible reasons. But in many cases, it's also true that religion is the primary cause. In those cases, it's the source of the leader's power and popular suppport; and those who support the slaughters do so for religious reasons. History is filled with such examples.

Is it any surprise that when someone has a sincere belief that God has somehow approved for them to kill, that they then do proceed to kill - often with great enthusiasm? The motivating belief is not in doubt in such cases.

Consider the current Muslim "martyrs who attain paradise" by blowing themselves up in some crowded market or bus. What are their last words before turning innocent women and children into bloody chunks?

"God is Great!"

BGONE:

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

1. I am NOT saying that atoms don't exist. Show me a picture of one (not the effect of its elements please)however. Give me scientific proof of what the strong force is and how the atom even stays cohesive.

We have faith in the interactions we have noticed, based on sound reasoning, which have led to our current understanding of what an atom is and how it works. But you can't tell me that 200 years from now or 2,000 years from now people won't be laughing at our ideals as silly. Athiest in thier own times, great scientists of their time, acutally believed in such things as "humors". Thousands of people died from being bled to death because that was what the scientific world told them to believe. I don't say and never will say that atoms don't exist. I have formed an understanding of what they are and how they work from years of research. Just as I have my own personal faith. I have seen too many things, things that science cannot explain, cannot even theorize about, to not believe in a higher power. In persuing my connection to that higher power I have formed an image that I am comfortable with, based on the best knowledge I have. Just as science has with the atom.

2. Your understanding of Christianity is sadly out of kilter. Yes, there were some religions that believe as you state but there is NO direct line between them and Christianity. Show me anywere in the old or new testatment that provides such a link or such an understanding. I am sorry you feel it is a hoax. As for recognizing God, that is easy.

I have spent my life in pursuit of my personal faith. I have questioned, explored, and studied many different religions and made an informed decision on the one that was right for me, based on my experience and knowledge. I have worked to build a strong bond to my God and to have an understanding for what role I play in his plans. This God I will recognize and any false God would not be able to "answer" direct questions associated with my faith. Of course, I may be wrong, as may any of us (even those with no religion) but that is the chance you take with free will.

Moses was part of the old covenant and as such his God was different because the requirements of faith were different. I follow the new covenant, one of forgiveness and charity, goodwill and friendship, love and family. These are the charactersitics of my God. In my heart I recognize him as my capacity to love just as I recognize the Devil as my capacity to hate. I have been asked to make a concious decision between the two and to show that decision through action, not just word. So long as I continue to act as a Christian, I will be rewarded in this life and the one to come, as I believe I have been. If I fall from this path, I believe there is a way back on it through forgiveness, as I should show all those around me.

To me that is Christianity. It is the characteristics that define my God and by extension my particular faith. If someone evil warps this belief (or Islam, or Judaism) and convinces others to have blind faith in them then they are not practicing the base religion, no matter what they happen to believe or are told. That is why as a good Christian I am taught to always examine what I do, to apply a litmus test against what the scripture and scholars of my faith teach me, and to use my own good sense to determine if I am still on the path. Blind faith is always bad. It should be informed consent and decision that determines ones actions.

Of course this goes the other way too. Athiest cannot say that religion causes evil and then say that their non-religious beliefs don't. Evil people use what ever means they can to corrupt the environment around them, to gather personal power, and to use it to the detriment of others. As my religion has been warped, so has athiest beliefs. Stalin was anti-church and an athiest. He used the principles of athiestic faith (or non-belief in god) as a selling point to bring him to power. As did Chairman Mao, as did others. This reliance only on logic and goodwill as they expressed them brought them to the position were they were able to use their power to give themselves totalitarian rule. So yes, athiesm can be blamed for great evil.

In fact, as has been pointed out the body count is much higher for these non-secular states than for any religious state. The horrors have been much worse as well. It was argued that you cannot do a direct comparison because of modern weapondry, ect. but I will argue that you most certainly can. The reason there have been no incidents like the Stalin purge with religion as the basis is because of the moral teachings of the actual religions. It was only during a time when science was poor at best, with the VAST majority of people uneducated, that religion was able to be twisted to the ends that it was. In today's world, with the science we have, with the communications we have available, it isn't possible to have the same impact. That is why you see such twistings of religion as the playground of small terrorist cells or in countries where the populous is kept ignorant and therefore easily conned. It is more a subject of the totalitarian regimes they live in than actual twisting of faith.

The vast majority that follow the Islamic faith would denounce the actions of suicide bombers as against their faith. Just as would any Christian, Jew, or I dare guess just about any other religious group established in the last 2000 years. It is when evil people twist these religions that bad things happen, just as when they twist an anti-religion philosophy. Of course, it probably didn't hurt that most of the suicide bombers knew that their families would be taken care of in ways they would never be able to do if they lived that might have more to do with their actions than actual belief. It just becomes easier to brainwash them by telling them they also will be rewarded...

Aren't Leninism, Stalinsm, and Maoism just attempts to replace a "god believing" religion with a "non-god believing" religion? The problem isn't god, the problem is religion. I cannot understand why people continue to equate the 2 when they really don't have much to do with each other.

For those of us who wonder why the man-on-the-street Xian can't allow a logical thought to enter their mind, we need look no further than this post by Prof Marty. As others have pointed out, this column is truly beyond the pale, both in its mischaracterizations of atheism and in its misrepresentations of the historic record. The last I looked, "nuanced" wasn't a synonym for "simplistic."

If the teachers of religion can't think logically, what hope for their students?

"Some atheists are bad therefore be a theist" arguement is lame. The more evil, lies and hypocracy commited by theists, the more people will fall away. Thats probably a good thing.

The fruit born by Christianity, Judaism and Islam is pretty dang foul.

I am aware of tens of millions of people having been tortured and/or killed in the name of fascist ideologies, trying to establish or enforce the supreme authority of the state over competing ideologies.

I am aware of tens of millions of people having been tortured and/or killed in the name of communist ideologies, trying to establish or enforce the supreme authority of the state over competing ideologies.

I am aware of tens of millions of people having been tortured and/or killed in the name of christianity/Jesus, trying to establish or enforce the supreme authority of the god.

I am not aware of even a single person having been tortured and/or killed in the name of rational skepticism.

Mr. Marty,

"Religion is violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children."

Atheism is simply the absence of belief in deities.

Mr. Marty,

"Religion is violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children."

Atheism is simply the absence of belief in deities.

Mr. Marty,

"Religion is violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children."

Atheism is simply the absence of belief in deities.

It's fair to say religion and the religious doesn't have the monopoly on intolerance, racism and tyranny etc. Nor do they have the monopoly on goodness.

We are (very) slowly starting to get beyond these crude finger pointing exercises but we also need to get beyond seeing religion and atheism as mirror images and develop a more nuanced understanding.

Who will be brave enough to start asking are some approaches to religion (or even some religions) more prone to violence and intolerance than others? What conditions create oppresive atheism? Can we discourage thos evariations that ar emore harmful.

There are some studies (one in Candada which showed atheists were less racist than religious counterparts, other psychological studies have show non religious and inquisitive 'questing' religious people have lower levels of prejudice than 'by the book' religious people). We desperately need more of this kind of research if even 'professors' are stuck in the first 'mud-slinging' stage..

Speaking as a heathen-american, I say this: I'm
not out for the abolition of religion, but I do
believe that in these Interesting Times that
there's definitely call to have a lot more
public transparency in anything to do with
organized religious instititions. Some of them
command millions if not billions of dollars,
and have political agendas that they're in
no way ashamed of forwarding.

I think, if you're truly of the Faith, or of
any faith, and you see your church(whatever)
leadership out there pontificating on this or
that, as a matter of principle it would seem to
stand to reason that congregants should speak
out, especially if it seems like the folks of
the Cloth are collecting the dreaded Large Sums
Of Money. Jesus, Inc. can and should be
viewed with a healthy level of suspicion, the
news is full of holy wars and holy warriors,
before you donate, ask where that money goes...
not too long the Baptists came up dirty-filthy
running a Ponzi scheme, where there's one there's
likely others, beware glad-handing members of
religious charities, I met a bona-fide Believer
of that particular stripe, and I'm here to 'witness' that the gentleman, who shall remain
nameless, was a top-to-bottom sleazebag.

Just because you see people carrying around
religious literature and making pithy statements
and affecting a state of assumed piety is NO
reason to take them at their word, and again,
if you become aware that there's money involved,
be doubly suspicious. It costs a big 30 bucks
online to become an ordained minister, with
credentials that thin, all bets are off...
I'm not saying don't go to church, I'm not saying
you can't/shouldn't follow your beliefs, just
do so with both eyes wide open, your ears clean,
and one hand on your wallet. Forewarned is forearmed etc.

To think millions of lives would have been saved if Stalin, Lenin, or Mao had only believed in Zeus/Allah/Jesus/Buddha/Santa to keep them from being naughty is pretty stupid, professor. No one kills for NOT believing in something.

Yeah, they didn't believe in God, they didn't believe in magical elves either. Why would that cause, non-belief in magical beings, cause anyone to kill and torture?

The implication the professor is trying to make is that atheists, without belief in a God that watches your every more, have no morals, are unstable, and are liable to murder.

Make no mistake, it is hate speech. Don't stand for it.

This has got to be the oldest bad criticism of atheism in the book, and here's why; Stalin and the like did NOT kill millions in the name of atheism. No, they actually killed millions in the names of Marxism, which includes atheism as a subset, but only because Marxism views churches and organized religion as an obstacle to the pursuit of Communism.

On the other hand, conquerors like Columbus would specifically declare themselves soldiers and servants of God and country, and the Crusades were explicitly founded on fighting against a rival religious entity.

Marty's first falacy is to blur the lines between totalitarian governments and their leaders atheist beliefs. That is guilt by association.

His second falacy is associating the validity of religions with a belief in god. Even if one assumes that there is a god, that does not then support the notion that any religion has a direct line to god. And I don't know of one religion that doesn't make that claim.

In the book "A case for faith" you can read the most intellectually dishonest argument, including scientific evidence for why there not only is a god, but why that god is actually the god of the new testament. Good reading that should scare most athiests, and any non christians.

Marty's first falacy is to blur the lines between totalitarian governments and their leaders atheist beliefs. That is guilt by association.

His second falacy is associating the validity of religions with a belief in god. Even if one assumes that there is a god, that does not then support the notion that any religion has a direct line to god. And I don't know of one religion that doesn't make that claim.

In the book "A case for faith" you can read the most intellectually dishonest argument, including scientific evidence for why there not only is a god, but why that god is actually the god of the new testament. Good reading that should scare most athiests, and any non christians.

For clarification purposes only (not as a point of argument), Hitler thought Christainity was a Jewish plot. He preferred the pre-Christainity religions, if any at all.

Look it up in a book for yourselves or if no the literate type, watch the History Channel.

art at large:

And, are Agnostics equal to Atheists?
--

Who should judge that?

In the end, being a religious, an agnostic or an atheist is personal. Why should anyone be made, or even asked, to justify it?

Leninism, Maoism, and Stalinism were as much about protecting a position of political power as they were about atheism, if not more so. And Naziism used God as a tool, as a justification. The German soldiers' belt buckles read "...God is with us."

Just as morally bankrupt and criminal priests should not be held as examples of Religions, so should Personality Cults not be used as examples of Atheism.

And, are Agnostics equal to Atheists?

Correction to above: pinkos and not ponkos

Charles:

The "red scare" prompted the addition of "under God" to the pledge. Ike stated at the time that it was being done to combat "Godless" communism. Those who resisted both atheist and people of faith in God were labeled "pomkos" by folks like Rush Limbauh.

Religion is a curse on society that dates the dawn of man. It began with witch doctors playing on people's fear of the dark. Strangely enough it did not immediately slop over into the next life. In the beginning all dead were assumed to go on to a new world, "happy hunting ground" for some native Americans as an example.

Then a man wanted what other men had. He had to kill to get it and agonized over his victims waiting for him in the next world. In the beginning he theorized that he could avoid that, being ambushed when he died by hacking up the dead victim's bodies. Mr Hunt the hoax buster calls that, "hell of the first type, the forever wound" and backs his claim up with the words of Jesus, (showing that Jesus came much earlier than 2,000 years ago).

From there hell evolved with a couple of significant face lifts. The first was the addition of a monster between here and the next world, probably to take care of those that got away, couldn't be hacked up here on earth.

Then came a place called hell. That was the advent of Christianity as we now know it, the notion of a guard at the gate of the next world to cast murder victims into a permanent prison, hell.

The whole story is at http://www.hoax-buster.org

Again, Mr Hitchens understated the problem. Religion was born of criminal intent and has only done as mafia types say, "gone legit" with official recognition by the US government complete with universal tithing, (tithes - taxes paid to Devil's representatives).

Been There: "Human beings are so constructed that if they (and their societies, governments, countries) are not pointed in the right direction, then they are pointed in the wrong one."

Are you saying that the right direction is to believe in an invisible supernatural being? Can it be any supernatural being, or is there a preferred choice?

Carlo - Please tell us about your more sophisicated view of God and whether or not it includes him being a "supernatural man in the sky."

Charles: You wrote, "As I have stated in other posts, aithists and secularist also rely on experts to interpret their world or to tell them how to think."

You're not saying that atoms can't be proved to exist, that they are only what experts claim to be real but are not real? God is real. Devil is real too you know.

So let me pose a question, one not so hard perhaps. If you meet God how will you know it's God? Please don't say you'll know. Devil and God look a lot alike, too close for comfort. Lucifer fooled a lot of angels and angels are supernatural beings so small wonder He fools people.

What are God's distinguishing characteristics? That's the follow on question once we figure out that Moses met Devil and assumed him to be God. Unfortunately, the being Moses met is the same one you worship, honor, adore, glorify and make sacrifices to His agents, pay his fee to them, ministers they're called. Experts? Know what God wants but can't get without their help and your money?

Then we can understand atheists like Mr Hitchens and why they notice the cancer of religion and blame faith in God for it. They need to leave God out of it like the ministry does, just plain faith. That way which supernatural being, God or Devil is optional. God needs no ones help, created the whole universe from nothing. Must be Devil they mean when they say faith.

Anonymous:

You state that:

""We hold these truths to be self evident, all men are created equal..." But then when it got down to business religion stepped up to the plate and said "not so fast. Moses and Jesus were NOT created equal." Religion is the problem and not the cure."

My faith, Christianity, teaches me that all MEN are created equal as well, regardless of what you think.

You also state that:

"Faith is not in supernatural beings but rather it's faith in experts on the subject of supernatural beings like Martin E Marty. Atheists deny the existence of supernatural beings. So the gap is rather large between Mr. Marty and atheists. Not so great for me since I am not an atheist which allows me to ask the hard questions. Perhaps we can get to the root of the disease that plagues the world known as religion."

religion is a belief in some higher being. Faith is the belief in something not currently known. They are two widely different things. Science has its own brand in faith, this is what leads to exploration and is just a prone to being biggoted, exploited, ect. as any religion. People were actually killed for expressing scientific beliefs that went against the accepted scientific beliefs of the time (tried and hung).

Your statement does get to the real problem. Others letting people think for them. We should constantly question each other and use this to form our own opinions, beliefs, and faith.

I never liked the "athiesm-vs-religion debate as a body count" debate. Not only does it oversimplify both the causes of atrocities and the positions of the debaters, but it also presupposes a historical equality that you can't really expect to have. The Crusades were bad, yes - Hitler was worse, yes...but the Crusades happened long before mechanized infantry and machine guns. Either scenario would be different given the technological, social and political circumstances of the other. It's all just too hypothetical to try and frame as a pure numbers game.

And then, of course, there's the mere fact that because a bad person liked an idea and did bad things, this does not implicitly imply that it's a bad idea. As a friend of mine likes to point out, Hitler was also a fan of indoor plumbing, and nobody's clamoring to get rid of that one. Whether Hitler/Stalin/Mao/the Pope was an athiest, a pagan, a christian, or wrapped up in some self-worship cult doesn't immediately mean their beliefs were either what drove them to their lunacy nor does it mean that any of those beliefs are automatically invalid or wrong.

Bob Miller:

God is a "supernatural man in the sky," eh? If that is what you understand, I sure am happy you don't believe in it!

Have you ever considered the possibility that
maybe there are people who have a somewhat more sophisticated understanding of the meaning of that word?

BGONE:

I appreciate your post and would like a chance to respond.

You state that:

"Faith is not in supernatural beings but rather it's faith in experts on the subject of supernatural beings like Martin E Marty. Atheists deny the existence of supernatural beings. So the gap is rather large between Mr. Marty and atheists. Not so great for me since I am not an atheist which allows me to ask the hard questions. Perhaps we can get to the root of the disease that plagues the world known as religion."

As I have stated in other posts, aithists and secularist also rely on experts to interpret their world or to tell them how to think. This brand of ignorance is the real disease that plagues the world. The twisted people that use religion in their own evil ways, isolate those that follow them as surely as any political party isolates those that would question it. Anyone here remember the "red scare" in America? That had nothing to do with religion, was a completely secular issue, but destroyed countless lives and led to awful bigotry and persecution in our society.

Anything can be used to divide people, give other people power and wealth. Religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc.) don't lead to these problems. People letting others tell them what it means does. Just as letting people tell you what the constitution and bill of rights tells us will be used by political parties to do the same thing.

Ignorance is not the sole realm of the religious.

Mr. Hitchen's uses religion as a scapegoat, because it is easier to attack than to face the real problem which takes far more work. We have to acknowledge that no one group is right and to work together to end ignorance and to give up our intrinsic lazy ways of letting others think for us. Imagine how different an American election would be if we, the people, actually did our homework on the candidates and truely became an informed constituent. This is a thought that would terrify any of the political parties because we would end up electing someone by write in ballot because none of the politicians would be voted for.

Zealous hatred of established religious organizations does not mean religion is bad. Religion is not bad the real problem is: people let others tell them what to think, the true evil in the world, which is capitalized by evil people, as it will be with religious organizations, just as it is with secular organizations.

Too late I noticed I had not put my handle up. Sorry, that was me.

Martin E. Marty says "Most societies and polities throughout history were shaped or influenced by some form or other of religion: Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Sikh, Native American, etc"

That all changed July 4, 1776. Well, it was supposed to change. The time has come to restate the principles upon which the first attempt at democracy was based.

"We hold these truths to be self evident, all men are created equal..." But then when it got down to business religion stepped up to the plate and said "not so fast. Moses and Jesus were NOT created equal." Religion is the problem and not the cure.

What Mr Hitchens said is that religion is a cancer on society. Martin E Marty notices that society has been real sick for a long time and even give us a litany of the different varieties of the ailment, religion.

Faith is not in supernatural beings but rather it's faith in experts on the subject of supernatural beings like Martin E Marty. Atheists deny the existence of supernatural beings. So the gap is rather large between Mr. Marty and atheists. Not so great for me since I am not an atheist which allows me to ask the hard questions. Perhaps we can get to the root of the disease that plagues the world known as religion.

Mirror mirror on the wall what's the hardest question of them all?

But of course, was that really God in the burning bush. If it was not then those of us with undying faith in supernatural beings have no choice but to say it was Devil. And, that explains the whole thing, cancer on those who faith it was God.

Professor Marty, is http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul the correct reading of sacred scriptures or not? If it is not then what is wrong with it? If it is correct then we know what the problem is and can say that Mr Hitchens understated the case.

What are the choices between atheism and religion?

I believe in God. I also believe that religions are peoples attempts to interpret God. No religion represents God. No religion is the single voice of truth. I don't believe that either Christianity or Islam represents the totality of God or his relationship with us here on earth.

The introduction of the idea that the US was founded at least in part, on Deism is a possible bridge between the atheistic societies and the purely religious societies. That deserved more discussion.

Dear Columnist,

You truly find yourself less than adequate, believing that you, personally, need a supernatural man in the sky to watch over you?

You truly do not enjoy life? You find life insufficient? Your life is not adequate for your needs that you must pretend that after you are deceased you yearn for some ethereal existence?

If you do suffer from these issues, I suggest that you speak with a counselor about this need to adhere to a religion.

If you enjoy your life, have fun with friends and family, read a few books and let go of pretentiousness that you are of some level of importance that the you need to exist after you die, your stress will disappear and you might be happier. Only weirdos want to live forever.

Best Regards!

Garak:

I invite you to read Mein Kampf or any of the major Hitler biographies (Bullock, Kershaw etc.). You will find out that Hitler was a philosophical Nietzschean and such RABIDLY anti-Christian ("The religion of the slaves that corrupted the aryan nation"). If anything, Hitler believed in a corrupted form of social Darwinism, common in his generation. Since he closedly associated Christianity and Judaism (for obvious reasons), he repeatedly made private comments to the effect that "the Cristians would be next" (after he was done with the Jews).

Chuck Swanson:

no, it's not a fact. I invite to you to tally up all the casualties in wars due to religious hatred
over a given period and compare them to the casualties in "secular" wars over the same period.
Shall we try the last 250 years?

On your side I give you the India-Pakistan partition, Northern Ireland, the Balkan wars
and several minor wars I will let you list.

On my side I will cite the bloodbath following the French revolution, the Napoleonic wars, the Franco-Prussian war, the US civil war, two world wars, the russo-Japanese war, the Chino-japanese war in the 30', the Russian and Chinese civil wars, the Iran-Iraq war, the Congo civil war, the Rwuanda war. I could go on and on but I will stop because by a rough estimated these already killed something approaching 80 million people.

Who do you think is going to win this game?

At long last, one sensible comment in this debate.
I am reminded, in some very low key sense, of the entry in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy under the item 'nothing'.

Where the Encyclopedia entry takes on the philososphical concept of 'nothing' --- and, accessorily, 'nihilism' ---, Professor Mary takes on the concept of 'atheism' in a sometimes playful, sometimes deeply meaningful, way.

Been There:

I think you're missing the point: ATHEISM is a religious belief. Not in the metaphysical sense but in the sense of "common sense". You're views that Stalinism, Marxism and Hitler's views are based on No Theology are biased in the extreme. The extermination camps were in no way more hypocritical than the Crusades or the "Ethnic Cleansing" in the Middle East, or the ongoing war between the Jews and the Palestinians. Whether "in the name of God" or "in the name of whatever", these atrocities existed and still exist because of surreal beliefs.

For all those atheist posters desperate to disassociate themselves from Stalinism, Fascism, etc., what they don't seem to realize is that social structures as the Soviet Union, the Third Reich, or today's North Korea, are the INEVITABLE result of the disappearance and/or suppression of religious belief. The opposite of Good Theology is not No Theology - it's Bad Theology. Human beings are so constructed that if they (and their societies, governments, countries) are not pointed in the right direction, then they are pointed in the wrong one. You can't just wish yourself out of that one.

I have to love the lack of objectivity in the arguments in this thread. "Because bad people did bad things or misused power in a non-religious state does not mean that being an athiest is bad"... "but on the other hand, because bad people did bad things or misused power in the name of religion, all religion is bad".

Please separate you hatred of established religions from the discourse on the merits of religion. If you actually read the bible it will instruct that faith is a personal thing. It is the personal connection to God that is important.

Organizations spring up because like minded individuals get together because of their similar thinking. In fact, the original meaning of 'church' was such a gathering, not the buildings - organizational requirements - ect. of today's established religions. By fundamental purpose religions recognize that man is flawed. Therefore any organization is going to be flawed and subject to being used by bad people.

I don't agree with the arguments put forward by the Reverend but they are in much the same vein as the arguments of Mr. Hitchens in his thread. It is using genralizations to support an argument that the other side is bad. Of course they are, bad people will use whatever means they can (state, religion, force) to get what they want. It is the very nature of the scociopath to do so. This will never be a justification for why religion or being an athiest is invalid. The basis for these two ways of belief must be examined to argue logically in support of your particular beliefs if you want to make a true impact on others.

It should also be noted that science and religion are not exclusive. Some of the most brilliant scientist, the ones that have made the most impact on our body of scientific knowledge, were deeply religious. I can easily accept evolution, but that the same time I can see a guiding hand in the "rules" that establish it. I can accept that the Earth is several billion years old, yet I believe in God. It would make equal sense that evolution would favor the extinguishment of life rather than the maintenance of it. If the goal is to become the dominant form, as is the case with many viruses, evolution could easily favor those that completely wipe out all other forms. Without the complexity of life, and its supporting roles in the circle of life, our world falls apart and results in disease, famine, etc.

Bad people take advantage of others in this evironment and add to the problems. However, truly devote people, with a deep and abiding connection to their god work tirelessly to make the world a better place through humility, decency, and love. It is a mandate of their religion. Athiests have no tennents other than a lack of belief in God or supernatural powers. They will be as good or as bad as those with religion without an expression of faith. So tell me how athiests are better than those with religious faith other than your tired arguments that religious organizations, state leaders, or cult leaders have misused it. I can point to an equal number of secular organizations that have caused the deaths of millions. Since most countries were based on some form of religion there is a distinct longer period of history were it has been misused but current secularism is being misused equally and will soon catch up I fear. Of course, my faith tells me that this is becuase there is true evil in the world. Your faith tells you it is just the state of people. How depressing.

The parallels that mark the two ( religious and Atheistic ) are indeed similar. Both adhere to beliefs that are ritualistic in form. The main difference between the two: Atheism founded and corroborated on fact and "religion" based on unfounded metaphysical dogma. But for the sake of argument couldn't they both be construed as "religion" in the sense of "belief"?

I'm certainly glad I didn't waste money going to the U of Chicago if this is the type of logic being taught there. It added nothing whatsoever to the discussion.

Perhaps they need a mandatory retirement age.