Living As if God Really Did Exist

To me (as an artist) it has always been a mystery how people with very little knowledge of any scientific research have the nerve to speak condescendingly about the "universe" and its laws. The "killer" argument "random" arouses a knee jerk consensus of scientific ignorabimus' that the scientific and reason-guided approach to our life and nature must be equal to nihilism. Mathematically speaking, even the concept "random" harbors some unsolved enigmas, and it cannot be discussed outside the concepts of natural laws.

Ask a top mathematician about mysteries: He can even find them in the simple row of numbers, let alone in more complex and maybe even unanswerable mathematical (cosmic) questions.

For me, to substitute a simple and so easily palpable "god" image as a joker for this huge field of mystery and for the evident limits of our knowledge constitutes the contrary: You DEGRADE the mysteries of nature AND ITS LAWS by this implementation of a simple joker you call god to which you attach your hope and morals. "Degrading" is the word for me. Nature, in its grand and wonderful evolution, has produced men who (in this interim phase of evolution) in turn invented these images of different gods for want of knowledge at a given time.

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

I can't quote the source, but I once read not that we would benefit by living as if God exists, but by living as if we will have an "afterlife".
I believe this is a better approach. It's more universal. Buddhists can live with the possibility of reincarnation, and dealing with the effects made in this (and past) lifetimes in the following lifetime(s).
Judeo-Christians can live with their belief that they will be condemned to heaven, hell or purgatory in the following life.
Atheists and Agnostics can maintain their world-view yet still will consider that they will live again. Having in mind that life or existence doesn't simply terminate at the time of death has perhaps the most profound influence on our actions in this life.

Nam Myo Ho Ren Ge Kyo

can you all send me some money so i can organize my believers? yes? thank you.
~g0d

ps. yes a donation via paypal will save your soul.

Realist, what do you mean by hormonal enviroment in the womb? Also there is no evidence of a genetic link to homosexuality in the least, unless you refer to a study by two homosexual doctors who later admitted they fabricated a flawed study to get the word out there for people to grasp to. They were totally refuted by all medical journal.

"thankfully, we will never in this country have state-sponsored religion, and the Judeo-Christian ideal which informed that important form of government will endure."

I assume you are living in Sweden? The US currently has state sponsored religion. Faith based initiatives are state sponsored religion.

Bill L: "no one should ever persecute someone for their belief or choice!"

Well amen to that!

Skin colour is genetic, and no one should be discriminated against because of it.

Religious affiliation is a choice, and no one should be discriminated against because of it.

Sexual preference may be a choice, or it may be genetic, or it may be a little of both, , and no one should be discriminated against because of it.

Bill L wrote:
"Realist, no one should ever persecute someone for their belief or choice! If homosexuality isn't genetic then how can you not have a choice? A person can have a choice if they want to have sex, or diet{ some because of genetics have no choice of being overweight}, or many difficult to control behaviors."

I'll say it again. Homosexuality is mainly caused by the hormonal environment in the womb. There is also some evidence that genetics also plays a role. This means that people do not choose their sexual orientation.

Of course they can choose to be lonely and suffer for their entire lives if they have been taught to believe that it is a "sin". But who benefits from their suffering? Not you, not I and not God. And who is hurt by their "transgressions" if they don't choose to believe it? Nobobdy. It just makes no sense whatsoever for God or anyone to discriminate against them.

What is the point of morality? What is it good for? Its only purpose is to prevent suffering and to promote happiness. If a moral rule does neither of those, then it's plainly useless to anyone.

Realist, no one should ever persecute someone for their belief or choice! If homosexuality isn't genetic then how can you not have a choice? A person can have a choice if they want to have sex, or diet{ some because of genetics have no choice of being overweight}, or many difficult to control behaviors.

God allows total free will and will leave any marriage or relationship when asked. The problem is people are quick to blame him when things don't work out for them.

"...'the golden rule' as it is understood in the west, does emanate from Christ, though it is true that other religions also encourage the same..."

On the contrary, the "Golden Rule" did not originate with Jesus, and is not unique to Christianity, or even to theistic religion in general. It's just a statement of empathy; something all mentally healthy human beings feel to some degree.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm

____________

"...you concede in your posts that there is no consensus as to the origin of the understanding of those ethics, or even what they may be, or even its ideals so it is impossible to finally debate, isn't it, whether atheists as a group tend to attempt to follow any consistent or noticeable or comprehensible system of ethics to inform personal action or ideals..."

Several problems with this statement. I have nowhere conceded that there can be no common ground for understanding ethics; you are misunderstanding me, I think. I doubt there is one final, ultimate single source we can point to, but this is a far cry from a nihilistic position like the one you are painting here.

You have to try to get away from the idea that atheism is a religion. Atheists are not a monolithic group, there is no atheist dogma or doctrine.

The term "atheism" simply means "an absence of belief in god(s). That absence of belief itself really has nothing to do with ethics one way or the other; the only reason the subject comes up is because theists like to pretend that an absence of belief in god(s) makes one less ethical. This is demonstrably false, but that doesn't stop them. If you want to discuss humanist ethical principles we can certainly do that.

_________________

"...it is amusing, your references to tx, reconstruction, jerry falwell, but clearly, none of those 'initiatives' won the day ultimately..."

Your claim was that "no one is advocating 'state sponsored religion'" but there are clearly powerful forces (some of these have regular access to the White House) who clearly DO advocate Christian theocracy.

They may not have won, and they probably won't, but that doesn't mean they can't do a lot of damage in the meantime. Just ask your gay friends. (You probably do have some, even if you're not aware of it...)

"There isn't any scientific proof that homosexuality is genetic. It is an immoral{against nature} act of choice and becomes habit for others."
This is what makes me angry: when people blatantly lie. There are preachers all over the US pushing this lie and you have fallen for it.

I didn't say homosexuality is genetic. It is partly genetic, but mostly a result of the hormonal environment in the womb.

Even if it is a choice (which it isn't) why should God or anyone care about it? It's not rational to persecute them.

"Birth control removes God from your relationship as a married couple. It is a relationship between the wife, husband, and God."

Sorry God, but my marriage is none of your business! Marriage is a relationship between two people - God has got nothing to do with it. How many children I have is my choice based on how many I can afford to look after.

however the vast majority of believers accept that there is much unknown about human or moral consciousness.

but i think it is apt, the comparison, since one either puts one's faith and trust in revelation from one source or another ultimately. since there is much that is unknowable and beyond human control, and even within what is known a great deal of clumsiness, lack of precision, depth, detail about what we are able to scientifically observe.

'the golden rule' as it is understood in the west, does emanate from Christ, though it is true that other religions also encourage the same.

i can understand the objection you characterize, of not wishing to appear without ethics, as an atheist. however you concede in your posts that there is no consensus as to the origin of the understanding of those ethics, or even what they may be, or even its ideals. so it is impossible to finally debate, isn't it, whether atheists as a group tend to attempt to follow any consistent or noticeable or comprehensible system of ethics to inform personal action or ideals.

if however the general notion is something along the lines of 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you', assuming the existence of a 'you' and an 'other', it seems appropriate that most atheists who try to live by this ethical system would certainly tend to agree with the interest in not having one being exterminate another at its origins. there is certainly nothing inconsistent, with living this ideal with atheism. further, if one relies upon science to inform one's actions as the primary source, then too, it would seem that one would err on the side of respect for the noble processes of humans. scientists who believe that there is some admirable order to the 'universe', yet cannot come to know God in relation to that, certainly seem to agree that what humans have the potential to do, study, and create are worthy aims that ought to be protected.

it is amusing, your references to tx, reconstruction, jerry falwell, but clearly, none of those 'initiatives' won the day ultimately, and any quick glance at voting patterns in this country, even in tx, or especially in tx, can ease anyone's mind in case this is a legitimate worry. thankfully, we will never in this country have state-sponsored religion, and the Judeo-Christian ideal which informed that important form of government will endure.

"aside from personal anger at religion, i am still at a loss as to what the objections to this may be."

I think the objection comes when theists insist that we atheists have no reason to behave morally if we don't believe in God, even though they can't quite ever define what "God" means.

Your "flowchart" example is a misrepresentation, I think. I doubt those researchers are claiming to have discovered the final answer to moral consciousness, unlike theists who insist that answer has been mysteriously "revealed" to them, and that this revelation gives them some sort of moral superiority.

-------

"even if one believes in an overly retributive God, as some have voiced as their main concern, how can one's fear of punishment in the afterlife serve to threaten our collective well being. no one is advocating 'state sponsored religion';"

Look again; read the platform of the Texas Republican Party, look up the Reconstructionist movement, listen to Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson...

-------

"...some atheists try to live by 'the Golden Rule', which is essentially the teaching of Jesus, and obviously that is very consistent with the premise of a God."

All ethical systems, theistic and otherwise, invoke some form of the "Golden Rule". I t is certainly not unique to Christianity, nor does it require the existence of a deity.

Respectfully
A Hermit

the selective bible quoting is fascinating. i don't understand why non-believers would cite the bible as proof that God does not exist. in fact, for believers for thousands of years and continuing, it serves to better clarify who God and we are in relation.

as far as this debate, i don't think it useful to continue to attack any particular faith or real person. it doesn't appear to be advancing anyone's points or ideas to do this.

i don't know mr. weigel, however, it seems to me that the approach of the quotation provided is a very standard way of inviting debate. this can be clearly seen by the use of the word 'premise'. a premise is just that. it is not an assertion nor a requirement that anyone accept what follows as true. it seems that at least for one atheist, the premise is a useful starting point for discussion.

all the assumptions about people, each other, whom we do not know or have met, are unhelpful and in places a little bizarre.

for instance, for every bile-infused generalization about believers, i personally know many who have, studied eastern faiths, in detail, and who have attended completely public and secular schools and have had ample opportunity, experiences and quite a bit of interest in actively seeking out one's own truth, whether it was a truth taught from the cradle or not. it's quite typical. not to mention the fact that the vast majority of 'Christian' or 'Catholic' schools and institutions in this country actually pride themselves on offering knowledge in a plethora of faiths and doctrines as well as being quite engaged in what was traditionally described as 'secular' culture. it seems so obvious that it needn't be pointed out but apparently it does need to be pointed out.

further, many eastern faiths and cultures are quite consistent with notions in Judeo-Christian beliefs. how different were Gandhi's beliefs as compared with Martin Luther King?

similarly, it's very unfair to generalize about all Muslims on account of the actions and hatred of a few.

just as we take some strange examples and try to generalize them to entire ethnicities, cultures and peoples here in attacking religion, the generalizations from the field of science still do not seem to me to weigh against shaping collective moral codes from the premise of a God. todays' paper has an excellent example. because of a few limited experiments and the field of artificial intelligence, the question is begged, are we not just complex flow charts interacting with our environment, if only we could know all the 'variables' we could predict our behavior every time apart from moral codes, believer or non beleiver. and that's all fine it's just that the assumption that these things are knowable and that if they were known it would finally amount to existence as an evolutionary flow chart alongside a complete refutation of the existence of God, that assumption, in and of itself, is an example of 'magical' thinking of the kind the scientists cheerfully are banking their careers on. to me, the comparison of an overblown, simplistic conclusion all on the shoulders of a tidy experiment or two with questionable reliability and validity should be certainly accorded the same respect given to religious faith, untested by 'voodoo experiments' yet tested for thousands of years, and continuing up to the moment.

aside from personal anger at religion, i am still at a loss as to what the objections to this may be. even if one believes in an overly retributive God, as some have voiced as their main concern, how can one's fear of punishment in the afterlife serve to threaten our collective well being. no one is advocating 'state sponsored religion'; our country rightly has embraced everyone's right to profess and live what they feel is sacred, to have that respected. some atheists try to live by 'the Golden Rule', which is essentially the teaching of Jesus, and obviously that is very consistent with the premise of a God.

What a rediculous statement:

"That's a dialogue full of promise, because it begins from the common premise that the human person is not the random product of galacitic biochemistry."

Logic says that if one begins with that premise then one believes in God, not that one simply pretends to believe in God. Your statement seems to try to move athiests to accept your position then begin a dialog. That's a rather lazy debating tactic don't you think? Maybe Weigel should accept the position that God does not exist and then try to determine why he does not go out and randomly kill other people, abort fetuses at leasure and commit crimes because God is no longer threatening him with eternal hell. It might surprise him to learn that his lack of intention to do harm is not due to belief in a god but because he is human, with feelings for other humans and maybe he'll understand that he learned right from wrong as a child, long before he learned about God and His wrath. He might begin to be amazed that galactic biochemistry can bring into being life as we know it. What will he do when he realizes nothing except his own fantasy of heaven relies on belief in a God. I dare him to read other religions, read the Book Of The Dead and explain to all of us why its dictates and promises are so different from the hebrew/christian God's word. I think he will find that no matter where he looks he will see the same beliefs in other religions: eternal life for the good and something much worse for the bad. Weigel should also ask himself whether he chose his religion or was dictated it by his parents and should ponder what he would believe had he been brought up in a village in Nepal. But that is likely ignored so he can focus on his small small world, asking those who don't believe to instead believe so he can talk to them. What a lazy lazy man.

REALIST,

Hosea refers to where Isreal consecrates themselves to BA'AL who was a false god that required infant sacrifices{similar to some special intrest groups today}. It was a call from God to turn from their errors.

There isn't any scientific proof that homosexuality is genetic. It is an immoral{against nature} act of choice and becomes habit for others.
You say "presumably the only reason for it is to ensure that Catholics produce more Catholics". You know what they say about assuming. Birth control removes God from your relationship as a married couple. It is a relationship between the wife, husband, and God. That is why marriage is a sacrament. "From the beginning God made them husband and wife, that the two should become one flesh". They become one both spiritually and phsycally in their children and God.

Bill L wrote:
"Morality doesn't come from the bible, it comes from Gods' love written on our hearts."

I don't have a problem with morality, but the God described in the Bible seems to have a lot of problems with morality.

Is this the same loving God whose words were?:
The glory of Israel will fly away like a bird, for your children will die at birth or perish in the womb or never even be conceived. Even if your children do survive to grow up, I will take them from you. It will be a terrible day when I turn away and leave you alone. I have watched Israel become as beautiful and pleasant as Tyre. But now Israel will bring out her children to be slaughtered." O LORD, what should I request for your people? I will ask for wombs that don't give birth and breasts that give no milk. The LORD says, "All their wickedness began at Gilgal; there I began to hate them. I will drive them from my land because of their evil actions. I will love them no more because all their leaders are rebels. The people of Israel are stricken. Their roots are dried up; they will bear no more fruit. And if they give birth, I will slaughter their beloved children." (Hosea 9:11-16 NLT)

No thanks. That God can leave my heart alone.

"again, aside from the anger, for the sake of what can be an instructive dialogue, then, from what principles do atheists' moral codes or ethics originate? and what about those codes or ethics necessarily must conflict with the morality shaped by 'the believers'"

The first thing to say is that atheism is just not believing in Gods. There is no such thing as an "atheist moral code". Atheism is not a religion or a moral philosophy or anything except a lack of belief in Gods.

My moral philosophy is simple. I follow the Golden Rule, and I know many other atheists do also. I don't need God to tell me that it is better to live in a society where people are honest and kind to each other.

I prefer to base my morality on respect and consideration for other people than on threats made by a dubious God.

Most atheists that I've come across base their morality on rational principles. This is where atheists' morals often conflict with Christianity's bronze age morality.

E.g. what possible reason is there for persecuting homosexuals? How is that moral? It's not rational! Lying is immoral. Telling people that homosexuality is a choice is immoral when it has been proven that it is not a choice - it's a biological thing. Ask Ted Haggard - he might have something to say about that.

What's with the Catholic Church's campaign against contraception? That is just plain stupid. It's worse than stupid. That policy has caused a vast amount of suffering. Presumably the only real reason for it is to ensure that Catholics produce more Catholics.
Priests telling uneducated people that condoms do not protect against AIDS is immoral. It's little short of murder.

Realist, you seem to be stuck on a morality issue. The bible is Gods' gift to his church. Morality doesn't come from the bible, it comes from Gods' love written on our hearts. If one pulls away from God through acts of selfisness{ putting self at the center of your love}, one loses ones sense of love and right behavior. Hence lack of morals. The bible guides and directs, it does not set a rigid set of laws like the Jews had in ancient times. Jesus gave us a new covenant, a covenant of grace and mercy. The old law was to show us we can't achieve salvation on our own.

God loves us all, even you atheists despite your denial of him! :}

Bill L wrote:
"In Japan, after the Kobe earth quake did you see the reports how millions went to their temples lighting candles to the dead for protection or help?"

They probably went to their temples to remember and honour the dead. I'm an atheist, but I take my children to their grandfather's grave to remember him.

But what is your point? Do you think that morality comes from belief in supernatural things? The Japanese people do not get their morality from the Bible.

The 9/11 hijackers lived as if their God exists; so did Torquemada.

I prefer to live in a world where live as if we have to look after each other as human beings. At least we know we exist.

Hobbesian, you are correct from a Christian{and probably Muslem} view, but it believes in a higher plane of existence from this world, along with a lower plane of existence. Atheism for the most part would not accept that.

Err, AN atheist philosophy. Dang it, there's no way to edit my post.

BILL L:
"Japan is a Buddist nation and has been for centuries,"

Correct, and Buddhism is and atheist philosophy.

the notion of seeking God motivates to look beyond the 'lowest common denominator' in human potential, individual or corporate, and instead search out and contribute energies, and celebrate, in this very life, in this moment, what is noble and good.

any ethical code, based on God or not, which necessarily requires extermination of another in order to live with integrity is obviously not involved in what is noble about our capabilities, regardless of from where they came, and instead is an appeal to others to join up with negativity, pessimism, nihilism, in its most extreme form

for all the vitriol dumped off in this conversation with respect to real people and individuals, i would just note for all, who may not know or realize it, since it is not widely publicized, but all biographies of the current Pope describe the fact that his family condemned the nazi ethic for the very reason that the regime and its deeds conflicted with Christianity, in every way. indeed, the heads of that regime personally rejected Christianity, and many embraced atheism in favor of a warped faith in malice and hatred

i just mention that because from reading through the posts it sounds as if all are sincere in their interest in dialogue, and further in accuracy of facts, citing various facts from the bible as well as the fields of science and history, so i thought it important for purposes of respectful discussion that we clarify this point which is easily confirmed through any basic internet search

the previous Pope, who did much to advocate for better humanitarian conditions among the cultures which were unfortunately bowed to a corrupt form of government, including the Russian people, was also in his personal history victimized and witness to Nazi atrocities, and his understanding that this system of power grossly conflicted with belief in God

it speaks to people's abilities to be motivated for the good when their lives are being controlled by a hostile force which leaves little room for personal expression, creativity, freedom. as well, it perhaps conflicts with the idea suggested above that 'God has been silent' in modern times. if this were true, then would we all be here now or would the nuclear arms race have already resulted in annihilation.

some may regard it as more likely and not less that we though perhaps created in goodness and for goodness are not in our actions controlled from without, that we choose our own paths, for good or bad

as we see supports for life thriving in places on our planet, and in others becoming consumed and destroyed to satisfy the unthinking needs of some, perhaps too, we, believers and non believers like, can commit to supporting parents who through whatever circumstances carry the potential for more life within them, within their reach, instead of joining with the forces who destroy out of immediate need, join with those who forego extermination of shared life and resources as a way of choosing hope.

thanks

realist, you call murdering millions clamping down on religion?

Sweden also is a country that went from a worship of Thor to the worship of Jesus . They have been mostly Lutheran for centuries and yes lately have drifted towards an atheist/agnostic view, as has most of Europe but are still somewhat Christian in their outlook. Their laws art still judeo/christian based!
In Japan, after the Kobe earth quake did you see the reports how millions went to their temples lighting candles to the dead for protection or help?
In Russia today the goverment is passing laws against other religions because they are growing so fast{ Catholic,Pentacostal,Baptists and even Muslem} preventing prostytlism{sp?}.

Sweden is another example of an atheist society. Around 80% of Swedes do not believe in God.

Bill L,
Buddists are atheists. Buddhists do not believe in God. I used to be a Buddhist. Buddhist morality comes from Buddha's observations of suffering, it has nothing to do with God.

Most Japanese today do not have any belief in the supernatural. Nobody actually worships the emperor any more. Where do you get your information from? A 1950's encyclopaedia?

Yes the Soviet Union clamped down on religion, that is why Russia is mostly atheist today. This doesn't stop ordinary Russians from being good people. ... and your point is?

Realist, Japan is a Buddist nation and has been for centuries, they also practise ancestor and Emporor worship. The former Soviet Union was an atheistic goverment that brutally inforced atheism on a Christian, Muslem, Buddist, Toaist/ancestor worship populace.

Bill L wrote:
"There has never been a atheistic society."
Wrong.

Japan is an atheistic society. If you have ever been there you will find that the people are very polite and considerate and they have a very low crime rate.

There have been many atheistic societies and there are some today. Much of the former Soviet Union is atheistic. I have some friends from Moscow who said that they miss the hospitality they found in country Russia where people will invite strangers in for lunch.

I prefer to base my morality on respect and consideration for other people instead of threats made by a hypocritical God with dubious moral values.

Amy, he did say, when he said to obey those in authority. The beltway works with the threat of law enforcement, still within the bounds of a Judeo/Christian ethic.

>>who is to say who's right and who's wrong if there weren't a God to say so?

God has been remarkably silent on many modern issues, and yet somehow we've figured out a way to determine right vs. wrong. Did God ever say anything about speeding? About tailgating? About going the wrong way on a one-way road? If we can make the beltway work as a social institution without god's help, we can make society work too.

that many individuals and even entities have done things which are clearly 'wrong' in the name of an organized religion would never establish, for me, a justification to attack the faith of others, about whom i have no certain evidence of what their intentions are with respect to the atrocities committed by others

if an atheist commits all of those things, and states to police in his confession that he has done them because it is his personal belief that 'there is no God', i would never assume that all atheists who are trying to advocate for their cause also, just by the fact of their atheism, are interested in also committing heinous acts.

again, aside from the anger, for the sake of what can be an instructive dialogue, then, from what principles do atheists' moral codes or ethics originate? and what about those codes or ethics necessarily must conflict with the morality shaped by 'the believers'

why begrudge respectful dialogue

looked at from one vantage point, it could seem that for every 'viral' strain of proseltyzer out there looking to 'control' others by their worldview, there is an equally 'viral' and angry atheist out there looking to control the terms of discussion with similar 'fire and brimstone' threats

it seems that neither form of fanatic can live with a little ambiguity, that both are extremely uncomfortable with the fact that we as homo sapiens lack control over our world, and when it comes to some questions, we do not really know what the facts are, when it comes down to it

as the intelligent poster above points out, we just do not know the full and complete picture of our evolution, the schema from start to finish of the galactic happening

and as far as 'living for today' in our today, the lifespan of this generation, we will not 'know' for sure

and obviously atheists and believers alike are quiet comfortable living with this ambiguity and many are capable of making 'sacrifices' for ourselves, our loved ones, and of course 'the greater good'

so what's the problem with hooking up to those things that we can identify together as contributing to that greater good? existence, life itself, we agree together, are indeed good things, meant to be lived. our planet is a good thing, meant to be enjoyed and protected so that we and future generations can healthfully dwell there

it seems in some parts of this thread that anger is impeding a decent discussion here, with one not wanting the other to feel 'righteous' about what informs their sense of things, and that seems quite apart from moral choices it seems more about following through with anger and imposing views on others

Mr. Weigel,

Precisely how responsible, in moral terms, were the Catholic priests who spent decades raping children being? How responsible, in moral terms, were the Catholic bishops and other higher-ups who spent decades covering up the raping of children by priests being?

No matter what you claim, religious people don't have any more of moral leg to stand on than the rest of us. The religious murder, rape, steal, and brutalize at least as much as anyone else.

I would think that every dialogue could begin from the premise that the human being is not a random product of galactic biochemistry, since no one in the world has ever seriously put forth that premise. For instance, most biologists would say the human person is the product of billions of years of evolution by the non-random processes of natural and sexual selection, in addition to the semi-random process of genetic drift. But please don't let me get in the way of your evolution strawman.

Riding the Fence, I don't mean to imply that! I am saying that if there is no god what is the basis of caring about those other than your own?
Look around at abortion,murder,rape,drug use,divorce,euthenasia,ect. All societies have used a religion to frame its morals. An atheist can have morals as framed by that society, but the morals have been defined for them. There has never been a atheistic society. Atheistic leaders and goverments, but they stayed within certain boundries because of the majority of their populations held certain values. Nazism and some branches of communism were the only exceptions and look what happened in nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and communist China under Moa Tse Tung.
A world w/o a god is a world that goes by the golden rule, "them with the gold make the rules". After all who is to say who's right and who's wrong if there weren't a God to say so?

Mary'em wrote:
"so the working assumption is that God is exclusively and definitively defined by 'the bible'? or even 'their bible' whoever they may be?"

If Christians don't get their ideas of God from the Bible, then from where? Why do they quote scripture all the time, if it has no meaning for them?

Bill L and others throughout the various topics and answers have indicated that without religion people have no morals. I find this very disheartening to think that religious people are only prevented from raping, pillaging, and killing by their religion and without it they would lead an inmorral life.

That argument seems to be used a lot against non religious people. But if I were to have to decide what side of the fence to play on I would rather have to choose to play with people who live their life with good decentcy and morals towards others because that is the person they are and stay away from those that are only acting decent because GOD tells them too.

so the working assumption is that God is exclusively and definitively defined by 'the bible'? or even 'their bible' whoever they may be?

thanks for the e.e. cummings, that's some nice stuff.

though heaney is great too.

"(I assume, as a woman, I'd get me some virgin men to play with)."

No, sorry, Amy. Women have no worth. Read your Bible. Women can't speak in the temple. Women can't even enter the temple if menstruating (which is referred to as their "sickness"). The ten commandments say that you aren't to covet your neighbor's *wife*. They weren't addressed to women. When the two (male, of course) angels came to Lot's house, and the Sodomites asked Lot to produce them so that they could (what else?) sodomize them, Lot offered them his two virgin daughters instead. And this is the guy who was worthy of being saved from the coming destruction!
A man can't "lie with" a woman who is married or betrothed to someone else, unless she's a slave girl, then it doesn't matter, because she's his property.

I think if people really read their Bibles (especially women), there would be far fewer religious people. The Bible is full of this misogynist BS - and more.

mary'em

Yes, this guy makes many of us angry. Gross hypocrisy has that effect on people.

I care about the future of my children, my community, and the Earth because I love them. I value everything. I always think of how awesome it is that I have this chance to comprehend my existence.

Life is not just about happiness; it's about sadness also.

Oh purple finch,
Please tell me why,
This summer world and you and I,
Who love so much to live must die,

If I should tell you anything,
My sweet cajoling self answers me,
I could not sing.

E E Cummings

reading the posts over they seem to dwell not on an affirmation of belief that God does not exist

rather the emphasis and tone is overwhelmingly of anger.

and everyone, believers and unbelievers like, ought to listen to this anger, carefully, thoughtfully.

looking at each post, it appears that the issue that many have is with 'organized religion', or, heinous acts committed, possibly since the existence of homeosapens, in God's name. which is certainly appropriate, an anger that is justified amongst believers and ubelievers alike.

however i still can't see how anger at religion, any anger, at any thing, which, believer or unbeliever, one may concede is 'the root of all evil', is relevant to whether or not one may, though personally believing God does not exist, proceed consistent with the idea that God does in fact exist.

for example, i think all can agree that exploitation in the name of God is evil. whether i agree with you that God does not exist, i can certainly proceed to support policies that protect childen.

for my part, i believe that no one ought to interfere or harm another human being because life, all forms of life, are sacred, our lives together. that a child's life is not mine to cut short. similarly, polluting and dessicating the environment violates my concept of what God in fact cherishes.

it seems to me that quite apart from one's 'faith', God or no, we can easily agree to this.

interestingly, almost all faiths encourage one to 'live for today'. i find nothing among any organized religion that teaches that people should not live life to the fullest, in fact, to 'live for tomorrow' would be somewhat disrespectful to God.

when people commit violence in anger in God's name, these are human choices, not God's. though the 9/11 terrorists attributed their acts to their faith in God, nothing in the atrocities they committed could support the notion that God would want people to suffer, that God organized such action.

i would like to hear more from people, all anger aside. because if one makes their choices in response to anger and vengeance, clearly, one is signing on to a faith or even enslavement to a very different sort of 'false idol or god', no?

O.K., as a believer I can act as if God doesn't exist!
First off, everything is a random chance of evolution with no real meaning other than it just is. Why should I value any human or living creature? Who cares about the future generations after I'm dead, I'll be dead!
Secondly, I am the only thing that matters because I don't know that you even exist or are a figment of my imagination. If I only have random existence and then death I can't worry about what others think or want, or it may hamper my happiness.
You're all right! I am becomming one with the enlightened society!

"random product of galactic biochemistry"

Is Mr Pera saying that the natural laws of the universe enable the universe to comprehend itself by possible formation of complex entities or is he conceding that god exists?

If he is saying god exists, how do we define him as an unbeliever?

Mr. Weigel writes

That's a dialogue full of promise, because it begins from the common premise that the human person is not the random product of galacitic [sic] biochemistry.

To which I reply, that's a dialog doomed from the start because it begins from an incorrect premise, and Mr. Pera, a philosopher of science (and unlike this humble writer, not a life scientist) concedes far too much.

Stuart E. Dryer, PhD
John and Rebecca Moores Distinguished Professor and Chair
Department of Biology and Biochemistry
University of Houston

Yes, the Pope has the nerve to scold us, and the "distinguished philosopher of science" goes along with it, maybe because he likes the royalties on the book sales, who knows? The head of the organization that brought us the Spanish Inquisition is telling us to live as if God existed. What does that really mean anyway? IMHO it is incredibly offensive, because it implicitly suggests that atheists are more prone to sociopathic behavior than Christians, or other monotheists, a proposition for which there is no evidence whatsoever. I am supposed to have a dialog with people who reason like that? By the way, which God are we talking about? The Old Testament god of ethnic cleansing? An old white guy with a beard who lives in the sky? Some sort of spirit that "lives in everything"? Maybe it is the Holy Ghost?

Mr. Weigel would have you believe that "goodness" can only be expected from people who believe in fairy tales. His God has a list and he's checking it twice, and he's gonna find out who's naughty and nice, so you better watch out. That makes about as much sense as declaring that a cosmological world view that includes unicorns is necessary for good behavior.

Jay wrote:

"Sander, I'm sure every Christian on the panel and in the comments is smacking their head "Duh, why didn't I think of that before?" and renouncing all their faith. What a loaded, stupid comment."

You are right Jay. Declaring the world will be a better place if everyone believes what I believe is loaded and stupid. That's true whether I say it or Mr. Wiegel.

I don't behave as if God exists because the Christian God is a very bad entity. Read the Bible. He kills thousands on a whim pretty much every chance he gets. He created a sinful creature and instead of forgiving that creature for its design flaws, he insisted that someone must die and be tortured for all eternity. To fill this self-generated need to satisfy his own blood lust he sent his Son who was killed and tortured for a short weekend. Those facts make a lot of sense.

The idea that everyone should believe what I believe because it will make them better people and the world a better place is bigotry. I find it unfortunate that Mr. Wiegel and Mr. Bush have a platform for expressing and implementing such views.

Sander

is not atheism the 'belief that God does not exist'?

Whew, I don't have to "dialogue" after all because I don't share the "common premise" that "the human person is not the random product of galactic biochemistry." Thank goodness - now I can go read a good mystery novel instead.

I also depart from Pope Benedict ("Benny" to a Polish Catholic friend of mine). This former head of the successor office to the Holy Inquistion says "Even the one who does not succeed in finding the path to accepting the existence of God ought nevertheless to try and direct his life...as if God did exist."

No thanks, Pope Benedict. I try to direct my life as if Shakyamuni, the historical Buddha of our era, did exist, which he most certainly did.
And unlike Yahweh, the Buddha never told the Israelites to slaughter their enemies to the last child.

The Cathers, that noble people exterminated by a predecessor Pope to you, Pope Benedict, called Yahweh "the Ignorant Demiurge" because, as you surely know, he thought he was the ultimate Godhead when he was an evil lesser diety who had the power to, and did create the earth. He was a truly nasty piece of work.

And Pope Benedict wants me to direct my life's path in the footsteps of this monster? Again, thank you no, Pope Benedict and George Weigel.

Mr. Weigel's comment and our responses are all good evidence that the dialogue envisioned by the original question is not possible for the simple reason that it is not wanted. We're all too addicted to the warm rosy glow produced in the human ego when we think we are right and somebody else is a moron. The whole business reminds me of those science fiction novels where the human race accidentally contacts some advanced form of life from another planet and they say, "Sorry, maybe after another few thousand years you may have evolved enough to have meaningful contact with us - meanwhile don't call us, we'll call you..."

"Even the one who does not succeed in finding the path to accepting the existence of God ought nevertheless to try and direct his life...as if God did exist."

So the 9/11 hijackers were right to act 'as if' they were getting 72 virgins for martyring themselves?

Considering how little believers have in common, I don't see how acting "as if" would be any kind of guide.

First, which god are we assuming here? Why only one?

Now assume I'm chosing the Abrahamic god. Should I act as if I'm a Jew, Christian, Muslim, or Mormon?

If I decide to act "as if" I'm a Christian, should I be Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox? If Protestant or Orthodox, which denomination or patriarchy?

And finally, should I follow teachings or examples? And how far should I take it? I'm exhausted just thinking about it.

Now... what if we ask believers to act as if there is no heaven. (It's easy if you try!)...

Your life here on earth is it. Nothing more. No reincarnation do-overs. No cosmic forgiveness. No cavorting with virgins in paradise (I assume, as a woman, I'd get me some virgin men to play with).

The good: Every day is a day to be lived, not endured. All people are your fellow humans, not sinners & heathens to be feared, pitied or converted. If you feel guilty about something you've done, you need to make up for it in this lifetime. This gives you added incentive to live right.

The bad: You have to accept the reality of death - yours and your loved ones. It's hard, but I managed to accept other life lessons, so I have accepted this one. Also, life is sometimes unfair. That's hard to accept, but not impossible.

Religion has been a force for both good and evil. I have no problem with following the good, but you don't have to believe in god(s) or fake a belief in god(s) to do good.

Mr Rose, you make an interesting point. Faith in God is not faith in God at all but faith that someone knows what God wants. Faith's at least one level removed from faith in God.

Then we have to ask where the person who says what God wants gets that, what God wants. The answer is now a proved hoax, the holy, (full of holes) Bible.

1. Faith is faith the Bible is God's word.
2. Faith is faith in those who claim they know what the Bible says, when human life begins for instance.
3. After all that faith, (1) and (2) then if you have any left over you can have a little faith in God.

It's real simple. Eliminate the middle man and have faith in God. God's a big girl. She doesn't need any jack legged preachers to tell us what She wants. Now take Katrina for example. When they manage to "faith" a huricane away I'll start having faith in them, whoever they are. In the mean time I know God when I see Her in action.

There's a big difference between the real God, Nature's God and those would be Devil Gods the Bible is all about. Of course a man on fire with "the fire that burns but does not consume" can keep a candle burning for 9 days. Faith not required there either, however. Finding "the fire that burns but does not consume" will require a trip to hell.

mary'em, you are describing a person that doesn't have faith in religion and not one without faith in god

the smoke and mirrors of religion is to say anyone who doesn't believe their garbage is an atheist

many who actually do believe in god say they don't in an effort to avoid them

and what would be the problem with living 'as if God exists' though one believed that God did not?

obviously most reflective atheists do have moral codes and ethics to live by, which of these tenets would come into conflict with the notion that 'God is love'?

for example, an atheist friend once told me, apart from his knowledge of God, his aim in life, his moral compass, was 'do no harm to any sentient being'.

i can't see how proceeding to behave consistent with this code would be in conflict with either faith, that God exists or with atheism

thanks

I see from a 12/25 Post article that the Catholic Church in Italy denied a guy a funeral because he wanted (and got) the plug pulled. It's a tragic story, and typical of the church inflicting pain on someone, clinging to made up doctrines that they attempt to force on others. An excerpt from the Post story:

"Welby, 60, terminally ill with the degenerative disease muscular dystrophy and unable to eat, speak or breathe on his own, died Wednesday night after a doctor disconnected his respirator at the patient's request."

Some people ask why we non-believers get so worked up about religion, thinking it indicates doubts on our part. No, I just want to expose the truth to as many "searching" people as possible so eventually the child abuse of religious indoctrination stops in our society.

Fine. Assume a God. Act as if there was a God. What does THAT tell you that is useful?

Weigel says that tells you that all abortion is murder and that a fetus is a human being from the moment of conception. Where is the reasoning between the assumption and the conclusion?

Even if you posit a God, you still have to work out meaning and morality for yourself.

Let us agree there is a God. Now let's rationally discuss what God wants.

I see. You wish to establish the kingdom of God. OK, let's rationally discuss that.

Oops! http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul Shucks! Just when we're getting some where the Devil pops up and we have to start all over again.

Now what was the question again? Do I believe in God or was that the Devil I have to believe in to make religions happy?

I see. You wish to establish the kingdom of Devil. Did Hitler rise from the dead on the third day or something and atheists missed it?

Pardon me while I don't believe in your Devil. Lucky you. You can believe anything you want to. I think "the Devil made you do that." He's kinda slick alright.

Well if your idea of dialog starts with

"because it begins from the common premise that the human person is not the random product of galacitic biochemistry."

then I am not going to waste my time discussing it with you.

For the record, I am at least willing to agree that their could be a God. If you are not willing to consider that there may not be, and that humans did evolve from "the random product of ... biochemistry"... then there is no point trying to have a rational discussion. Oh, wait, we're talking about religion, belief and faith; Guess we can forget about rational discussion.

Keep trying. You'll get that round peg in the square hole yet. No atheists speaks for all atheists. The pope does speak for all Christians?

Religion is trying to hide behind atheists. That's a joke. Religion can't prove there is a God and atheists can't prove there isn't. Is either correct in their faiths?

Maybe atheists really believe in God? Could religion actually be their problem? Why are they public with their non belief? Is there an atheists church to join that enjoys all the tax benefits of official religions? Of course not. Can someone lie and say he/she is an atheists so religion can hide behind God?

Interpretion 1501 http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul tells the tale for religion. It's Devil worship and not God worship at all. And it's infinitely worse. It's worshipping the Devil honoring him as God.

Come out from behind "faith" with God implied. Let us see what you really are so atheists can start believing in God. Real atheists don't care to talk about God, only those who want to help religion disguise Devil worship do that.

Sander, I'm sure every Christian on the panel and in the comments is smacking their head "Duh, why didn't I think of that before?" and renouncing all their faith. What a loaded, stupid comment.

George Weigel reminds me of the tactics used by the Soviets in 1944 at Yalta when negotiating with Roosevelt and Churchill: What is ours is ours, what is yours, we can discuss !
So why don't we have a dialogue believers/non believers with the premise that God exists ! Because if we do not have this premise, then those godless people would go for the blood of children and so forth.
I just find this thread's premise intellectually dishonest.

I prefer to live as if facts exist.

This proposal only seems reasonable because most modern God-believers have taken to acting as if it's at least possible they're wrong.

When anesthesia was first discovered, many clergymen preached against its use as thwarting God's will to send pain.

Look at Jihad and the Inquisition. There's nothing wrong with what they're doing AS LONG AS THEIR BELIEFS ARE CORRECT.

The most important societal advances have come about only after people's good sense started trumping their faith.

Weigel is a worthless apologist for every reactionary idea Catholicism has spawned.