Polemical, Unreasonable, Bizarre

I don't have a problem with you trying to go to Chicago. I have studied the many maps that claim to show the way, but after careful research have found that they are frauds, they are not what they claim to be, and some lead into some very bad paths, especially that Old Testament map.

I have investigated the claims of those who have claimed to have visited Chicago or to have come from Chicago. I am pleased to report that such claims are not supported by evidence and can be explained in other ways. I am coming to believe that Chicago is as fictional as Camelot. I can't prove it for certain, but I have given up searching for a place that in all likelihood does not exist.

Now, these are my experiences. I respect your right to keep looking for Chicago. I would encourage anyone who is serious about that quest to investigate thoroughly, in their own words, what the critics and skeptics of the maps have to say about them.

Carol,
On your trip, some might tell you that there is no Chicago, but don't pay attention. Others might tell you that it isn't worth the effort, but it is. Enjoy the journey!

Carol,

Be careful on your way to Chicago. There are many hitchhikers who will try to get you to take them to Seattle and tell you that that is the way to Chicago. Best thing to do is not pick up hitchhikers. And I would assume not all roads lead to Chicago either, so if you get lost on the way, maybe the best thing to do is start the trip all over again. But a little word of advice. If you don't know how to get there, you might want to try using a map. Of course finding which map is true is where you might need guidance, but different maps are good to rule out what are true maps or not. And always use the narrow road because the wide road is heavily travelled and no one makes it there on that road. And if you get to Chicago, make sure there are no palm trees, because you might just be in Miami and not know it. Ok, enough is enough. Good luck on that journey. I hope the tank doesn't run out of gas before you get there. By the way, don't stop at the mormon temple in salt lake on the way there...they make you wear funny aprons.... :)

Carol,
I enjoy your comments and applaud you for seeking truth and knowledge. You bring a civil voice of reason to this dialogue.

In my case, I've been a member of the LDS church all of my life. I'm 40 now. I've always tried to be a "good" person and do what was right, but looking back I think I often did the right things but not always for the right reasons (kind of like a student that crams for a test and gets good grades but doesn't truly learn all that he/she could have with real study and application). I find that this is still the case at times, but as I try now to really learn by study and prayer, I feel like I progress more personally than I ever have. It is definitely an ongoing process.

I wish you luck and blessings on your journey and am sure you will find Chicago as long as you keep seeking!

Fate:

Were you abused as a child by any chance? It seems to me that you are a bit hypervigilant in scoping out possible threats and so perceive insults that were not made.

I did not insult atheists. Let me rephrase my purpose here. I would like to know the most efficient route to Chicago from where I presently live in North America. I am not saying that the place anyone else lives is better or worse than where I live. And I am not saying that those who take other routes to Chicago won't get there. They may prefer to take the scenic route. Or they may prefer to scale mountains and run rapids and pretty much make it as hard as possible, thinking the adventure is pretty cool.

In my quest to get to Chicago I do not think it needful to reinvent the wheel or even blaze my own trail. I think it would be useful to learn from others who have tried to get to Chicago or who have even been there. Maybe some know about quicksand along the way and where I could possibly get stuck or spin off the road.

I would like to see the various maps that are printed about getting to Chicago. In evaluating these maps I may decide that some don't provide enough information to be very useful. Some maps may provide so much information that they are not really maps, but just reality, which I negotiate by myself all the time anyway.

I suppose there may be some folks who don't think I ought to go to Chicago. They may not like people who live there or the weather. They may be very angry that Chicago excludes people who want to live in Miami. Nevertheless, I still intend to go to Chicago.

Is that a little clearer...?

Carol,

Hello to you again! May I step into the fray?

I think what you were trying to say to Fate is that you have made no claims as to your present point in the stages of moral development. When I read back through all your posts I have not seen you claim anywhere that you are better or worse than anyone else -- only that you are interested in becoming a better person and are wondering about the most effective way to do that?

I have to say that that's a uniquely unemotional and calculating way to approach spirituality!

You have asked: Does being "saved" as understood in many of the Christian traditions, tend to help or hinder progress, if it could then be interpreted that the person has "arrived?" I have my own opinion, but to be fair, I won't answer for them, as I tend to resent it when they answer for me. But as I understand things, all people within these traditions have to start at the beginning, just like you and me, and move onward from there. As infants we are all selfish, whether we are the son of saint or a street urchin. We have no thought for the needs of others. We progress to recognize others and their feelings, and eventually include more and more within our circle of care. Some people grow to great spiritual heights (Mother Theresa, C.S. Lewis) and others do not, just as in my faith.

You have asked Henry, (I think, maybe you assumed?) if his Buddhist meditative practice has yielded moral progression? I can't tell you that, of course. I didn't read a value judgment in that myself, just an inquiry.

The research (bow, scrape, ha ha) would indicate that those who either pray consistently or practice meditation, evolve through 2 levels of moral development (as defined by various schools of psychology) at a time in life when most people stay at the same moral point for several decades. But that point of stagnation is an individual thing: it could already be highly evolved or it could be reptilian! Where-ever they are at in their early twenties they tend to remain till their 40's or 50's UNLESS they practice prayer or meditation.

So, your question was, I believe: Would that tend to put your average atheist (OK maybe your militant atheist, one who vigorously shuns religion and doesn't wear orange robes) on a path of non-growth for several decades? Well, I don't know for sure. Many atheists do very good things, but whether they are doing those good things within the same limits they were at in their twenties seems a reasonable question. I don't doubt, though, that there is growth WITHIN those levels, or how would they eventually get to the next stage?

As for myself I can tell you this: I was a convert to the Church in my mid 30's and therefore did not serve a mission. Back when I married, my wife and I struggled for a good number of years. Now, when I look at my married daughter and my son-in-law (who did serve a mission) I can see that he is light-years ahead of where I was at his age. He treats my daughter far better than I treated her mother. It took me years to get where he already is.

Carol, those years that he dedicated to serving others, that were filled with fervent study and prayer, put him in a place that I sometimes look at with envy. I wish that could have been me. I can't really say what point I'd be at now without the gospel in my life. I know I wouldn't be a sociopath or anything horrible. (In the LDS Church we believe that everyone is gifted with what we call the "Light of Christ." It's something that tells everyone right from wrong and helps you recognize truth. Maybe you'd say conscience.) And we believe that the world is filled with wonderful people of all persuasions.

So, I'd be a good person because I always was a good person but I have no accurate way of knowing if I'd let my concern for other human beings extend as far as it does now. If the “research” is accurate, I’m saying probably not. I'm still progressing, hopefully. Within the church framework we perform a lot of service for others, and service to others increases our love for others. The portion of my life that is devoted to service is much higher now than it was before I joined the Church. I am NOT saying that non-members are less committed to public service -- only that “I” was less committed to public service!

The Gospel Plan, simply stated, is: Eternal Progression. I hope to someday be far wiser and far more compassionate than I am now -- but it is not a competition with other people. The plan isn’t to beat other people, but to give them a helping hand along the path, so we can ALL achieve our potential.

It’s unfortunate, but some people will view your desire for personal progress as elitist or as a judgment against them. It’s an instant invitation to the accusation: “You think you’re better than me!” when in fact you could conceivably consider yourself to be a troll and them to be a wonderful example of humanity. And you’ll say “Wait, I haven’t said anything about you!” And they’ll say, “Oh yes you did!” I’m not sure if I have an answer for that because it is really their issue.

Well, I do have to work for a living, so more later.

David
I was an alter boy
so unfortunately i had lots of sexual activity when i was young.

maybe the same priest who induced me to have relations with me

will perform the exorcism to purge the gayness out of me.

Allah be praised.

love you (and you didn't sound homophobic, but good to remind people)
henry

HJ,

Ha ha ha!! :)

Actually no, it's because your homosexual! :)

You know, according to catholics (I'm not catholic by the way) you can just purge that gayness right off of ya and then head right over to the pearly gates. I guess it depends on how much gay activity you have done to depend on how long you have to stay. I hope it was just a one night stand Henry. :)

P.S. to readers...I'm not a homophobe...just playing around with my favorite ex-mormon/agnostic/atheist/buddhist/somethingorother. Of course he is the only exmormon/agnostic/atheist/buddhist/somethingorother I know....

Good night to you all. Or good morning...depending on when you read this.

Hi David ole Buddy

it's because i'm gay, isn't it?

Henry,

Any polls for those who think no one can be moral??

I guess my vote doesn't count down there in purgatory huh?

Oh well.

Fate,

I posted a response, but I don't know what happened to it. I hate this site sometimes. Oh well, guess it doesn't matter. The only question I asked is if you think moral relativism is a good thing and also are you an atheist or agnostic or the logical one being and agnostic by knowledge and atheist by faith?

Just curious?

Have a good day, especially to you HJ, I know it's hot down there in hell. Say hi to Hitler for me! :)

American Ignorance of Basic Moral Realities

The Pew Global Attitudes Survey of 2003 reports:
"Majorities in most countries say it is necessary to believe in God to be a moral person. But Canadians and Europeans – both in the West and the East – take the secular view that it is possible to be moral without believing in God. Opinion in the United States is closer to that in most developing countries, where agreement is nearly universal that personal morality is linked to belief in God."

First this bolsters Hitchens' point that American Religious Believers as a class are Ignorant, in this case about morality.

All of us WAPO posters know that religious level of belief has NO correlation with morality, don't we now.

And as this quote illustrates, America is more ignorant than the rest of the developed world. And it correlates with their high religious belief compared to other developed countries.

Anyone want to posit a causal relationship?

I try to live by Jesus' teachings, with varying levels of success, even though I don't believe in a deity; I think lots of atheists do likewise. Who can argue with his message? The problem is that authors like Harris, Hitchens, and you, Mr. Otterson, seem to spend more energy ridiculing their opposites' views than they do trying to dissuade the competing believers from their tendencies toward discord and violence.

I don't care if you believe as I do, Mr. Otterson; I just want you and others of your faith to behave in a manner that reflects a civilized approach to life. Otherwise, you bring distortion and shame to the life and teachings of Jesus.

Follow evolution by following your own DNA (and evolution) at https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/

David wrote: "Ok, I take your assumption and I will make one of my own Fate. You had a bad experience when you were a kid when forced by your parents to go to a Catholic Church and now because you were force fed religion your whole life you are abandoning ( or rebelling I should say) and now hate religion or even the thought of God. Am I correct?"

On the contrary, I love religion, as an institution. It does some real good and I find little in the secular world that organizes for the good of what you would call the soul, to question our behavior. My only problem is the "spirituality" is little more than a child's belief in Santa, with its rewards of toys (heaven) and punishments of coal (hell). I would like to see religions grow up, to understand that morality does not require hellfire to maintain it or heaven to keep us on the path. I find the reward of heaven as silly as a reward of 72 virgins, yet people kill themselves for the later. One has to wonder why Carol thinks *primitive* morality is in the past.

David wrote: "Maybe so, but probably not. So what makes the assumption true of yours that every adult that believes in God was raised with God?"

Well, show me I'm wrong. I'm not saying everyone, but 99%. Ask youself why christians have children who are christians, buddists have children who are buddists, etc. Its not in the DNA you know.

David wrote: "I'll use one of your lines. You have not grown Fate, you have stayed behind with a childish belief that all believers in God were raised that way. And when us believers see that tone, we nod our heads in shame because we know that negative pre-suppositions make you look worse than the intelligence that you think you have.....I don't mean to be offensive of course."

No offense taken. I like these discussions/debates. For an atheist they are easy debates except when the religious play the God card and say that any evidence to the contrary was placed there by God, that God's magic made things that cannot be explained, etc. But in this discussion, the nature of morality is the question and it has been investigated by more than just the religious. I would ask for any evidence you have that the religious are somehow more moral than the non-religious or those who do not have heavenly rewards and hellfire to keep them moral. You can start with prisons and ask yourself why atheists are under-represented there.

David wrote: "You also speak of morals on some level and I wonder where you get your morals from and if you believe morals are absolute or relative? This has always been a question that I can't seem to get an "absolute" answer on from atheists. My position as a Christian is that morals are absolute and are created by God. We have moral laws. We all have broken them. We all still do. So when speaking to Carol about morals, I do wonder how and why you choose your morals if you have no starting point to determine what is moral and what is not?"

Morals are always relative. The Anglican church is today debating the acceptance of gays as is the nation as a whole. You can look at the treatment of women and children over the years as well. The death penalty. Abortion, war, etc. And my favorite, no meat on Friday. Few religions have fixed laws that have not been bent, reinterpreted, etc. One question I like to ask the pro-lifers is what they would do if they were in a burning building with a 12 year old girl and a petri dish with 12 embryos in it, and the pro-lifer can only save one, not both. Most answer the girl would be saved. I then ask whether they would allow scientists to use the 12 embryos to save a 12 year old girl with a terminal disease. This is a moral delemma. It has no easy answer. There is nothing in the bible or koran explicitely providing guidance on what to do in the situation. Yet many evangelicals speak with the authority of God on this matter. Morality has no laws, just the intention of a good result, a result that maintains life, health and prosperity, or what we would collectively call 'good'.

This summer I was at the beach swimming in a rip current and a little girl was behind me. She was beginning to panic. Lifeguards patrolled the beach but none were in sight. I could have ignored her and swam parallel to the beach and saved myself. I knew if I swam toward her she could panic and pull us both down. I swam to her and offered my outstretched hand so she could not grab onto me, just me hand, then I told her to float and kick hard and we swam parallel to the beach until we reached a sand bar. I did not learn that in church. I learned it in a lifesaving class I took in college. My decision to risk my own safety did not involve remembering lines from a book or teachings of a pastor. And I am certain that others would have done the same, and had you been there you could not have determined my religion by my actions. Morality and character are built by experience and knowlege, not by reciting gospels which many have no idea what the meaning is, which is why a sermon is always needed after a gospel reading. And one only needs to see the mayhem in the parking lot after church during football season to understand that attending church has little to do with building morality.

David wrote: "Good day to you."

Good morning.

Carol wrote: "You also assume that I am insulting you and all other atheists. "I" assume that is because you read my post with an angry tone in your neuronal firings, and because you are presently possessed with that adversarial "Me Against You" mindset which I am hopeful that all humanity can rise above, myself included."

No, I read your post and found it insulting, especially the part about atheists somehow being limited in their moral development due to lack of belief. Check out the percentage of atheists in prison and compare it to the general population and you will find the religious filling our prisons. Though I have great respect for the ability of religions to organize for good, I also understand that religion can stunt moral growth and even turn its followers toward evil by justifying evil as being good. Your premise that religion somehow increases ones moral fiber is flawed and is assumed.

Carol wrote: "Now, "I" would suggest that if a religion is making an empirical claim -- that the "world" will definately end next Thursday -- and their language is literal and not symbolic of a higher principle, that you then test it empirically. And if the "world" doesn't end next Thursday (and you really undersatnd their religion in a way that they would recognize), you may conclude that the claim was false. OR, if you are open minded, you may consider the other half of your equation -- that sufficient numbers of people did indeed repent...."

But come Friday, how do you know the world did not begin the day before? You cannot. You cannot test this belief. You must reject it or believe it. You cannot determine its truth as you cannot determine the truth of any religion, only its possibility of truth.

Carol wrote: "I assert that all human beings, religious or not, start at square one, and must pass sequentially
through many stages of moral and spiritual development -- and that certain life "paths" may or may not be more conducive to progress."

You assert an assumption. We do not start at square one. Humans like many other animals have built in moralities. They get honed as we grow and respond to the consequences of our actions and the actions of others. When presented with new situations, many humans act instinctively. Seeing a person drowning does not cause one to reflect on their religious teachings in order to determine what needs to be done. Most people find themselves jumping into a new situation before even thinking. And you may be surprised that atheists are just as likely to risk their lives for another, or to give to charities, or help a neighbor in need. What I find interesting is that no matter the religious background of someone, most people are pretty much the same and you cannot take a person and watch them day by day and determine their religious background. In general Catholics act like Buddists who act like Jews who act like atheists.

Carol wrote: "Often people judge religious people for behavior that occurred eons ago, when the entire world was at a pretty primitive level, morally and spiritually -- and these present peoples are somehow now held accountable for it."

Another bad assumption, that people in the past were "primitive" which therefore means people today are "advanced". Look around. Crime, war, intolerance, and yes, even religious based hate. What do we have today that is new and did not exist in the past?

Carol wrote: "In my quest for a path, I have been asking sincere questions of the LDS (and other) posters here --like a good, rational girl -- and you were burning me as a heretic, I do believe...."

Asking questions is a great way to learn. But you did more than that. You assume atheists are morally stunted. That only through a belief in the devine can a high level of morality be achieved. You should consider that religions only codify natural morality and that those without the guidance of a religion are equally as likely to attain a high morality level without the immorality religions also bring.

Postscript to the general reader:
My apologies for adding another comment so soon, but in finding I can't sleep, much has been on my mind since I've read many of the comments above earlier today, so here I am.

I'll say one thing, there sure are a lot of passionate "atheists". That's OK--I don't blame them. This life tends toward becoming passionate about something, so why shouldn't atheism fill that role?

If Hitchens were to re-word his statement as "religion has fostered much 'unrighteous dominion' throughout history and still does today, and in many cases fosters blind obedience and thus a continuation of ignorance," then I would agree with him.

I would also say I am very grateful for a religion (Mormonism) that teaches against unrighteous dominion, whether in the home or in a church setting or in a country, teaches the importance of a council form of leadership in all settings, and teaches that as Victor Frankl wrote about, people can choose to rise up from feeling like they are a victim (for whatever reason) and make choices that will bring them, ultimately, personal peace and the inner sense that they are choosing to shape their life rather than reacting to what life throws in their path. Ultimately, they can choose to love.

I know many, many atheist choose to love. I do, too, as best I can (imperfectly, but honoring and trying to follow One who had far great compassion than I have). Peace to you all.

SML,
While I wait (figuratively) for Chris to answer about a theory of the evolution of civilization, I had noticed your interesting post about your children not wanting to go to church. I would tell any parent whose children were feeling that way to never "force" or "use unrighteous dominion" to get their children to go to church. I've always felt that way, advised that way to other parents, and practiced that way with my children (who have always gone to church willingly, staying home when they were sick of course). If you felt "forced" to go to church as a child yourself, then I would say the above applied to your parents and it would be a clear "cause and effect" why a person such as yourself would have a latent mistrust of God. I'm sure such has happened thousands of times, and in each and every case I would observe that such a person could be expected to have both a latent mistrust of God and a latent desire to rebel against whatever operated in their life as "unrighteous dominion." In other words, they have grounds for their "unbelief" or whatever from their rebellion took.

Sorry to use the case you brought up as an example, but I think you were making an important point, if inadvertantly. Have a great day, and all the best to your family.

Chris Fox,

argumentum ad populum:

I would say the majority of the world (obviously not 100%) thinks murder is a bad thing, but is that the truth? I believe it is immoral based on a moral set of laws handed down by God. But you do not believe in God, therfore give me a reason why I should think murder is bad especially in light of "argumentum ad populum" and it being a logical fallacy.

Chris Fox,
Nice post--thanks for the input. So I guess you're saying Darwin was wrong, and knew he was wrong, so he "laid low". I assume you have a better theory than his?

Prayer in and of itself does not, I agree, cure anyone of anything, nor do I think prayer by one who has doubts about the whole idea can really be defined as prayer. What if prayer in that instance is primarily inspired by God to provide a framework for mind/body alignment so that the cells in the body and the nervous system, the antibodies, the chemical balance, the glands, and so forth all respond in a facilitative mode to become "well" faster? You would of course say that all comes about whether or not one prays, and I suppose belief in something, whether it be religion-based or whatever-based, is better than an aimless "whatever happens, happens" attitude, but to throw out prayer when it does aid in recovery times, (and I've heard of many cases of immediate recoveries that the doctors could not explain) is to show that your bias is just that--your bias. But you have every right to your bias; I'm fine with it: to each their own.

Parker: distilling out the essence of all that it sounds like "Darwin believed in God" or at least "Darwin believed in the *transcendant* and Darwin is the atheists' "hero." Right?

Sorry but that proves nothing, supports nothing. Einstein had the insight that led to General Relativity but his own dogged belief in determinism and in God prevented him from accepting quantum mechanics and led him to waste one of the best minds of his century one pursuits so trite that Freeman Dyson avoided meeting him at Princeton.

Darwin's evolution theory was not important to his life, he avoided it for 15 years, so don't cite his uncertain and wavering intellectual confidence as evidence of *anything*

Show me that prayer can cure the most trivial ailment of bend the thinnest wire. And google "argumentum ad populum."

HJ, Chris Fox, Dax,

Let us assume, for the sake of getting along with each other, and to see where it leads us, that evolution as postulated by Darwin is true. After all, the scientific community has had plenty of time to think about alternative theories, and has embraced evolution as the definitive answer to how life began on this earth, and how there is so much diversity in the world. What a randomly beautiful thing this world ended up being, with randomly beautiful life forms and a randomly intricate balance of nature!

What randomly beautiful sunsets there are on so many horizons in the world! What randomly beautiful flowers there are in so many places! What randomly beautiful birds, and butterflies! Hooray to evolution for thinking so well of mankind to have provided for us such a beautiful place to live, and for inspiring so many offspring to create a world of beauty for ourselves and for our children!

Hooray to evolution for generating the creative minds of the musical geniuses of history, such as Mozart, Brahms, Handel and Beethoven! Hooray to evolution for generating Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Rembrandt and Renoir! Hooray to evolution for Homer, Hugo and Shakespeare, and for allowing our minds to get a glimpse of the deep meaning of many things! Hooray to evolution for ennobling mankind with compassionate, energizing love—a life-giving force and a life-sustaining wellspring of goodness. Pity the man or woman who does not feel this love as they move through their life, trying to make sense of their existence.

Hooray to Darwin for putting things together for us in an interdisciplinary approach to scientific reasoning, to tell us how we came to be in a world that happened to have just the right combination of chemical composition and placement in the heavens to allow life to form and develop by such a fortuitous chance. What incredible odds there were against it happening, but here we are! Darwin wrote so well, so convincingly, with a very personable, readable style, sort of like a long personal essay. English students would do well to read his work for the sake of learning from his writing style as well as from his ability to win a reader over to his point of view. Others would do well to read his work for the sake of learning what he had to say about some of the complex social implications of a belief in evolution.

If by a belief in evolution we think we are supposed to be in a world where “survival of the fittest,” random chance, and random mutations will always rule, where we should allow nature to take its random course, then we had better realize that the world is more complex than this. Darwin was careful to point it out. Says he: “We must remember that progress is no invariable rule. It is very difficult to say why one civilized nation rises, becomes more powerful, and spreads more widely, than another; or why the same nation progresses more quickly at one time than at another. We can only say that it depends on an increase in the actual number of the population, on the number of the men endowed with high intellectual and moral faculties, as well as on their standard of excellence.” (Descent of Man, Chapter 5)
He also adds: “Obscure as is the problem of the advance of civilization, we can at least see that a nation which produced during a lengthened period the greatest number of highly intellectual, energetic, brave, patriotic, and benevolent men, would generally prevail over less favoured nations.” (Descent of Man, Chapter 5)

Darwin also wrote of the decline of the ancient Greek civilization, which he had studied, because of the decadence that crept into their society. Despite their intellectual advances to greatness, their civilization had not retained its dominance because of this decadence that gradually weakened its power as a nation-state.

Can this lead us to some understanding that may help our world’s social structure learn from the past as we look to the future? Can a belief in evolution help us look to the future and see what course is advisable so as not to repeat the mistakes of the Greeks? The writer believes that it can, if we recognize that our world’s future is collectively ours to choose--not a random circumstance that is beyond our combined abilities to alter.

The study of evolution warns us that if we as the species homo sapiens do not collectively build a benevolent and ethical culture within our society, we likely face a decline by war, lawlessness and loss of intellectual achievement. This decline may take generations, but that is what evolution is all about—change by slight degrees, one year to the next, decade by decade, generation by generation. A thousand years is a drop in the bucket in evolutionary time, but to look at our world today and then imagine what it may be like in a thousand years based on present social and environmental trends is to recognize the need for a collective consciousness that yearns and strives to provide those generations yet unborn with a world that has not declined into an unwelcome, inhospitable place to live and find happiness.

Darwin also wrote in "Descent of Man": "With increased experience and reason, man perceives the more remote consequences of his actions, and the self-regarding virtues, such as temperance, chastity, &c., which during early times are, as we have before seen, utterly disregarded, come to be highly esteemed or even held sacred. I need not, however, repeat what I have said on this head in the fourth chapter. Ultimately our moral sense or conscience becomes a highly complex sentiment-originating in the social instincts, largely guided by the approbation of our fellow-men, ruled by reason, self-interest, and in later times by deep religious feelings, and confirmed by instruction and habit.
It must not be forgotten that although a high standard of morality gives but a slight or no advantage to each individual man and his children over the other men of the same tribe, yet that an increase in the number of well-endowed men and an advancement in the standard of morality will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over another. A tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection. At all times throughout the world tribes have supplanted other tribes; and as morality is one important element in their success, the standard of morality and the number of well-endowed men will thus everywhere tend to rise and increase.

We compare the weakened impression of a past temptation with the ever present social instincts, or with habits, gained in early youth and strengthened during our whole lives, until they have become almost as strong as instincts. If with the temptation still before us we do not yield, it is because either the social instinct or some custom is at the moment predominant, or because we have learnt that it will appear to us hereafter the stronger, when compared with the weakened impression of the temptation, and we realise that its violation would cause us suffering. Looking to future generations, there is no cause to fear that the social instincts will grow weaker, and we may expect that virtuous habits will grow stronger, becoming perhaps fixed by inheritance. In this case the struggle between our higher and lower impulses will be less severe, and virtue will be triumphant."

Now, my friends, I say Darwin had a higher intellect than Hitchens, and saw implications in evolution and history that have not been acknowledged or reasonably addressed by most who hold so fast to the theory of evolution as an explanation of how and why our world today is how it is, and how it (and we) got here. I challenge your fixations against all Deistic religions, and cite Darwin as a basis of that challenge. Peace to you, and deep honest thinking.

Rather than calling Hitchens names, let's look at his specific claims. He says religion is
violent: 20 wars in the last 15 years are religion-based, and throughout history hundreds/thousands have been.
irrational: do you call believing in Virgin Births and Red Sea Partings Rational??????
intolerant: can't you answer this yourself???
allied to racism : Mormons excluding blacks, Christians demonizing Jews, etc etc etc
and tribalism and bigotry,: see above
invested in ignorance: who is banning the teaching of evolution in Kansas? Who prosecuted Galileo?
and hostile to free inquiry: see above
contemptuous of women:: women have always been allowed to be leaders of all religious groups, haven't they
and coercive toward children." Oh NO!! Religion never indoctrinates children, does it?

Hitchens is self evidently correct. He gives much more nuance in the whole book, but his clearly generalizing characteristics are overwhelmingly supported by the FACTS.

Remember Facts? Or are you not tied to the Reality Based World, as the Bush admin calls it.?

Dax: Bravo. Thunderous applause.

Nobody ever burned a village because its inhabitants believed in Creationism or the Copenhagen Interpretation.

Carol
I'm getting to like you. Do you ever visit purgatory, where I hang out? I must warn you though: I'm gay, that is if i have any sexuality at all.

Belief in God has no evidentiary support, and God has no natural explanation, so by definition belief in god is superstitious. One definition that is typical says "1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation?\"

God does Magic. he parts the red sea, impregnates virgins without semen, raises people from the dead, all contrary to natural laws, and people believe in Him because they fear the Unknown, esp death.

There MAY be experience and states of consciousness that has no correlation with brain patterns and physical processes, but so far we have no evidence that that is true, and plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Reality based people like me like evidence rather than speculation.

Buddhism is the most highly evolved spiritual practice in the world, and buddhists do not believe in god if they follow the teachings of the Buddha, who was NOT a prophet. Buddhists and I believe that spiritual development of the highest kind is compatible with the *fact* that our body determines spiritual experience, and our body is made up of molecules.

True buddhists practice loving kindness towards all living things, EVEN religious people (joke).

Buddhists like me are atheists because we see no evidence that God exists. And we don't feel a need for a god to have spirituality and meaning in our lives.

We deal with the world as it is: the reality based world, as the Bush administration calls it.

"Harris argues, lamely, that Adolf Hitler’s maniacal behavior and excesses, even the Holocaust itself, was rooted in his “Christian” belief. Harris also likes to skip past inconvenient mass murderers like Pol Pot and Stalin (neither of whom was exactly known for religious devotion) because they don’t fit his argument."

The author is confused about what is being referred to as "religious wars". Explanation follows:

#1. Its possible for religious people to wage wars rooted in their religious beliefs (e.g. catholics fighting protestants after the reformation ) and its also possible for them to wage wars which have nothing to do with religion (e.g. Spain and Portugal, both catholic fighting over conquest of south America). Religious wars refer to the former, Harris or Hitchens are NOT referring to the latter when they are talking of religious wars.

#2. It follows that same is possible for atheists. Its possible for atheists to wage war inspired by atheism, or wars which have nothing to do with their disdain for religion.

#3. So what would be an atheism inspired war? Let's look at what's the inspiration behind religious wars. A desire to spread the religion, or even an enlightened desire to "deliver" the ignorant and bring them into "light". So an atheism inspired war would also be in similar vain, for example with the primary goal of ending peoples' belief in god and forcing them to see the world of scientific evidence.

Neither Stalin, Pol Pott, Hitler nor the tribes in Rwanda are inspired by the ideology of delivering people from their delusion. Their war efforts were /are not dictated by such concerns. Primarily, if their victims were atheists, they would not have stopped their aggression [Hitler might have still killed atheist Jews, and hence the exception that Harris points out]. This is the main point to understand, religious wars would not have taken place if the other side belonged to the same religion, Stalin, Pol Pott et al would have carried out their murders even if the others were atheists.

Get it?

The author holds out the same thin hope as the free-market zombies and offers the same puddle-ddep argument. The atrocities in faith's name are anomalies, committed by misled or evil men .. yes, and the Crusaders, who sang hymns as they lopped off childrens' heads, were the victims of poor Catechism.

Please.

When another deregulation experiment ends in squalor and pollution and unemployment the "economics" types wring their hands and implore us to deregulate just a little more and this time, promise!, the magic will work.

Nope, sorry Mr. O, but those atrocities are not anomalies, they are the direct result of the sick confidence that comes of crossing the line and believing lies and liars.

As for Mormonism, take a look at antidepressant prescriptions in Utah compared to the rest of the country .. yeah, real good outlook there.

David,
Thanks for your several powerful and insightful comments here. 'Hope your family is well.

Kennyboy,
Please be aware that by lumping all religions together with a blanket statement, you show that you have not bothered to find out what the differences are--and they are very substantive. You have a right to your opinions, but if you are going to make faulty generalizations, the shoe of whom you described will be on your own foot. I sense that at heart you are thinking about these things. I encourage you to read more, think more, and broaden your perspective. Much success to you in this.

Trans-rational thought, also known as true enlightenment, is also referred to as being born-again. Call it whatever you want but if you were truly enlightened one would hope you could be more convincing. I feel so inadequate with my poor rational brain, neither pre-rational nor trans-rational thought make sense to me or even seem any different from one another.

Fate,

Hello Fate, thanks for the comments and I feel an urge to respond to something you wrote to Carol.

" And you wonder why atheists listen to this type of moralizing based on religion and shake our heads and call it harmful. You have not grown Carol, you have stayed behind with a childish belief you inherited from your parents without question."

Ok, I take your assumption and I will make one of my own Fate. You had a bad experience when you were a kid when forced by your parents to go to a Catholic Church and now because you were force fed religion your whole life you are abandoning ( or rebelling I should say) and now hate religion or even the thought of God. Am I correct?

Maybe so, but probably not. So what makes the assumption true of yours that every adult that believes in God was raised with God? I'll use one of your lines.

You have not grown Fate, you have stayed behind with a childish belief that all believers in God were raised that way. And when us believers see that tone, we nod our heads in shame because we know that negative pre-suppositions make you look worse than the intelligence that you think you have.....I don't mean to be offensive of course.

You also speak of morals on some level and I wonder where you get your morals from and if you believe morals are absolute or relative? This has always been a question that I can't seem to get an "absolute" answer on from atheists. My position as a Christian is that morals are absolute and are created by God. We have moral laws. We all have broken them. We all still do. So when speaking to Carol about morals, I do wonder how and why you choose your morals if you have no starting point to determine what is moral and what is not?

Good day to you.

The only problems I have with people of faith is that they believe that the world was built by and is controlled by magic faries who can be influenced by chanting and giving money to people with really bad combovers, and that their faries tell them that all of the other faries followers are wrong although they all believe pretty much the same thing. Given that these represent the core beliefs of the vast majority of the faithful I am led to question their judgement in all areas of life. So when you consider atheists remember that they don't oppose your religious beliefs, they just think you are insane.

Granted that the "millions of Christians who practice their religion know from personal daily experience that they are better people because of it."

Equally so is the fact that the increasing number of believing "naturalists - aka non-theists (!) - "know from personal daily experience that they are better people because of it."

You are what you do. That is at the core of Jesus's teaching. If the Christian church is a bloody mess, intolerant, racist, hatefull, incapable of helping the least among us as Jesus directed that's on the Church not those who point it out. Less talk more walk. I don't believe because you don't even try. Most clurgy seem to be to worried about a fat happy life for themselves than to preach the truth afraid to ruffle feathers. And less preaching more making it all work. Don't be so feel good more do good. Acts, not good talk.

Tiredgirlie,
Since you have pointed out something that others have also, I suppose it might as well be noted that the "On Faith" question provided the statement from Hitchens that was supposed to be read and evaluated. The question did not say, for example, "If you have read Hitchens book, do you agree or disagree with this statement and why?" All it said was exactly what we all read. The statement stood on its own. Yes, it was "out of context," but that is the fault of someone else who made a decision to frame the question the way it was framed. Peace.

Fate:

You make a lot of assumptions:

You assume I have a religion and you also assume which one I belong to. From what...?

You also assume that I am insulting you and all other atheists. "I" assume that is because you read my post with an angry tone in your neuronal firings, and because you are presently possessed with that adversarial "Me Against You" mindset which I am hopeful that all humanity can rise above, myself included.

Now, "I" would suggest that if a religion is making an empirical claim -- that the "world" will definately end next Thursday -- and their language is literal and not symbolic of a higher principle, that you then test it empirically. And if the "world" doesn't end next Thursday (and you really undersatnd their religion in a way that they would recognize), you may conclude that the claim was false. OR, if you are open minded, you may consider the other half of your equation -- that sufficient numbers of people did indeed repent....

I assert that all human beings, religious or not, start at square one, and must pass sequentially
through many stages of moral and spiritual development -- and that certain life "paths" may or may not be more conducive to progress.

Often people judge religious people for behavior that occurred eons ago, when the entire world was at a pretty primitive level, morally and spiritually -- and these present peoples are somehow now held accountable for it.

In my quest for a path, I have been asking sincere questions of the LDS (and other) posters here --like a good, rational girl -- and you were burning me as a heretic, I do believe....

I find it REALLY troublesome that Otterson presents his column as a RESPONSE to something he has not read. Are we supposed to take "on faith" his ability to evaluate Hitchens' arguments without first learning what they are?

Henry James:

I agree with your assertion that there are highly evolved atheists, but I think there is a disconnect when you assume that the belief in God "must" be superstitious in nature, ie, magical thinking.

I think atheists who reduce all experience down to the firing of electrons and the brain patterns in various states of consciousness really evade the wide possibilities behind those states.I also wonder if doing so just makes it plain harder and longer to get to a more evolved point.

I believe you said somewhere that you are a Buddhist, or are trying to go that route (am I mistaking you for someone else?) I can see how that route could lead to spiritual development, but for your average "Science is my God" devotee, would you agree that allegiance to molecules might be a recipe for decades of stagnation -- until that point where friends and family start dying and more universal care sets in (which would include love and tolerance for religious peoples)?

I wonder, because many of the atheists posting here are still very much in the same "Me Against You" mindset that is so prevalent in religious fundamentalism.

Many of the simpler atheists seem to operate on a premise of what "they" think the world "should" be like if God were to exist, as well as what God himself "should" be like. And deviations from that model are considered irrational, which is total hubris, I'd say.

Fate
I should have listened to you earlier.

You make a lot of sense. Most of your ideas are not new to me, but you phrase them very well, and as America's greatest literary critic that is very important to me.

BTW, I HAVE often used you as a character in my novels.

Best to you
and please be nice to me

Henry

Carol wrote: "I think what we have here with the atheists is that they tend to universally lump transrational thought together with pre-rational thought, but they have no choice but to do so, because they have yet to move beyond the stage of development they are in."

I could just as easily say that you are not rationalizing the religion of Last Thursdayism, where the belief states the universe and everything in it including you, your thoughts, everything, was created last Thursday and you have until next Thursday to repent and give all your worldly possessions away to the poor. On the day of the rapture (Thurday) you will be judged on your week on earth. You may laugh, but I dare you to prove in anyway that this cannot be true.

Now, I could accuse you of not having transrational thougth or not having grown enough to believe in this religion and the good it professes. Well, I, as an atheist, don't believe in it either. Are we both stunted in our rationalizations and religious growth? Or are we both facing rational facts, that Last Thursdayism is nonsense? Secondly, even though Last Thursdayism has lofty goals for you and its followers, is it a good thing for those believers to believe in what you and I consider irrational? Was it good for the Heaven's Gate cult?

Now, considering all the religions on earth, I believe in one less than you do. I guess when you add up the hundreds we are both missing out on, our lack of the total religious experience makes us closer to being equal than you would like to think.

Carol continues insulting: "And I do wonder if there is anything they can do to achieve a higher level of moral development, because they seem to regard anything above and beyond where they are personally "at" as hoo-ey."

That is certainly not true. Atheists, like anyone else, continually strive to become good people, better people. They even read the bible and other texts to learn how to achieve these goals as the lessons are good ones, usually. What they do not do is blindly follow religious leaders. They do not look to their books for rationalizations of evil, such as "an eye for an eye" because they have the freedom to exclude such barbaric morality from their character.

Carol, I think you need to look into yourself and determine just how moral a person you are when you consider those outside your religion to be stunted and not as morally developed as you. Read your own insulting words to see what your religion has done for your ego, and how it has separated you from "atheists" as though some sort of separation exists between people of differing beliefs. You are creating a class, transrationalists versus non-transrationalists. Believers versus non-believers. And you wonder why atheists listen to this type of moralizing based on religion and shake our heads and call it harmful. You have not grown Carol, you have stayed behind with a childish belief you inherited from your parents without question. Imagine an adult who believes fervently in Santa. That is how an atheist would view your belief. And when that believer says you better be good or Santa won't come, you just smile and know that being good is self maintained and its own reward. Atheists do not need heaven to be good or hell to fear. Goodness is not owned by the religious. Good is its own reward. Atheists understand this. Its time for you to grow up.

Mike
you win today's Henry James award for Illogical comments when you write

"Gee by your logic- Sitting Bull should apologise to Custer!"

just to begin with
the Christians were going into the Holy Land and intitated the conflict

and

Custer was going into the land of the Indians and initiated conflict

"OD:
If the Crusades were a departure from Christ's teaching, why does the Vatican refuse to apologise for calling them?"
Gee by your logic- Sitting Bull should apologise to Custer!

If you had your head in the sunshine, you might understand that the real 1st crusade occured around 700 when the Muzzies took over "Christian Lands" by the sword.
You must be a product of the current school system- All feelings and no facts. Wise up or start praying to Mecca :-(

Help the 3rd world 1 microloan at a time- www.kiva.org

Carol
i have plenty of spiritual experiences. they just do not depend on believing in superstitions.

i think religious people who don't believe in god are the best kind.

"the atheists" vary widely, by the way.

there are highly spiritually developed believers and highly developed atheists.

superstitious belief in magical gods is not a prerequisite, not a absolute bar.

Just an aside:

It seems the atheist "apologists" here universally err by degrading all spiritual experience to the level of mythical and magical thinking. Whereas it is true that many religious persons are in this stage of development (mythical reasoning) not all spiritual experience fits this mold. It has moved to the rational stage, then through it and beyond to the trans-rational. My own husband would be a model of this (a gifted scientist and physician who is very spiritually evolved).

In their desire to be inclusive, some philosophers have exacerbated this perception (that all religious experience is magical thinking) by elevating very low levels of mythical and magical thinking to the trans-rational level -- giving it an evolved status that it simply does not have,

I think what we have here with the atheists is that they tend to universally lump transrational thought together with pre-rational thought, but they have no choice but to do so, because they have yet to move beyond the stage of development they are in. And I do wonder if there is anything they can do to achieve a higher level of moral development, because they seem to regard anything above and beyond where they are personally "at" as hoo-ey.

And I wonder if they have hosed their own progression in the process...?

Donttypelies ~

My beloved Henry already responded to you the way I would have in your first comment to me.

You further wrote, "The reason that children display acts of kindness and goodwill before knowing anything about Christianity is because they have inherited their attitudes from their parents from the time they are born. Where did their parents develop their attitudes? From their religious ancestors."

I find this fascinating. My good friend adopted a daughter from China. She is a seemingly devout Catholic right now (well, how devout is one at age 9??). Another good friend adopted a son from Africa. He is a faithful Mormon boy, and shows no signs of adhering to his "inherited attitude" at birth.

If I inherited my attitudes from my religious ancestors, then I'd still believe that the LDS religion of my birth was the One True Church. I recall dreading attending church as a child, and I recall my children doing the same each Sunday as I forced them to get ready because we were going to be late for church again. This is a completely different attitude from my father who is as devout a Mormon as you'll find. He lives for his religion which keeps him miserably alive.

I'm pretty glad I don't have that problem anymore.

What is astonishing is the hatred many posters here have for Christians. There is no place for that. I know many athiests, and while I believe they are mistaken, I know that they are good Americans. But here, athiests have contempt for Christians. Why do you hate them? Please don't deny it, read the dismissive, vitriolic comments and the underlying rage is clear. I lived in a Buddist society for several years, and I didn't despise Buddists. I think the angry athiests need to ask themselves where the animosity comes from.

Haggus:
yes, people can use a tool for good or bad purposes. but if the tool itself is inherently flawed, it is more likely to have bad effects.

science is a tool based on finding truth.
religion is a tool supported by unexamined superstitions that lead to lies and coverups

in that sense Science IS a better tool than religion.

you could say Hitler was free to be awful because he had no religious foundation, but he used the foundation of Christian anti-semitism to build his power.

And the dogma that Stalin operated on and justified his murderousness by was Communism, not Atheism.

If he had used Secular Humanism, another atheistic set of principles *but NOT a dogma* he would never have done the awful things, at least as long as he was following the principles of secular humanism.

religion DOES NOT make people more moral. that is the point.

Whether the critic of religion "rants" or is totally reasonable like I am, the pros and cons of religion can and should be discussed.

as has been pointed out, many developed countries are doing just fine without any significant religious activity. humans don't NEED it to be moral or productive.

and it IS disappearing in the more, pardon the elitist term, "advanced" countries of the world.

there are lots of factors that work AGAINST war and superstion (like Creationism), for instance. Education is one. Religion is NOT one. historically and currently in much of the world

What is astonishing is the hatred many posters here have for Christians. There is no place for that. I know many athiests, and while I believe they are mistaken, I know that they are good Americans. But here, athiests have contempt for Christians. Why do you hate them? Please don't deny it, read the dismissive, vitriolic comments and the underlying rage is clear. I lived in a Buddist society for several years, and I didn't despise Buddists. I think the angry athiests need to ask themselves where the animosity comes from.

one: I never stated that one motivation was better than another. I was trying to make the point that people can use a tool for bad purposes just as well as for good purposes. You could flip the coin and argue that, because Hitler and Stalin had no religious foundation, they were free to commit the atrocities they committed.

two: Anti-semitism in Germany can be traced to Martin Luther, who was a well-documented anti-semite. He also supported the will of the princes and lords in the Germanic states over that of the serfs, which made it easy for the rulers to put down their rebellion and fostered a belief that the state had all the answers for Germans, a belief which lasted through WWII. Once again, religion abused by the powerful, not the words themselves.

three: secular humanism is a good philosophy to follow. However, if you know psychology and sociology, humans tend to follow the herd. Society as a whole is still not at the point where they can follow such rational thought as a group. They can, however, grab on to the belief that God is benevolent and they need to follow the golden rule and the words of Christ, which are very pacifist in their words. The Koran itself teaches tolerance of faiths and recognizes that other Judeo-Christian beliefs are brothers to Islam. This was proven in King Suleiman's sparing all those Crusaders in Jerusalem, though they had slaughtered over 200,000 Muslims and Christians when the first Crusade took the city.

Religion is a tool. Unless the world has a POW! sudden realization to evolve beyond it, it is naive to argue against it. Use it to push the ultimate goal of Humanists, building a better world through reason, the OPEN exchange of ideas, good will, and tolerance. Show how humanism can relate to many of the tenants of the New Testament. Encourage people to use their mind, and, like water over a rock, they will, in time come to see they need the tool no longer. To rant against someone's beliefs is to say, "you are stupid. The things you hold dear are nothing." You accomplish nothing that way, except maybe to satisfy your own ego.

Parker:

I found your comment very intriguing. My purpose in following this thread (and others) has been to discover if there is a system of belief that is more inclined to help a person grow morally and spiritually.

I accept the idea that we all start at stage one and progress throughout our lives. And it would seem (from what I have been studying) that most people tend to morally stagnate in their early 20's -- usually for the space of a few decades. Then life tends to kick them in the butt, which leads to jump-start their growth again.

There are ways around this stagnation, I understand. Those who practice meditation or meditative prayer tend to keep progressing morally and spiritually through several stages of moral development, whereas people who do not engage in either tend to be stuck where they were in their early 20's until pretty much their mid-50's.

I in no way wish to offend anyone with the following, but the question that has been nagging at me is this: Does the Christian path that involves being "saved" tend to foster spiritual and moral stagnation or does it foster growth?

I wonder if being "saved" might equate to having "arrived" with those who subscribe to this belief? Do they see this point as having reached Henry's quest for enlightenment, say, and see no further need to develop themselves? Do they even disparage those who do seek to improve themselves, for, say, lacking the faith that Jesus has saved them?

I guess I tend to find my bias increasingly favoring the Mormons on this thread, as their world-view, from what I understand, tends to embrace all people, past and present, and does not condemn billions of innocent unbelievers to fire and brimstone. This to me seems much more morally evolved than what I understand of the "saved" crowd, where one can be eternally condemned for the sin of being born on the wrong continent, where God seems to have put them in the first place.

So Parker, are you stating that your knowledge and spiritual evolvement have continued, even from your days of being a missionary for your church, when you thought you pretty much knew it all?

Well debate him (Hitchens)instead of pontificating to your constituency. I'm certain you would fare no better than Meacham.

George
i agree with everything you say
and would add that

it is difficult to separate the ill effects of tribalism from the ill effects of religion.

the christians atavistically consider the Jews an alien and dangerous tribe, a tribe that was convenient to blame the ills of the world on.

to achieve a higher level of peace and non-genocide in the world, we need to ameliorate the effects of tribalism, and of religions that still behave in the tradition of tribalism.

The article proves once again that it is difficult for a religious apologist to answer the athiest position honestly. The athiest is pointing out that the emperor has no clothes, not arguing that his garments are finer.

It does not matter if there were horrible athiests -- the true point is that there is no historical basis to the belief that followers of religions are better people than athiests. The problem with religion is that many people surrender their rationality to leaders who tell them what is "right" -- and history proves that humans do their worst when they think that they are following some abstract higher good.

The Holocaust can definitely be traced back to Christian beliefs -- the Nazis were not doing anything to the Jews that their grandparents would have been surprised by. With modern technology the scale of the horror was greater, but it was not uncommon for Christian bigots to lock Jews into a synagogue and then set it on fire. The ghettos and the special symbols for Jews were common throughout Europe, as were extremely discriminatory laws. The Nazis were a reaction to the liberalization of the laws. Although they justified their hatred on pseudo-scientific beliefs, does anybody really believe that it is a coincidence that their sub-humans just happened to be the same group of people that Luther despised so much?

btw folks

don't try to tell us that Hitler and Stalin were Secular Humanists. Stalin may have been secular
but look up the definition of Secular Humanist and see if it applies to either man.

Haggus opines:
"Religion offers a structure for people's lives, and gives them another avenue to seek answers to higher questions of spirituality and morality. As with anything, including science, if abused, it can wreak havok on the world. It is not, however the cause. For that, we need only look in the mirror."

A structure built on lies and superstitions, usually emphasizing the superiority of "our tribe" over theirs, and in the name of which countless acts of violence and injustice have been perpetuated.

No one has ever started a war using the principles of Secular Humanism as a justification.

If religions people spent their religious time educating themselves instead, they would have just as much structure, just as much morality, and would not have to depend on myths and lies and corrupted power structures like the Catholic Church to give them structure.

The Mafia gives structure to the lives of its members as well (not that there's anything wrong with the Mafia).

While not a Christian, I agree with the opinion that Christianity, in and of itself, was not responsible for the atrocities committed through history in its name, the key being "in its NAME".

The Crusades were fought in the name of christianity. However, those in charge of the Catholic church were men or power, and men of power will use whatever means necessary to hold onto this power, whether it is religion or nationalism. Kings and knights joined in the Crusades for money, fame and power. They even had the streets running red with the blood of fellow Christians living in peace in Jerusalem. If you read the Bible, especially the New Testament, these activities go against the principles of the very religion they were supposed to uphold.

Hitler was born a catholic, and that was as deep as his religious belief ever went. His god was National Socialism, and later just himself. He used religion to gain power, then eliminated the very churches that gave him support, creating a National Socialist church. If Dawkins, et al, ever bothered to research their history, they would know this. They would also realize how Hitler violated Christian beliefs through elevating man above God in his racial supremacy beliefs and violation of the Golden Rule.

We all have motivations in our lives which help us to take the right course. Whether it is belief in a higher spiritual power, or a belief that morality is the most rational course to take, it is still a belief. Atheism has its own dogma in its rejection of other religions as a possibility. This violates rational principles in the simple fact that NO ONE KNOWS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU DIE. How can you say nothing happens, if you have know understanding or experience of the event? A truly rational person goes with the evidence and, where there is none, has a belief or faith, but recognizes it as such; just a belief. In this, the atheist is Oroborus eating itself; it is just another dogma.

Evil, however, recognizes no religious bounds. In fact, in their dogmas of order and discipline under the word of God, religions, if followed correctly, give a structure and order to life stronger than governments can offer because of its believed origin as something higher than ourselves. Evil comes when these values are abused or ignored for others selfish gains, not the dogmas themselves.

Religion offers a structure for people's lives, and gives them another avenue to seek answers to higher questions of spirituality and morality. As with anything, including science, if abused, it can wreak havok on the world. It is not, however the cause. For that, we need only look in the mirror.

Mormon PR Effort Turns into Train Wreck

Since Mr Otterson has been on the front page of the Post today, many smart and sensible Non-Mormons have read his post.

And sorry to say for Mr O, he is getting hammered.

9 out of 10 of the Non-Mormon posts point out the hypocrasy and obfuscation in Mr Otterson's column

starting with the fact that the Mormon Church is characterized by the very qualities he accuses Hitchens of, seemingly without having read him.

You WAPO readers are good: you don't fall for the PR lines of the defenders of the faith.

I agree whole-heartedly with Mr. Otterson's comments, and I'm delighted to see such support for basic Christian principles come from a Mormon. (It causes me to wonder if he really knows what that group believes about Jesus.)

"atheism is extremely illogical and strips meaning and hope from the lives of those who are created in the image of God."

As an atheist, it's offensive to me to say my life has no meaning or hope. I disagree with Hitchens, as well, but when theists say I am immoral, hopeless, and without meaning I get incensed.

"Again, nicely presented Mr. Otterson especially in light of the fact that atheists of course never like to point out what irreligion has done."

As an atheist, I admit that atheists have done horrible things. However, the actions of one person in no way excuse the actions of another.

Donttypelies wrote: "Go to the Churches in the west where many immigrants have access to transportation. You will eat your words. In my church alone, right outside of Washington, DC, we have Christians from every country in the world there."

Well, that speaks volumes. You help "Christians". Why only Christians? What would you do if a jew or hindu came in asking for help? What would Jesus have done?

Donttypelies wrote: "There is no minority and no majority race in that church."

But majority, christian, exclusively?

Donttypelies wrote: "Christianity has nothing to do with race, it has to do with being a believe and having faith which has no racial boundaries at all."

It has a lot to do with excluding non-christians though. Why are only christians in need of your support? Did Jesus ask the religion of people he helped?

Donttypelies wrote: "Jews don't like being bullied for being Jewish and that is the same with Christians."

Understandable except where the criticism is valid. I would hope you accept valid criticism or is that forbidden.

Donttypelies wrote: "The west has been oppressing the Christians for 40 years now and they found their voice."

Please show any evidence for this statement. Oppression is a powerful word and does not mean to make jokes of or parody in film. If you need a definition of oppression, ask the Kurds who have just been freed from Saddam's oppression. When you travel this great country and see steeples of churches in every city, your remark rings very hollow. Its in a LIE and you should recognize it as such.

Donttypelies wrote: "They were the ones who founded this country and the new immigrants are coming here and shoving their culture down the throats of the Christians."

Hmmm, this country was founded by people of many christian backgrounds, not just Anglican. And who is shoving anything down your throat? Where have you had to accept someone elses culture as your own? And please define a "christian" culture.

Donttypelies wrote: "Well sir, they found their voice after years of not saying anything and it is about time."

Christians have had a loud voice as far back as I can remember (1960s) and I only need to look at the government issued currency to understand that an oppressed people do not have the name of their God pressed in ink onto every dollar bill.

Donttypelies wrote: "When Christians start beheading people or stoning people, I will worry about Christianity, but until then, they WILL AND SHOULD HAVE the same freedom of speech as the leftists who quote freedom of speech as their mantra, let Ahmedinejad speak at Columbia University in the name of freedom of speech, but these same leftists would not let Walid Shoebat who is an ex PLO terrorist and ex muslim speak citing security reasons. Hogwash. Don't you think Ahmedinejad is a security risk."

First of all everyone has the same freedom of speech as you or I. Security is a concern when it comes to free speech as the yelling fire in a theater example illustrates. Our government allows Ahmedinejad to roam anywhere within 25 miles of the UN. As a foreign dignitary he is given that right under the UN and our agreement to host the UN in NYC. I challenge you to show any evidence that christians, who fill the airwaves every Sunday morning on multiple TV and radio channels, are not allowed to exercise that free speech. I double dare you.

Donttypelies wrote: "Leftists should be ashamed of themselves allowing our enemies to speak, but silence their own countrymen."

Name one countryman silenced by our government or the ambiguous "Leftists"! And one thing you should consider, and be forwarned it might send a shiver up your spine, many Leftists ARE christian! Many more so than you are.

This post does very little in the way of presenting a serious counter argument in support of religion, except to say that centuries of persecution on behalf of christianity and other religions is simply an aberrant behavior. For centruries, christianity has allied it self with commercial interests to maintain control of the elite over the masses. I do not see any stoppage in the aberrant behavior that the author speaks of.

You are what you do. That is at the core of Jesus's teaching. If the Christian church is a bloody mess, intolerant, racist, hatefull, incapable of helping the least among us as Jesus directed that's on the Church not those who point it out. Less talk more walk. I don't believe because you don't even try. Most clurgy seem to be to worried about a fat happy life for themselves than to preach the truth afraid to ruffle feathers. And less preaching more making it all work. Don't be so feel good more do good. Acts, not good talk.

What tired old talking points. When Christians do bad things in the name of their religion, other Christians claim "That's because they're not being TRUE Christians". When Muslims do bad things in the name of their religion, other Muslims claim "That's because they're not being TRUE Muslims". Of course when representatives of either faith do good things, in the name of their religion or not, then the religious representatives all claim credit for that good behavior being due to their religion.

Do some people use religion as a reason to do good, yes. Do some people use religion as a reason to do bad, yes. Neither statement is in doubt. The question then only becomes the numbers on either side. Incidents like the Crusades cannot be dismissed as not being the actions of true Christians. There was only one Church, and all Christians at the time believed the Church to speak for God. What they did fulfilling a call for a religious Crusade from the Catholic Church is clearly a function of their religion. Of course people have wars for all kinds of reasons - competition for resources, skin color, political gain, and religion. It's not the end all be all cause, but it is a cause, amongst others.

If the point of Michael Otterson's coments is that Christianity has ethical, serving, happy people then it is a point well taken. It does not, however, have to do with Jesus Christ. If we live a life guided by aesthetics, we may come to the same points discussed by the major reigions. Love is a higher aesthetic then hate; living in peace and acceptence is a higher quality of life then war and destruction, etc.
We need to recognize out fate is in our decisions and the questions we ask. If we rely upon he supernatural to guide us, we are doomed to stay in a child-posture toward life and see things in a narrow perspective centered upon the judgement of others.

Thou shall not kill
Not because it God tells us but because we are alive. These truths are self evident but not so for matters of faith. So yes I can accept any persons faith until it tries to distort reality. So whether you preach the state(pol pot) or Gods will, if it materially trespasses on the rights of man it has crossed the line and we should have zero tolerance for that. I understand your polyester piety and Sunday smile but you really are juggling a granade so don't expect athiests or secularists to stop cringing.

The Crusades, the Inquisition and other religious aggressions may have been departures from the teachings of Jesus as we understand them. But these endeavors were sponsored and supported by the highest leadership of the mainstream religious institutions of their day, not renegade splinter groups.

As to being a better person through religion, moral superiority is implied. Forget about it. Acts of kindness etc. are just that, regardless of their inspiration. To act as though "good citizenship" is somehow less worthy as a motivation is religious snobbery. Good citizenship is also demanding and requires thinking about something larger than yourself. I have heard too much ugly un-Christian talk come out of the mouths of the "faithful" to think that that many of them actually follow Jesus in a truly meaningful way. They just think they do.

Just because you think that you are "a better person than [you] would have been without the gospel of Jesus Christ in [your] life" doesn't mean you are right that there is an invisible superpower. I wish you and other religious people could learn to draw that distinction.

Christianity does NOT Make you a Better Person

Evolved and Ron emphasize important points:

1. Christians are no more moral than ANYONE else.
So
to say their faith makes them better people is non-sensical.
Better than whom? Hindus? Atheists? Not if one actually looks at the evidence.

2. and there are plenty of cases where the Christian faith makes them Worse people
if you think it is a good trait to be in favor of justice and equal rights for Gays and Women, for instance.

Slowly, the world is emerging from the darkness of religious belief, and will be a better place for having done so.

Western Europeans, far more moral than Americans, have made the transition.

Given time, America will follow, and all this debate about religion vs. non-religion will seem as strange as arguments over the flatness of the earth.

A mormon calling aetheists bizarre... I'm not touching that one with a 20 foot clown pole.

What I will say is that in aetheism, as in all religions, you will find an extremist minority who do in fact regard all religion with disdain and disrespect, and who will stop at nothing to place the world's ills overthe centuries attheir doorsteps. However there is also a healthy majority of non-believers who believe in tolerance and understanding when it comes to dealing with people of faith. Where the friction comes in with this group is when we are described as being less as people by believers because we do not acknowledge/support a theistic way of life. We (generally) give nothing but respect and accomodation to the people in our lives (and of course that is the majority of friends, family and loved ones) who are believers, and ask the same respect in return. It is when believers, in most cases extreme elements of their faiths, attack our right to hold our own (non)beliefs and live as we choose to do that we feel attacked, and in turn respond.
Please give nonbelievers the same respect the majority of our type give to you... I believe do unto others is a tenet preaced by all faiths, and even I follow that one.

Cheers,

PSB

"I see those fruits every day in my association with good, honest, decent, law-abiding, well-educated and self-sacrificing people whose lives have been significantly shaped and improved by their religious faith."

Strange as it may seem to you, in my association with good, honest, decent, law-abiding, well-educated and self-sacrificing people who don't share your religious faith, I see compassionate, loving persons striving to improve not only themselves, but they fellow human beings and our environment. By their "fruits" you can also know them.

I also have a question that always bothers me. Why do I never, or at least seldom,hear an American "christian" ask God to bless the world rather than just bless America. Do they assume Americans need God's blessing more, or do they believe that God is more concerned about America than He is about the rest of the world?

"... anyone who has studied the life of Jesus Christ knows that He said: ‘By their fruits ye shall know them” (Matt. 7: 20). I see those fruits every day in my association with good, honest, decent, law-abiding, well-educated and self-sacrificing people whose lives have been significantly shaped and improved by their religious faith. Those people deserve our admiration and respect, not wholesale condemnation."

Of whom is this man speaking? Most of the Christians I have ever known harbor all kinds of strange, untenable and damaging ethical annd moral views that I simply cannot respect and even have come to fear. It is indeed because of their Christian beliefs. As to all the fine upstanding, productive citizens. I would hazard a guess that these individuals have done so and have become the "humanitarians" they are as result of many factors such as upbringing, education and their personal predispositon to reason and socialization. Their religion may have had a tremendous affect or have been residual, an afterthought that merely adds a perceived need for a spiritual dimension to their cosmology. The values of "good, decent, self-sacrificing, etc." cited by Mr. Otterson can be achieved by;; many other values systems of humanistic origins.

But after 2000 years of not getting it right and having had so many human tragedies and disasters committed in the name of God and Jesus, why bother going back to these moral "roots." Mankind - forget about it and grow up and own your misdeeds.

Dave Burns, i must say i don't follow your logic.

Holland is one country where a very small percentage of the population believe in God (under 20%).

But it is non-sensical to call the Dutch "orthodox atheists."

Belief or non-belief in God has NO effect on their public policy or private morals most of the time.

And by the way, the STD rate in the US is 70 times higher than in Holland, abortion/homocide/infant mortality rate in US is much higher than in Holland.

What ARE you getting at, Dave?

Mr. Otterson's time-worn, threadbare mode of response to the critiques of the Richard Dawkinses and Christopher Hitchenses of our time could easily be flipped, and excesses of polities and cultures strongly influenced by atheism could likewise be ascribed to departures from the original, authentic teachings. What's sauce for the goose should be, and is, sauce for the gander also.

Poitesse is the Enemy of Truth

Otterson (and many others) cry that

Hitchens is Impolite!!!

It is Impolite to criticise another's religion.

Power STructures ALWAYS say that.
It is impolite to critise the King/Dictator/President.

No matter what they do. Remeber the Emperor's New Clothes.

So the compliant Mormons hear their PR man say "Don't read Hitchens" (as Otterson clearly hasn't) and the faithful don't have to be upset by having a new idea challenge their orthodoxy.

So say it loud and say it proud.
Hitchens IS impolite.
Sometimes one needs to be.

DontTypeLies writes to

Sister Mary Lisa. "The reason children have those traits at such a young age is because they have intherited the teachings of their Christian ancestors."

wow. what a thornbush of unreason is contained in that one sentence.

Did the children of Hindu or Muslim or Atheist or Jain or Secular hunanist parents ALSO inherit the teachings of Christian ancestors that they didn't have?

DTL: i would suggest you read a Non-Religios (not anti-religious) book about Moral development. Moral Minds by Marc Hauser is a good place to start.

1. The reason that children display acts of kindness and goodwill before knowing anything about Christianity is because they have inherited their attitudes from their parents from the time they are born. Where did their parents develop their attitudes? From their religious ancestors. History and Sociology are important to understand -- what our ancestors were is what we are today, only difference being is that we have mixed science with our original religion. Some of us do not practice our ancestors religion, but that in no way means it is not the salt of our souls anymore.

KURT CANON. IF YOU THINK Christians are the most racist people I suggest you do 2 things:

1. Go visit the middle east and Islamic countries
2. Go to the Churches in the west where many immigrants have access to transportation. You will eat your words. In my church alone, right outside of Washington, DC, we have Christians from every country in the world there. There is no minority and no majority race in that church.
Christianity has nothing to do with race, it has to do with being a believe and having faith which has no racial boundaries at all.

Jews don't like being bullied for being Jewish and that is the same with Christians. The west has been oppressing the Christians for 40 years now and they found their voice. They were the ones who founded this country and the new immigrants are coming here and shoving their culture down the throats of the Christians. Well sir, they found their voice after years of not saying anything and it is about time. When Christians start beheading people or stoning people, I will worry about Christianity, but until then, they WILL AND SHOULD HAVE the same freedom of speech as the leftists who quote freedom of speech as their mantra, let Ahmedinejad speak at Columbia University in the name of freedom of speech, but these same leftists would not let Walid Shoebat who is an ex PLO terrorist and ex muslim speak citing security reasons. Hogwash. Don't you think Ahmedinejad is a security risk.

Leftists should be ashamed of themselves allowing our enemies to speak, but silence their own countrymen.

1. The reason that children display acts of kindness and goodwill before knowing anything about Christianity is because they have inherited their attitudes from their parents from the time they are born. Where did their parents develop their attitudes? From their religious ancestors. History and Sociology are important to understand -- what our ancestors were is what we are today, only difference being is that we have mixed science with our original religion. Some of us do not practice our ancestors religion, but that in no way means it is not the salt of our souls anymore.

KURT CANON. IF YOU THINK Christians are the most racist people I suggest you do 2 things:

1. Go visit the middle east and Islamic countries
2. Go to the Churches in the west where many immigrants have access to transportation. You will eat your words. In my church alone, right outside of Washington, DC, we have Christians from every country in the world there. There is no minority and no majority race in that church.
Christianity has nothing to do with race, it has to do with being a believe and having faith which has no racial boundaries at all.

Jews don't like being bullied for being Jewish and that is the same with Christians. The west has been oppressing the Christians for 40 years now and they found their voice. They were the ones who founded this country and the new immigrants are coming here and shoving their culture down the throats of the Christians. Well sir, they found their voice after years of not saying anything and it is about time. When Christians start beheading people or stoning people, I will worry about Christianity, but until then, they WILL AND SHOULD HAVE the same freedom of speech as the leftists who quote freedom of speech as their mantra, let Ahmedinejad speak at Columbia University in the name of freedom of speech, but these same leftists would not let Walid Shoebat who is an ex PLO terrorist and ex muslim speak citing security reasons. Hogwash. Don't you think Ahmedinejad is a security risk.

Leftists should be ashamed of themselves allowing our enemies to speak, but silence their own countrymen.

1. The reason that children display acts of kindness and goodwill before knowing anything about Christianity is because they have inherited their attitudes from their parents from the time they are born. Where did their parents develop their attitudes? From their religious ancestors. History and Sociology are important to understand -- what our ancestors were is what we are today, only difference being is that we have mixed science with our original religion. Some of us do not practice our ancestors religion, but that in no way means it is not the salt of our souls anymore.

KURT CANON. IF YOU THINK Christians are the most racist people I suggest you do 2 things:

1. Go visit the middle east and Islamic countries
2. Go to the Churches in the west where many immigrants have access to transportation. You will eat your words. In my church alone, right outside of Washington, DC, we have Christians from every country in the world there. There is no minority and no majority race in that church.
Christianity has nothing to do with race, it has to do with being a believe and having faith which has no racial boundaries at all.

Jews don't like being bullied for being Jewish and that is the same with Christians. The west has been oppressing the Christians for 40 years now and they found their voice. They were the ones who founded this country and the new immigrants are coming here and shoving their culture down the throats of the Christians. Well sir, they found their voice after years of not saying anything and it is about time. When Christians start beheading people or stoning people, I will worry about Christianity, but until then, they WILL AND SHOULD HAVE the same freedom of speech as the leftists who quote freedom of speech as their mantra, let Ahmedinejad speak at Columbia University in the name of freedom of speech, but these same leftists would not let Walid Shoebat who is an ex PLO terrorist and ex muslim speak citing security reasons. Hogwash. Don't you think Ahmedinejad is a security risk.

Leftists should be ashamed of themselves allowing our enemies to speak, but silence their own countrymen.

Although I agree with Mr. Otterson in principal, my chief concern is what is being done to this country in the name of Christianity. The mix of Christianity and politics has, for at least the last 30 years, produced the most intolerant and, if I may, anti-Jesus policy that I can imagine. Granted, this is likely only a Trojan-horse use of Christianity, but it sure does produce a tom of support among the Christian community, which confuses me. I ask the following because I honestly don't know: how come so many Christians seem to be unable to distinguish between political initiatives that actually conform to the teachings of Jesus, and those that are merely cloaked in Christianity, but whose content Jesus would undoubtedly eschew? Whence Christian greed, intolerance, violence, etc?

1. The reason that children display acts of kindness and goodwill before knowing anything about Christianity is because they have inherited their attitudes from their parents from the time they are born. Where did their parents develop their attitudes? From their religious ancestors. History and Sociology are important to understand -- what our ancestors were is what we are today, only difference being is that we have mixed science with our original religion. Some of us do not practice our ancestors religion, but that in no way means it is not the salt of our souls anymore.

KURT CANON. IF YOU THINK Christians are the most racist people I suggest you do 2 things:

1. Go visit the middle east and Islamic countries
2. Go to the Churches in the west where many immigrants have access to transportation. You will eat your words. In my church alone, right outside of Washington, DC, we have Christians from every country in the world there. There is no minority and no majority race in that church.
Christianity has nothing to do with race, it has to do with being a believe and having faith which has no racial boundaries at all.

Jews don't like being bullied for being Jewish and that is the same with Christians. The west has been oppressing the Christians for 40 years now and they found their voice. They were the ones who founded this country and the new immigrants are coming here and shoving their culture down the throats of the Christians. Well sir, they found their voice after years of not saying anything and it is about time. When Christians start beheading people or stoning people, I will worry about Christianity, but until then, they WILL AND SHOULD HAVE the same freedom of speech as the leftists who quote freedom of speech as their mantra, let Ahmedinejad speak at Columbia University in the name of freedom of speech, but these same leftists would not let Walid Shoebat who is an ex PLO terrorist and ex muslim speak citing security reasons. Hogwash. Don't you think Ahmedinejad is a security risk.

Leftists should be ashamed of themselves allowing our enemies to speak, but silence their own countrymen.

1. The reason that children display acts of kindness and goodwill before knowing anything about Christianity is because they have inherited their attitudes from their parents from the time they are born. Where did their parents develop their attitudes? From their religious ancestors. History and Sociology are important to understand -- what our ancestors were is what we are today, only difference being is that we have mixed science with our original religion. Some of us do not practice our ancestors religion, but that in no way means it is not the salt of our souls anymore.

KURT CANON. IF YOU THINK Christians are the most racist people I suggest you do 2 things:

1. Go visit the middle east and Islamic countries
2. Go to the Churches in the west where many immigrants have access to transportation. You will eat your words. In my church alone, right outside of Washington, DC, we have Christians from every country in the world there. There is no minority and no majority race in that church.
Christianity has nothing to do with race, it has to do with being a believe and having faith which has no racial boundaries at all.

Jews don't like being bullied for being Jewish and that is the same with Christians. The west has been oppressing the Christians for 40 years now and they found their voice. They were the ones who founded this country and the new immigrants are coming here and shoving their culture down the throats of the Christians. Well sir, they found their voice after years of not saying anything and it is about time. When Christians start beheading people or stoning people, I will worry about Christianity, but until then, they WILL AND SHOULD HAVE the same freedom of speech as the leftists who quote freedom of speech as their mantra, let Ahmedinejad speak at Columbia University in the name of freedom of speech, but these same leftists would not let Walid Shoebat who is an ex PLO terrorist and ex muslim speak citing security reasons. Hogwash. Don't you think Ahmedinejad is a security risk.

Leftists should be ashamed of themselves allowing our enemies to speak, but silence their own countrymen.

"The Bible is not my Book and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long complicated statements of Christian dogma."
-Abraham Lincoln

Mr. Otterson, with all due respect, do you honestly believe in a man who "died for" an "original sin" that never happened, because there was no literal Garden of Eden (you know that, right?), and in a Sky-Daddy who routinely trounces the laws of the universe strictly for your benefit but not for, say, Jon-Benet Ramsey's?

Come on, now. How is it that grown people, ostensibly capable of common sense, dance this voodoo? The supernatural does not exist. How pathetic to see how so many masculine men in particular earnestly espouse the doctrines of their own emasculation.

The reason people "abandon religion" is that it is a silly, tacked-on worldview, objectively false, supersitious, primitive, and passive. With so much fear being leveled at those of us who state plainly that the Emperor has no clothes, I can only conclude that most professed Christians are projecting onto atheists their own terror at knowing that they really don't--and to their credit, cannot--truly believe that which they say they do.

You mention Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and other mass murdering "atheists" but leave out our born again christian president whose unnecessary, immoral and lie based war in Iraq has resulted in the death of at least a million Iraqis. Does Bush qualify as a mass murderer? What Christian principle does Bush use to justify the carnage he has wrought? His administration doesn't even bother to count the Iraqi dead. Sorry, but just because you hue to the supposed principles of Jesus Christ's teaching doesn't exonerate "believers" of the damage Christianity and Islam have inflicted on the planet.
The world would be far better off without religion.

When you say, "No twisting of the gospel message can justify these excesses as being Christian acts as I understand the meaning of that word." you demonstrate spectacular naivite by ignoring the fact that many Christian people throughout history have been convinced of the divine correctness of these excesses. It may not jive with your understanding of the gospel, but sadly there are many whose behavior is heavily influenced by this twisting of the gospel, however heinous.

The inherently authoritarian nature of Christianity makes it a useful tool for anyone wishing to justify cruel actions. "It's god's will" has been and will be quoted by many a despot. What army on earth has ever failed to claim that God is on their side? Your picture-perfect idea of Christianity is all well and good, but what really matters is reality where the seductive power of religion is twisted by the will of evil men. I'll take my atheism (and realism) thank you.

This might seem a silly question but do we have to believe that Jesus was/is the son of God in order to accept his teachings? There is certainly a lot to be taken from the New Testament as moral or ethical document independent of the theology it aims at.

I do not consider myself a Christian in a strict sense but I certainly appreciate what Jesus had to say as a human being. I think that the ethical content, which is what helps people to live well with one another, is often undervalued in relation to the theological aspects. I am not trying to attack Christianity in general, I just have little experience of any other religion, so I doubt I am qualified to comment about them.

Another point worthy of consideration is the political aspect of the Inquisition, the Crusades and Conquistadors in the New World. All of these cases resulted when violence walked hand in hand with belief and oppressed those who were non-believers. However, all these cases also had other, perhaps ulterior motives at work as well. The conquest of the New World and the Inquisitorial purge of Spain certainly helped to secure the Spanish throne and replenish the treasury after hundreds of years of fighting Muslim invades. The Crusades similarly were an expedient way to focus the armed might of Europe externally rather than internally.

I think the key point to draw from these examples is that regardless of what religion, if any, one ascribes to, our actions must comport with our beliefs. People have to think critically about what they are doing rather than simply following what they are told to do. I think very few people would disagree with treating others as you wish to be treated but the difficulty lies in putting this into practice.

Another spin job from the "creators" of spin, the Catholics & Christians. They would have us believe their words, their beliefs, their actions. I do think religion has its place - it may calm one's soul or make them a better person. But beyond maybe helping one's internal machinery, religion is the worst thing to ever created by man. It is the most twisted, illogical, and warped view of the world one could possibly dream up. Catholics, Jews, Mormons, Hindus, Muslims, Scientologists - the list goes on. They all insist they are right and the other is wrong, and by "God" we'll fight and argue about it until everyone is dead. Atheists are perhaps the one sane group on earth. Who have they killed in the name of their non-faith?

let's see........three faiths, one god and one version gives 6 dozen virgins if you'll blow yourself up in the name of......wow
other faiths exist, some longer lived than some of the above but there is one constant.......give me something and i'll talk to god for you. give me something and god will be good to you.
another wow.
am not worried about heaven or hell. if am bad won't be able to get into hell cause unless there is a tremendous expansion program going on won't be able to get in because of politicians and preachers.

How do you reconcile the Old Testament with the New? Christ’s teachings are a fulfillment of the Law; that explanation lacks any rational account of how exactly anything Christ said fulfills anything in the violent laws of Leviticus. It is true that Hitchens is a zealot, but I prefer his brand to yours. Yes, studying Christ’s teachings completely out of context—and practicing what he preached—would lead to the type of generous, peaceful existence you proclaim to have achieved. However, if you take Christ out of the Bible, if you unbind him from the Old Testament—it’s laws as well as its prophecies—you no longer have the Son of God. You cannot have it both ways. Show me in red letter text where Jesus Christ says, “I am the Son of God; I am fully human and fully divine.” Christ’s divinity relies on human interpretation of his words and how those words fit within the context of the entire Judeo-Christian tradition. If you want the Son of God, you have to take him with the aggressively intolerant history of the faith to which Jesus Christ was born.

How do you reconcile the Old Testament with the New? Christ’s teachings are a fulfillment of the Law; that explanation lacks any rational account of how exactly anything Christ said fulfills anything in the violent laws of Leviticus. It is true that Hitchens is a zealot, but I prefer his brand to yours. Yes, studying Christ’s teachings completely out of context—and practicing what he preached—would lead to the type of generous, peaceful existence you proclaim to have achieved. However, if you take Christ out of the Bible, if you unbind him from the Old Testament—it’s laws as well as its prophecies—you no longer have the Son of God. You cannot have it both ways. Show me in red letter text where Jesus Christ says, “I am the Son of God; I am fully human and fully divine.” Christ’s divinity relies on human interpretation of his words and how those words fit within the context of the entire Judeo-Christian tradition. If you want the Son of God, you have to take him with the aggressively intolerant history of the faith to which Jesus Christ was born.

How do you reconcile the Old Testament with the New? Christ’s teachings are a fulfillment of the Law; that explanation lacks any rational account of how exactly anything Christ said fulfills anything in the violent laws of Leviticus. It is true that Hitchens is a zealot, but I prefer his brand to yours. Yes, studying Christ’s teachings completely out of context—and practicing what he preached—would lead to the type of generous, peaceful existence you proclaim to have achieved. However, if you take Christ out of the Bible, if you unbind him from the Old Testament—it’s laws as well as its prophecies—you no longer have the Son of God. You cannot have it both ways. Show me in red letter text where Jesus Christ says, “I am the Son of God; I am fully human and fully divine.” Christ’s divinity relies on human interpretation of his words and how those words fit within the context of the entire Judeo-Christian tradition. If you want the Son of God, you have to take him with the aggressively intolerant history of the faith to which Jesus Christ was born.

How do you reconcile the Old Testament with the New? Christ’s teachings are a fulfillment of the Law; that explanation lacks any rational account of how exactly anything Christ said fulfills anything in the violent laws of Leviticus. It is true that Hitchens is a zealot, but I prefer his brand to yours. Yes, studying Christ’s teachings completely out of context—and practicing what he preached—would lead to the type of generous, peaceful existence you proclaim to have achieved. However, if you take Christ out of the Bible, if you unbind him from the Old Testament—it’s laws as well as its prophecies—you no longer have the Son of God. You cannot have it both ways. Show me in red letter text where Jesus Christ says, “I am the Son of God; I am fully human and fully divine.” Christ’s divinity relies on human interpretation of his words and how those words fit within the context of the entire Judeo-Christian tradition. If you want the Son of God, you have to take him with the aggressively intolerant history of the faith to which Jesus Christ was born.

How do you reconcile the Old Testament with the New? Christ’s teachings are a fulfillment of the Law; that explanation lacks any rational account of how exactly anything Christ said fulfills anything in the violent laws of Leviticus. It is true that Hitchens is a zealot, but I prefer his brand to yours. Yes, studying Christ’s teachings completely out of context—and practicing what he preached—would lead to the type of generous, peaceful existence you proclaim to have achieved. However, if you take Christ out of the Bible, if you unbind him from the Old Testament—it’s laws as well as its prophecies—you no longer have the Son of God. You cannot have it both ways. Show me in red letter text where Jesus Christ says, “I am the Son of God; I am fully human and fully divine.” Christ’s divinity relies on human interpretation of his words and how those words fit within the context of the entire Judeo-Christian tradition. If you want the Son of God, you have to take him with the aggressively intolerant history of the faith to which Jesus Christ was born.

You are right, you can't know what joy is available to people to don't embrace man-made christian doctrine. But let me tell you the joy is there, the gratitude is there, the compassion is there, the love of others is there. In fact, I rejected Christianity mostly because its claim of being the one true faith makes one less likely to experience compassion and love of others.

I do not consider myself an atheist, and I am somewhat uneasy about Hitchens and Harris and their very justified but very agressive arguments. I also feel some kinship with those of strong faith, because I like you have experienced those feelings of grace and love that you claim are accessible only to those who adhere to creed and dogma. But I will not stand by and listen to you claim that christians have access to feelings that aren't available to others. That belief is the product of your closed mind, nothing more.

By the way, in view of the whole Angel Moroni thing and everything else, I'd be careful about what I was calling bizarre.

Sister Mary Lisa. The reason children have those traits at such a young age is because they have intherited the teachings of their Christian ancestors. Ever heard of history and sociology? Our attitudes and innate characteristics are passed down through generations -- some of us know it and others, well, it has not occured to them yet.

Sister Mary Lisa. The reason children have those traits at such a young age is because they have intherited the teachings of their Christian ancestors. Ever heard of history and sociology? Our attitudes and innate characteristics are passed down through generations -- some of us know it and others, well, it has not occured to them yet.

Sister Mary Lisa. The reason children have those traits at such a young age is because they have intherited the teachings of their Christian ancestors. Ever heard of history and sociology? Our attitudes and innate characteristics are passed down through generations -- some of us know it and others, well, it has not occured to them yet.

Sister Mary Lisa. The reason children have those traits at such a young age is because they have intherited the teachings of their Christian ancestors. Ever heard of history and sociology? Our attitudes and innate characteristics are passed down through generations -- some of us know it and others, well, it has not occured to them yet.

Mormonism is Polemical, Unreasonable, Bizarre

as many of you have noted here in different ways. their polemic is that THEY are the only true church (and catholics AREN't!!),
their unreasonable and bizarre beliefs are legion: an angel came into Joseph Smith's bedroom and led him to some golden tablets that Smith "translated" either through a Peep Stone in his hat or an ancient pair of glasses that resembled the 3-d glasses we used to wear in the 50's.

Hitchens, on the other hand, says "Religion is Violent." a bit of a generalization to be sure. but with Plenty of evidence to support the generalization (of course Hitchens knows that not every religion is violent all the time).

God is Not Great is a reasonable conclusion based on the effects that belief in god has engendered and the evidence to support Her existence

No would in their right man would claim the teachings of Jesus causes all of the evil done by Christians over the centuries. No, these "Good" Christians performed their evil in the name of Christ but Christ would not have appreciated then nor would he now the way Christians behave. While swearing fealty to Christ and his teachings, too many Christians are still racists, intolerant and criminals.

Otterman wrote: "What it does say is that a person of faith who tries to live their religion has one more reason to invest in the effort than simply believing in good citizenship or other worthy secular goals."

Well that is fine. The problem comes when that same person looks at me and decides I need another reason to improve myself, or his employees need a reason, or his neighborhood, his city, his state and his country.

Mr. Otterman, self intraspection is great. Doing so using the values laid out in the bible is great. But you equate self intraspection with religion. You equate your analysis of your own actions with the dogma of an organization funded by millions which has a heiarchical leadership and has its own laws, rewards and punishments. That is like equating "love" with "eHarmoney.com". You could have gone to Nazi germany and found very happy people, people who were kind, loving, helpful, and worked very hard to bring a nation in the depths of the global depression of the 30s to become the most economically powerful nation on earth. But just because these people were happy, loving, caring and as nice as you, has nothing to do with the organization that made that possible. And consider that when that organization turned the country toward evil its people willingly followed. Your love of God and the bible and what it says has nothing to do with your religious institution of choice Mr. Otterman. That is something you need to consider as you listen in church to a minister for guidance, someone you probably do not know but carries a lot of weight in your own behavior.

Ask yourself what you would do if, oh, your church decided to exclude non-mormons from entering its churches because they are unclean ... oh, forgot, they already do that. Ok, then consider what you would do if the church took the next step, physically hurting people who tried to enter your churches. Maybe another step, cleansing the neighborhoods around your churches of non-mormons. Maybe lobby for the arrest of those who enter within 1 mile of your church. Absurd? Look back to the crusades, the inquisition and over in Serbia. And maybe you should ask WHY non-mormans are excluded in the first place. Why was that step taken. Was it something Jesus would have approved of.

Self intraspection is great and I do it myself, with the bible. But that is a very different thing from an organization which is given power by its supporters which then lobbies governments and demeans non-members even if in polite ways. Love everyone Mr. Otterman, that is the message in the bible. And it is a message you have decided to accept. Let me and others make our own decision, and then, please, respect it, even if it comes from another religious organization or solely from the bible, koran or other religious text or tradition. If Jesus taught you anything it is to respect the beliefs of others.

I love it when a writer calls someone else's arguments "extreme, unreasonable and intolerant claims," then admits in the very next sentence that he really hasn't actually read most of the other person's arguments.

Do you think a Jew who has not accepted Christ as his savior can enter the kingdom of heaven?

Do you think a Jew who has not accepted Christ as his savior can enter the kingdom of heaven?

Otterson burbles:

Millions of Christians who practice their religion know from personal daily experience that they are better people because of it

And so what? Millions of people who practice astrology know they're better people for it.

And burbles again:

I can’t know, of course, but I suspect that the joy that comes from embracing Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and all that flows from it including the Atonement, is utterly beyond Mr. Hitchens’ experience.

And so what? What do your feelings of joy have to do with anybody else's?

Get your Christianist proselytizers out of the Pentagon, get your Christianist hands out of the taxpayer pocket with faith-based [cough] initiatives, get your Christianist anti-Semites out the Air Force academy, stop your Christianist propagandists from writing revisionist history on "America is a Christian nation," and stop your Christianist "pastors" from abusing children under their care, which they do constantly.

Then maybe we can talk.

The answer is simple: Religion does nothing really but make a person THINK he is "good" -- a sense of piousness, and then they start attacking others who don't believe the same way, this causes division, strife on the societal level (look at the polarization of the US) and wars on a larger scale -- Jews versus Arabs, Hinus versus Isalm, Christians vs. Islam, Catholics vs. prtoestants, etc. etc. Look at history. An example: Right now many American Christian fundamentalists (e.g. Baptists) think that global warming is a left-wing conspiracy. Go figure. It is collective neurosis, and that is never healthy -- except for the pocketbooks of the "pastors" who lead the "flocks" and take a percentage of their "fleece." The problem is that the whole set of ideas is constructed so that the fleeced think that they are receiving this huge goodness and favor. Think about it -- what have you Really learned in 30 years of churchgoing that you couldn't have learned in about 2 hours time, that is any use?

Once more, the rational and fact-based analysis of Hitchens is met with a emotion-laden polemic from a Christian spokesman, who, in a classic case of blind mirror-imaging, accuses Hitchens of being "bizarre!"

Once more, we get from the Christian the tired reiteration of the classic Christian self-serving flapdoodle: a REAL Christian does not do the things that Hitchens says Christians have historically done. A real Christian, we are reminded, goes the Boy Scouts many degrees better. They exhibit "generosity of spirit, kindness, compassion, integrity, service and self-sacrifice as well as self-improvement." Man! How can anyone find fault with Christians? Of course, statements like this do absolutely noting to engage, much less refute, Hitchens' arguments.

What an intellectually dishonest cop-out to try to settle the argument by simply reiterating that any misdeed--like the Crusades--that Christians have committed in the name of their religion are a departure from REAL Christianity. What massive blindness or willful demagoguery Mr. Otterson is engaging in when he breezes right past the central point: all of those so-called aberrations were fully condoned, legitimatized, approved, or tolerated by the supreme religious authorities of the time in which they were committed. What a smug, self-serving attitude allows Mr. Otterson to ignore the core issue: given the track record of past Christian authorities, why should any human being on this planet believe that Michael Otterson has got in right? Why should we believe that future generations will not look back on Michael Otterson and proclaim that he was engaging in aberrant behavior that departed from Jesus' teachings? Every single one of those previous religious authorities believed just as smugly as Michael Otterson that what they were doing conformed fully to the real Christian doctrine. Mr.Otterson's polemic, far from refuting Hitchens, simply reveals in bold relief the correctness of Hitchens' view that religious zealots just don't get it and never will.

Let me just list for the record some other minor "aberrations" of the Christian mind:

1. Christianity existed on this earth one thousand seven hundred and seventy six years (1,776) before mankind finally produced democracy. During those 1,776 years, beatific Christians were quite content not only to fail to foster democracy, but to propound from every pulpit in the land the absolute divine right of kings to rule in perpetuity. To believe otherwise meant you were not only a traitor but a heretic, subject to excommunication. It took a generation imbued with the ideals of the SECULAR Enlightenment to free mankind from the shackles of religious claptrap and create democracy.
2. Christianity and slavery existed side by side until about 1865. On the day that I was born, there were thousands of living Americans who had been born into slavery under the rule of Mr. Otterson's Christians exhibiting "generosity of spirit, kindness, compassion, integrity, service and self-sacrifice as well as self-improvement." Spew that garbage into the faces of those millions of human beings flung into the holds of slave ships. Oh--sorry--just an "aberration!"
3. Not content to force the waging of a terrible war to end slavery, Mr. Otterson's noble Christians then imposed another 100 years of apartheid--known as segregation--on America, and they once again did so while proudly proclaiming that segregation was fully sanctioned by the Christian gospels.
4. Mr. Otterson's noble Christians subjected tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?)to unspeakable torture and systematically burned innocent people at the stake for being witches, all in the name of their compassionate religion.
5. Need I do more than mention the Christian record in treating Jews--you know, those people whom the Bible plainly stated collectively bore a blood liable for killing Christ?

That's just a few. As I said, you either have to be God's pure fool or God's pure liar to take even these selective examples and declare that they are the aberration rather than the reality of religious dogma.

According to Mr. Otterson's faulty logic, the fact that true Christians do good deeds is proof that God exists. Now, imagine a group of people, let's call them the Applers, who believe strongly that some apples fall up, though they cannot prove it to a scientific certainty. Suppose also that Applers do good deeds all the time, including giving free apples to poor people while dispensing advice, such as, "An apple a day keeps the Devil away." Applying Mr. Otterson's logic, one could conclude that because Applers do good works, then some apples must fall up. Absurd, right? Of course. But no more absurd than believing there is an all-powerful, all-knowing, infinitely loving God, while innocent children all over the world die horrible deaths every day.

It’s not a problem when an irrational belief in God leads people to do good things. But, what about when irrational beliefs lead people to do bad things? How do you convince an Islamofascist that he will not be rewarded with virgins in heaven for killing innocent people when you believe that Jesus Christ walked on water and rose from the dead? The Christian cannot “prove” the Islamofascist wrong and vice versa – an infinite loop of irrational beliefs.

One who ignores the laws of science in his own life has no ammunition to battle another who does the same. But those who discard the chains of irrational belief will have the moral and logical foundation to battle those whose irrational beliefs drive them to mass murder. Until people live their lives according to rational, scientifically supportable beliefs, there will be no peace on earth.

Typical typical typical of the irrational "religious" defense.
All that bad stuff we do/did in God's name, well that doesn't count! And it's unfair and unreasonable to blame the churches for their bad acts.
The only thing that matters is the "good" that the religions do.

Can we apply the same argument to ANY other human endeavor?
Sure I failed my exams but hey, that shouldn't be held against me in grades because I'm a good person at heart! Even volunteer at the soup kitchen.
And yes judge, I did get drunk and run down six pedestrians with my car but my wife says I'm a great guy!
And it is true, I'm a mass murderer, but when I'm not slitting throats and shooting children then I mix a mean martini and really know how to tell a joke!
And oh yes, Eva loved Adolph to the end so what were a few death camps?

Wanna buy a bridge?

Michael Otterson is of course entitled to his opinions on religion in general and on Christianity in particular.

Apparently, belief in Jesus Christ and in his teachings have been good for him. Apparently, he has been faithful to the teachings of Christ.

One can therefore say that religion and Christianity have produced a good human being in Michael Otterson.

There is no question but that religion is capable of producing this outcome in human beings.

On the downside, one cannot deny the fact, all too obvious, that religion has produced several if not many of the worst disasters that have been visited on humankind.

One cannot avoid citing the Crusades in support of this assertion.

Neither can one deny the excesses of the Inquisition. Copernicus, Gallileo, Bruno and many others who dared to challenge the Roman Catholic Church's long-held orthodoxy and teaching that the Earth was flat and was the center of the Universe were all persecuted by The Church, the earthly champion of Christianity.

But for those daring scientific pioneers, humanity would probably still be trapped in the Dark Ages. Reason would probably still be the hostage of Faith.

The Thirty Years' War of 1618 to 1648 which devastated Europoe was essentially a religious war, Catholics vs. Protestants.

The troubles which Northern Ireland went through for decades was essentially a struggle for supremacy between two religious protagonists, Catholics vs. Protestants.

I could go on further, but I have gone far enough to show that religion has the dual capacity to do both good and evil for mankind.

Mar Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

Otterson says he's a better person now than he was as a youthful athiest. As any sociologist can tell you, people get better as they get older. Youth and crime go together. And, I can say I am a better person now as an adult athiest than I was as a youthful believer. It's still just baloney.

Michael Otterson wrote: “[Sam] Harris argues, lamely, that Adolf Hitler’s maniacal behavior and excesses, even the Holocaust itself, was rooted in his “Christian” belief. Harris also likes to skip past inconvenient mass murderers like Pol Pot and Stalin (neither of whom was exactly known for religious devotion) because they don’t fit his argument.”

It seems unlikely that an obviously educated man, the Mormon media director, could totally miss Harris’s point. The foundation of anti-Semitism in Europe was firmly laid by the teachings of the Christian Bible over the centuries. What is known as the Gospel repeatedly reflects the profound anger and frustration among the authors that Jews in those times, eyewitnesses to the alleged events described in the New Testament, were not impressed and rejected the message of a small band of religious fanatics in their midst. The Holocaust was the culmination of hatred for Jews engendered by the Bible in Germany and throughout Europe. The reasons why Stalin and Pol Pot resorted to mass murder have nothing to do with the sins that European Christians loaded upon themselves. The heinous crimes of those two dictators have to be dealt with, too, and other competent writers have done so.

Reality check. I live in the Mormon west where most non-Mormons do not see Mormons as better people for their religion quite the contrary. Let Mr.Otterson name one religious group which non-members of the group regard as collectively better than the population average. Therefore, the teachings of Jesus have had no measurable positive influence on society.

One can always fall back on the old defense that what Jesus taught is great but that professors of Christianity do not follow the teachings so they have never been put to the test. On that basis Communism too is great, it is just sad that people like Stalin did not live up to their professed beliefs.

I give no weight to any defense of religion offered by the chief spin-meister of the Mormons, who are among the most judgmental and hatemongering sects of Christianity today. Interesting how, as usual, he also cites the regular bible and conceals the centrality of the book of Mormon. So this guy isn't even honest about his own faith.

Reality check. I live in the Mormon west where most non-Mormons do not see Mormons as better people for their religion quite the contrary. Let Mr.Otterson name one religious group who non-members of the group regard as collectively better than the population average. Therefore, the teachings of Jesus have had no measureable positive influence on society.

One can always fall back on the old defense that what Jesus taught is great but that professors of Christianity do not follow the teachings so they have never been put to the test. On that basis Communism too is great, it is just sad that people like Stalin did not live up to their professed beliefs.

This "defense" is absolutely hysterical coming from a man who belongs to a religious sect that will excommunicate the entire family of an individual who decides he/she is no longer a Mormon. Mormons represent the epitome of hypocrisy right down to their ban on caffeine which doesn't apply to Coke because the church is a major sock holder in the CocaCola Co.

An historical correction: Pol Pot, bless his murderous Thai soul, founded the Khmer Rouge on the tenants of Bhuddism in order to win the hearts of the people he misled.

Religion is the vehicle by which all this type of vile behavior and hypocritical nonsense is carried out and, sorry Mr. Otterson, there is nothing unreasonable about calling it like it is.

And, if the Crusades and Conquistadores are "excesses" then how do the Mormon's justify the destruction of the Togan culture, among numerous other world cultures, at the hands of modern-day Mormon missionaries? Mormons are responsible for ridding the world of a great deal of Polynesian culture in their pursuit of tithing.

Sorry, the fact he is a Mormon instantly negates his argument. The consolation is that he gets to rule his own world upon his death. Kind of like all the virgins Muslims get to look forward to ...

AND Mormonism is the epitome of the polemic, the unreasonable and the bizarre! It requires a complete bouleversement in in EVERYTHING the Lord Jesus said and died for to accept ANYTHING out of the mouth of a Mormon. One CANNOT accept the doctines of the Mormon religion and claim Christianity. You WILL be found out in the end at Judgement! You will hear those frightful words, "I NEVER knew you."

So Mormons are "true Christians?" NOT. You talk a good game pal but your a liar. Mormonism is a cult hellbound and damned. Mitt Romney doesn't have ENOUGH money to convince True Christians he's one of them! LOL. The only ones you'll suck in are the naive.

I do not see how the daily introspections of millions of Christians can in any way diminish the harms and crimes to which Hitchens alludes. Your writer, Michael Otterson, changed the subject raised by Hitchens: the crimes rationalized, but not, at least not necessarily, caused by the various religions. Hitchens errs only by failing to include hate crimes in his characterization of the religions and their founders, apostles, prophets, missionaries, preachers, priests, and bureaucrats. Nor, I think, do either Hitchens or most other atheists disparage the conventionally received teachings of the putative Jesus of Nazareth. Collectively these teachings represent a simple and simplistic but elegant and hardly evil convergence of Hellenic and Hebraic ethical and philosophical traditions as these evolved during the last half of the first millennium BCE. Michael Otterson's remarks leave me wondering whom is he trying to fool, himself or his readers.

I do not see how the introspections of millions of Christians can in any way diminish the harms and crimes to which Hitchens alludes. Your writer, Otterson, is only trying to change the subject raised by Hitchens: the crimes rationalized, but not, at least not necessarily, caused by the various religions. Hitchens errs only by failing to include hate crimes in his characterization of the religions and their founders, apostles, prophets, missionaries, preachers, priests, and bureaucrats. Nor, I think, do Hitchens or most other atheists castigate the conventionally received teachings of the putative Jesus of Nazareth. Collectively these teachings represent a simple and simplistic but elegant and hardly evil convergence of the Greek and Hebraic ethical traditions as these evolved during the last half of the first millennium BCE. I am left wondering whom Michael Otterson is trying to fool, himself or his readers?

moral reasoning is not built-in to human beings. - Chris Fox

Sorry, Chris, but the experimental evidence shows that you are wrong. In addition, anyone who makes this statement has never been around young kids. They have a lot better sense of fairness and empathy than older people who have learned that disregard for others can have material benefits. The argument that you are using applies to older people who have learned to suppress their innate moral guidance, not to what people are born with. As has been pointed out many times in the posts, organized religion leads almost inevitably to oppression of individuals and groups by people with more power.

moral reasoning is not built-in to human beings. - Chris Fox

Sorry, Chris, but the experimental evidence shows that you are wrong. In addition, anyone who makes this statement has never been around young kids. They have a lot better sense of fairness and empathy than older people who have learned that disregard for others can have material benefits. The argument that you are using applies to older people who have learned to suppress their innate moral guidance, not to what people are born with. As has been pointed out many times in the posts, organized religion leads almost inevitably to oppression of individuals and groups by people with more power.

moral reasoning is not built-in to human beings. - Chris Fox

Sorry, Chris, but the experimental evidence shows that you are wrong. In addition, anyone who makes this statement has never been around young kids. They have a lot better sense of fairness and empathy than older people who have learned that disregard for others can have material benefits. The argument that you are using applies to older people who have learned to suppress their innate moral guidance, not to what people are born with. As has been pointed out many times in the posts, organized religion leads almost inevitably to oppression of individuals and groups by people with more power.

moral reasoning is not built-in to human beings. - Chris Fox

Sorry, Chris, but the experimental evidence shows that you are wrong. In addition, anyone who makes this statement has never been around young kids. They have a lot better sense of fairness and empathy than older people who have learned that disregard for others can have material benefits. The argument that you are using applies to older people who have learned to suppress their innate moral guidance, not to what people are born with. As has been pointed out many times in the posts, organized religion leads almost inevitably to oppression of individuals and groups by people with more power.

The argument that "true Christians" aren't responsible for the excesses perpetrated by religious zealots really is beside the point and irrelevant, isn't it? The fact is that any belief system that is not based on reality sets up a situation where the only way that people can defend their beliefs is by physically or legally assaulting those with different beliefs. The Mormon church has a history of being treated that way and then in turn, treating other Christians in the same way once the Mormons became the power structure.

This is a consequence of having a set-up where someone dictates to everyone else what they are to believe and the others accept it, in other words, an authoritarian heirarchy. The stronger the authoritarianism, the more likely major deviations from Christ's teachings. Witness who are the strongest supporters of the present vicious and illegal war in Iraq (Mormons, orthodox Catholics, and right wing fundamentalists.) Witness which religious groups are working for peace (Quakers and other demoninations with no strong heirarchies) It is very difficult to maintain an ideology where actual Christian values are prized above others, and often a particular belief system deteriorates from what was originally a devotion to Christ's teachings to a fight to keep the group together in the face of competition from other groups. Too often a person will place their particular dogma above human welfare, the definition of a religious fanatic, and this results in the gross injustices that our society finds itself in now. These are just facts of life and are probably the main reasons why religion has a net negative effect on society. Why is it that America is so religious, but our people are much more mistreated than in Europe where religion is no big deal?

Heretic - A New Yorker who does not believe in the Christian Bible and a person from Istanbul who does: Ambrose Pierce

Well, good for Otterson that he gets off on Jesus. Each to their own favorite high. Personally, I like to get high and read about Lord Xenu, the ontology of Scientology. There are spaceships, and evil Emperor Ming-type rulers, and ghosts, and what have you. A rollicking good tale that, a tale for our age.

In religion, I suppose, it's useful to come up with something new from time to time, probably to suit an audience whose circumstances are greatly different from those of their ancestors. Nobody is impressed by "a virgin shall conceive" anymore, or by "divine" individuals rising from the dead. But spaceships, bombs, and mass executions, those we can identify with. The tale of Lord Xenu is no less fantastic than the Mormons and their Golden Tablets, or Jesus "returning" from the dead. Just give it some time, say a couple of centuries, and Scientology may be a major religion. There's equal opportunity for absurdity in this world.

Mr. Otterson,

You never address the flaws/cons in Mormonism or Christianity. Why is that??

A reminder:

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was probably a mythical character. If he was real, he was at best a combination of at least three men. 1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT. http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth. Analyses of his life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists)via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

3. Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy talking flying fictional thingie" visits and "prophecies"/cons for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

Mr. Otterson aims, shoots, and squarely hits -- a strawman. Thereby entirely missing the target. Non-believers do not, as a rule, question Jesus as a moral authority and teacher. They do, however, question 1) his divinity and 2) the outrages that, whether they conform to his teachings or not, are nevertheless committed in his name, and inevitably supported by some Biblical reference. (Incidentally, there is as much as evidence as not that Hitler was a Christian -- and even if he was not, those who acted on his authority certainly were, and their hideous crimes find all too many echoes throughout the history of Christian Europe; Stalin and Pol Pot did not commit their atrocities in the cause of atheism.)

Well i guess thousands and thousands of folks in prison, incarcerated in some way or another is reason to believe they did better for the experience in 'religion'.
Ya see that's why %99.9 percent of those who are behind bars are reaping the rewards of a good christian up bringing are'nt they Mr. Otterson because that's the 'Believer' ratio in prison.
You can't cherry pick the evidence here for christ sake.

Oh, boy does Brother Otterson sound familiar!

He sounds like most of my Mormon relatives.

Here is what bothers me about organized religious faiths:

1) They discourage freedom of thought & belief

2) They indoctrinate children

3) They support domination of weaker people by stronger people ("The bishop knows best!") ("Believe the Prophet!")

4) By glorifying martyrdom, they encourage both sadism & masochism

5) They focus more on silly rules than on spreading goodness or kindness

6) Overall, their main push is towards continuing their own power structure.

All of which leads to the kind of argument that Mr. Otterson makes in his piece: "I won't read people I don't agree with, but because I have submitted to a Personal Savior, and because in my church I've met nice people, and because we all feel really nice & better after praying, anybody who doesn't agree with us or who criticizes our faith is wrong, misguided, and bizarre."

Long live the questioning minority like Mr. Hitchens.

A police officer had to decide whether to break the law by opening the door to the shopping mall or allow hundreds of people to die outside the mall. This was the decision he had to make after Katrina hit New Orleans. Many rich residents had left, leaving the poor, poorest of the poor and the weak behind.

Well, this police officer did the most human thing; he opened the door. So did other police officers in other malls. Yes, they broke the law. Under those circumstances, the police officers did not feel that the government cared about the lives of the people. By making a moral decision, the police officers put themselves into deep trouble for knowing the law and violating the law.

This is the kind of decision that we have to make in our day to day decision.

Our President is a Christian and by his action, he has shown total disregard for humanity. Of course, anyone who is offended by him would condemn his action and his Christian belief. Anyone, I mean, Christians, atheist and people of other religious belief.

Our President lies to our people, Congress and Senate and he continues to lie and continues to accuse other countries of wrong doing. Atheist like Hitchen would seize the opportunity and attack the Christians in general.

Is he wrong about Christian? No, he is very right. Our President has the support of Christians in America to torture and kill innocent civilians in Iraq.

There are about 2 billion Christians around the world, but the action of a powerful American President can bring down all the good Christians all over the world. This is sad but it is true. G W Bush professes to be a Christian but he is not a practicing Christian. He is incapable to love and forgive. He gives Christain a BAD NAME.

Be quiet, son, I'm trying to make a point.

I'm right.

You are all wrong.

What does the Angel Moroni and the conveniently lost Golden Tablets and the largely plagiarized confections of the fakery-bent, bush-league confidence man Joseph Smith, now the basis of the burgeoning Mormon Church, have to do with Jesus?

Think of all the bad things (killings, rapes, looting) done in the name of god from the Crusades to Spanish Inquisition, and what is happening now between the Shias and Sunnis in Iraq). If there is a god he must be asleep. His presence certainly was not evident during the Holocaust when six million plus men, women and children were tortured and killed by god fearing Nazis.

And for those who believe: Is it fear or love of god that make you faithful. If it is love, what do you do for your fellow human beings -- the sick, the poor, the homeless -- apart from praying ?

"Unreasonable and even bizarre" may or may not apply to Luke's tale of how 5,000 were fed with five loaves and two fishes, with enough left over to fill 12 baskets.

"No world wars, no Holocaust, no ethnic cleansing, no religious wars,........."

Exactly Richard! Exactly what I meant.

It's all too easy to select the more comfortable (and comforting) sayings when you want to sound tolerant and reasonable. But there is much in the bible (and in other 'holy books') that is neither, as Hitchens and others have shown. The history of the Mormon church includes its own episodes of violence and intolerance, as do most, if not all religions. The argument here from personal experience is a long way from convincing-- confirmation bias is a well-known effect, and religion often contributes to moral smugness and self-satisfaction in believers. 'By their fruits shall ye know them' is good advice-- but narrow and self-serving doctrinal shibboleths are often more important in religious moral thought. Consider the imbalance between moral panic amongst many religious groups over the private sexual behaviour of others, and the same groups' broad acceptance of war, widespread poverty and lack of access to medical care in the United States.

Hitchens may be a bit of an intellectual bully but his arguments are not in the least "unreasonable". Indeed, the very reason that Hitchens "zealotry" is not "...its own kind of religion" is because it is based on observation and reason. I suspect that Hitchens, like myself, decided that god didn't exist because of simple observation. Ever seen an angel? Nope. Demon? No again. What about a pillar of fire? Smoke? Alas, no.

While it is implausible that Hitler or Stalin were the result of religion (or its absence) it is not unreasonable to point out that when you encourage people to discard reason you are making them vulnerable to manipulation. Why else would a catholic parent ever leave their chid alone with a single man who claims to never have sex?

Unfortunately, religion cannot survive with reason. Even the very "word of god" requires one to suspend reason as anyone whose read Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" can tell you. How can a Christian tease the "real" words of christ from all the additions and subtractions that have been made throughout the years?

And if christian, Jews and Muslims are offended by men like Dawkins and Hitchens speaking their minds perhaps they should stop and think about how it feels for an atheist to have a dangerous myth shoved down their throats each and every day.

Otterson says, "He or she, if they are living their religion, tend toward generosity of spirit, kindness, compassion......" Unless of course, it is toward gays. Those they shock the hell out of until they say they have turned straight.

It's interesting that Mr. Otterson quotes the Gospels of Matthew, "‘By their fruits ye shall know them'" (Matt 7:20) AND Po Pot in the same breath.

He seems to forget that the West refused to support Vietnam in its campaigns against Po Pot's horrific human rights abuses, and as the saying goes, all it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing.

Likewise, he ignores modern day religious abuses as the ongoing sexual abuse practices of the Catholic, Mormon, and Seventh Day Adventist churches, not to mention the abuses of the Saudi state against women while being fully supported by the U.S.

'By their fruits ye shall know them' indeed.

Mr. Otterson may well be a better person with, as he says, "the gospel of Jesus Christ in [his] life." But as John Stuart Mill first pointed out, the practices of virtually all "Christian" churches reflect the beliefs of the dominant group in their society, rather than the teachings of the literary (and perhaps actual) "Jesus of Nazareth" as he's depicted in the gospels of Matthew Mark, Luke and John.

Hence our horrific new "prosperity gospel"--and it's highly amusing to imagine what "Jesus of Nazereth" would have said (or done) about that!

Indeed few churches better exemplify Mills' insight than Mr. Otterson's own Mormon church, with its prophetic "revelations" that always seem to make the church more attractive to our constantly evolving American society.

Mr. Otterson may well be a better person with, as he says, "the gospel of Jesus Christ in [his] life." But as John Stuart Mill first pointed out, the practices of virtually all "Christian" churches reflect the beliefs of the dominant group in their society, rather than the teachings of the literary (and perhaps actual) "Jesus of Nazareth" as he's depicted in the gospels of Matthew Mark, Luke and John.

Hence our horrific new "prosperity gospel"--and it's highly amusing to imagine what "Jesus of Nazereth" would have said (or done) about that!

Indeed few churches better exemplify Mills' insight than Mr. Otterson's own Mormon church, with its prophetic "revelations" that always seem to make the church more attractive to our constantly evolving American society.

I'm also not sure of what "hope" is being spoken of that is supposedly stripped by atheists.

Hope for reward in the next life? Hope that God is there and will keep me from being harmed or going broke or what? Hope that God will not allow me to get cancer? Hope that if I'm good enough, my husband will give his permission for me to attend the temple? Hope that my paying 10% of my gross earnings to the church will keep my washer from breaking down? Hope that my faults will be overlooked and that I'll be able to avoid hell in the next life?

Without overlapping what some of the other intelligent atheists have posted here, I'd just like to say the closed-mindedness that Otterson displays here by attempting to lump all atheists together with the same outlandish claims is purely disgusting and a complete disgrace not only to what Otterson represents but to intellectual debate as a whole.

To David:

"Nice job Mr. Otterson. If there is anything we can agree on apart from our theology, it is the fact that we agree that atheism is extremely illogical and strips meaning and hope from the lives of those who are created in the image of God."

Atheism is extremely illogical but believing that humans have found the source of the universe in a mere 2000 years is a rational thought?

Atheism strips meaning and hope from the lives of those who are created in the image of god?

Christianity has laid the framework for my entire life as an atheist in America. I cannot drive down the road, listen to a presidential speech, watch the news or go shopping without having someone elses religion invading my thoughts. Furthermore, I cannot sit in my living room without one of Otterson's mormon foot soldiers knocking on my door or calling my home phone to ask me if I'd like to discuss the mormon faith or receive a book of mormon. If you want to talk about having meaning stripped from your life, imagine having your beliefs assaulted on every front for a few decades of your life.

You are sitting in the largest political and social group in the United States (christianity) and are claiming to have your life stripped of meaning by the beliefs of a quiet minority? You must have a pretty weak frame of mind.

This is believe -- but cannot prove.

I believe that humans are creatures that seek truth and knowledge. I believe this an inherent drive, related to the drive of "curiosity" with the biological benefit being knowledge of the world which can make the events of the world predictable, which in turn leads to fruitful behaviors and survival value.

The drive for truth and knowledge has one effect most of us can recognize. When we feel we have achieved a bit of knowledge we feel good. When we achieve a big chunk of knowledge we feel great, or ecstatic. I think this ecstasy is identical for scientist who think they have discovered a piece of truth and for religious seekers, who also believe they have achieved a bit of truth. I believe that this ecstasy is a process built into our brains, part of our reward system. Scientists will say that it is why they do science. That's good. Religious seekers say that moments of ecstasy are a proof that what they have seen is a true. This is bad.

There is not much data to support my theory, but there is some. We know of the brain's reward systems. There are people with different sorts of brain damage or neurological disorders who have disturbances in their ecstasy systems. So this is a hunch. But its a concrete hunch and its potentially testable.

Why is this potentially important? I think its a wonderful happenstance that humankind has truth-seeking built into our brains. It is part of the engine that has driven mankind's achievements and adds meaning to each of our lives. The truth-seeking engine unites science and religion. It dampens our trust in the ecstasy test, but at the same time recognizes that science data cannot provide all answers because science data is so primitive. The truth-seeking engine is, in part, responsible for the our achievements in understanding and mastering our world. This engine lets us form wonderful hypotheses, even if we can't currently test them. The "truth-seeking system" in the brain is my current favorite hypothesis.

To say that the crusades and other horrors enacted by Christians are an anomaly, is to slander both history and religion. It is precisely because religion seems unable to resist the temptation of attempting to control the political sphere that it at fault. And the results of that attempt at control have been some of the most horrific events in human history.

Were religion to remain a personal affair, then it would be a force for good.

Riddle me this:

1) If you dropped a child in the middle of an abandoned island with plenty of food and water, would they develop Christianity?

2) You say that millions of Chrisitians are better people because they believe Chrisitianity is the true path. What about millions of Jews, Muslims, Buddhist, and Hindus that think differently? So long as God allows other religions to exist, how can ANY claim to be the truth?

3) Mormons shouldn't throw illogical stones. Belief in Mormonism requires a flight through the fantasies of golden tables, lost tribes of Israel, and civilizations in America who defy all archaelogical attempts to find them.

"millions of Christians who practice their religion know from personal daily experience that they are better people because of it"

No they don't KNOW it. They just choose to beLIEve that.

They can't compare how they are with how they would be. They can only imagine, speculate, conjecture as to how they would be.

There is a difference between knowing and believing. Between reasoning and accepting on faith.

All faith is bad faith because all faith requires the suspension of critical examination and so of the conscience. Faith prevents people from reasoning towards understanding. Faith presumes knowledge where their isn't knowledge just prejudice.

Three faith-based decision makers, Bush, Blair and Howard set aside their obligations to the rest of humanity under the United Nations Charter and enabled the first and most foolish of them to launch a pre-emptive war that turned out to be a aggressive war.

Modern Christians have never met the historical Jesus, or rather the Jesus of the Bible, so when they imagine a relationship that is all that they are doing, imagining.

The Jesus of the Bible can be considered as a character and the wisdom of following his advice to turn the other cheek when the first cheek is struck, and to offer more clothes when some clothes are stolen can be evaluated against the effectiveness of game theory. Those actions of compliance with defaulters increase the likelihood of further default.

In my opinion, the secular world that Christians happen to live in and share with others including the non-religious is a worse one than it would be if those Christians could take more responsibility for what they do and don't do in it.

Christians may imagine that they are better off being believers and having faith but those of us who are left sharing the fallout when Christians in large numbers abrogate their responsibilities to connect their own actions and inactions with the logical consequences that follow are not better off.

To Anonymous:

"To even equate humans on a moral basis as animals is quite ridiculous"

Well, indeed, in by far most of the case the animal is superior, no doubt about it.

No world wars, no Holocaust, no ethnic cleansing, no religious wars,.........

Come on, give up your foolish pride. Only few genes different.

Father O'Marlowe ~

You wrote, "The highest virtue is accorded those who believe in the least likely,and the most seemingly irrational."

I'm afraid this really seems pompous. The highest virtue is accorded to believers in God by whom?? I don't and cannot equate virtue with belief in a god. Sorry.

ANONYMOUS, We are animals. We fall into the Order of Primates, Genus of Homo and species Homo sapiens. If i recall correctly we fall into a Class of about 5500 mammals. You and I agree that eating our own children is not a good rule for humans but it does work for some species. It has probably put the Tiger a little closer to extinction so maybe it isn't a good rule for them either. On the other hand drastically reducing the human population would improve our chances of survival as a species. Perhaps after we homo sapiens get rid of the mumbo jumbo and the world unites they will reduce the population.

Religiousity has very little to do with the teachings of the Christ. How clear we make it. Therefor, to excuse religion of its faults on the basis of Christ's teachings makes no sense at all.

"“Morality existed long before Christianity and is inherent in the animal species. It is primal. Certain animals protect each other and help each other to survive but do not have the cognitive ability to think of such a simplistic concept as god but still show traits of morality in their existence.“

Certain animals will eat their own too. Should we eat our kids based on the logic that animals have morals? And how do you know that animals don't think about God? How do you know what they think? Isn't that speculative?

To even equate humans on a moral basis as animals is quite ridiculous. If that were the case then I as a human should be able to eat my kids and be morally ok, right? Or is it ok that I fight you for the right to mate with your girlfriend? Some animals do that. So how 'bout it? Whoever has got the best left hook has the right to take a woman and mate with her? Sounds good to me?....Is that morally ok?

ROAR!

Religiousity has very little to do with the teachings of the Christ. How clear we make it. Therefor, to excuse religion of its faults on the basis of Christ's teachings makes no sense at all.

"THE QUESTION : Best-selling atheist Christopher Hitchens wrote: "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." Why is he right or wrong?"

MR. OTTERSON'S ANSWER: "I have not read a lot of Hitchens. I have read more of Sam Harris, but". . . . . blah, blah, blah.

COMMENT: Mr. Otterson, don't you think that if you are given the opportunity to write a short response-type article in a mass-circulation newspaper such as the Post that you should at least do your homework and read the book that you are asked to comment on.

The Harris & Hitchens books are very different. To conflate them is to do us all a disservice as is the presentation of yourself as qualified to review a book that you haven't read.

Nelson

OK DUDE SO TELL ME HOW MANY WIFES DID THE FOUNDERS OF THE MORMON CHURCH (SMITH AND YOUNG) HAVE BETWEEN THE TWO OF THEM??
WELL DUDE THEY HAD APPROX. 150 WIVES TO SHARE!
NOW DUDE TELL ME WHY IS THE CHURCH NOW SO MUCH AGAINST SAME-SEX MARRIAGE WHEN JUST TWO LOVING MEN/WOMEN ARE INVOLVED??
NO DUDE IT DOESNT MAKE SENSE BUT IT JUST SHOWS THAT RELIGION POISONS EVERYTHING IT TOUCHES!

Father O'Marlowe:

Yes Hitchins is foolish if he thinks a little logic will stand bteween me and my God.
The reason my faith is so secure is that I know it is on another level from logic and reason and overrated rationalism.
There's more to life than making sense. Sense is for the weak and unsteady.
The highest virtue is accorded those who believe in the least likely,and the most seemingly irrational.
Any fool can believe in logic and earthly common sense.
It takes a man of true Faith to believe in the apparently ridiculous.
The Lord understands because he is The Lord.

Even scientists have to agree on the principles of how they ought to treat one another. And those principles are not found in any scientific experiment. Otherwise there would have been no theologians or lawyers. All the earliest historical societies that we know have institutionally proclaimed religious based origins, whether that is how they really began or not. Atheists and their theistic opponents confuse the establishment of the ethical rules organizing human behavior in society with the way it seeks to preserve itself. In knowledge, act; in doubt, pray.

Mr. Otterson's comments are arid and unfortunate.

His eagerness to defend the institutions of religion -- without first recognizing their sad history -- makes him part of the problem rather than the solution.

To deny the responsibility of Christianity and Christian churches for un-Christian actions such as the Crusades, the aiding and abetting of Hitler's holocaust, pederast priests, the defense of chattel slavery in America, and the defense of racial oppression in America, is to choose to be an ostrich; all we see is an uncomely ass, which is not the awe-inspiring visage we look for in our leaders.

There have been too few Bonhoffers and too many Falwells & Robertsons; too few men and women with Christian hearts and courage, too many hucksters with glib tongues and quick hands.

The first imperative of all institutions is to survive and the first instinct when caught in an embarassing situation is to deny, deny, deny.

Mr. Ottersons biblical quote is ironic - ‘By their fruits ye shall know them.” We know them. We are saddened by their tawdriness. We expect better.

Nelson

Mr. Otterson's comments are arid and unfortunate.

His eagerness to defend the institutions of religion -- without first recognizing their sad history -- makes him part of the problem rather than the solution.

To deny the responsibility of Christianity and Christian churches for un-Christian actions such as the Crusades, the aiding and abetting of Hitler's holocaust, pederast priests, the defense of chattel slavery in America, and the defense of racial oppression in America, is to choose to be an ostrich; all we see is an uncomely ass, which is not the awe-inspiring visage we look for in our leaders.

There have been too few Bonhoffers and too many Falwells & Robertsons; too few men and women with Christian hearts and courage, too many hucksters with glib tongues and quick hands.

The first imperative of all institutions is to survive and the first instinct when caught in an embarassing situation is to deny, deny, deny.

Mr. Ottersons biblical quote is ironic - ‘By their fruits ye shall know them.” We know them. We are saddened by their tawdriness. We expect better.

Nelson

Cane Goldsworthy makes a comment @0937 on the 26th - “Morality existed long before Christianity and is inherent in the animal species. It is primal. Certain animals protect each other and help each other to survive but do not have the cognitive ability to think of such a simplistic concept as god but still show traits of morality in their existence.“ I totally agree with Cane. One of the reasons an animal species survives is that animal species has a functioning code. Whether you call it a code of conduct or morality, they are really the same thing and if man didn't have a workable code he would have been gone before the Neanderthal. Saying “I'm a better person because I practice religion.” doesn't justify living a lie. Maybe Robert Hanssen (FBI spy) could have said “I'm a better person because I'm Opus Dei.” Now that Robert is in solitary confinement for the rest of his life he has to be a better person, but in the mean time I'm less of a better person because every time I pay on my back taxes I'm paying part of the $48,000 a year his wife is collecting because her husband is in prison (she knew he was spying). It would be my guess that the money he got from the Russians for spying went to Opus Dei. The men that died because of him are still dead. Speaking of dead, I often wonder who wrote the rule that if god has a son and he lets people torture him and finally nail him to a cross that this action would save people from their sins? What weirdo would right a rule like that? I can not comprehend the logic behind it. Getting back to the subject and real questions to me are, Is the Bible myth or history? Is the Bible responsible for the loss of over 200,000 lives since 911? Is there a religious war/s being fought in the middle east? How many people must die because of land Israel stole? Sorry for the rambling. I hope it was entertaining to my fellow atheists. I know better to think that there might be something in here the would be thought provoking for you Christians/Mormons.

In fact you cannot speak for anyone but your self, as your view and relationship with religion is yours and yours alone. Hitchens view is his, stereotypical views are too often correct in only the broadest sense. Your argument is no more, valid than his. I was raised Christian but I no longer accept the label, I have faith in God, little or none in man, and those who I’ve personally seen wield religion as a sword, as do so many these days while ignoring the underlying teachings are not my co religionists, but are what I fear has hijacked, so much of Christian faith.

Mr. Otterson;

I totally agree with you on the point,Violnce commited in the name of Christianity was against the teachings of Christ. But Christians belive in the old testament also. Jewish bible is full of violence, and even the prophets like Abraham and Moses were violent. So Christians may be folling the prophets of old testament when they commit to killing.

I am a Hindu and I am not required to believe in any thing. I believe all religions are inmvented by man including the concept of God. But I do believe religion is not bad in itself. Religion comes to help in times of crisis in peoples lives.

Sir,

I object to the notion that "generosity of spirit, kindness, compassion, integrity, service and self-sacrifice as well as self-improvement" are relegated only to those who are religious.

So let's get to it. Aside from who is the best kind of person, religious or not-religious, let's look at a particular religious practice.

No matter how hard I prayed, no matter how I beseeched God to help, no matter how hard I tried to be a good Christian, the fact is: it doesn't work. Sometimes my prayers were "answered" and sometimes they weren't.

Religion's answers: wasn't praying hard enough. Yeah, right.

Wasn't praying the "right" prayers. Yeah, right.

Wasn't "meant to be." Yeah, right.

As far as I could tell, prayer "worked" about half of the time. And that's no better or worse than pure chance.

The truth is that one can be a really good person, and be happy, and be of good moral character, and do good things for others, and save lives, and rescue people and animals, and never pray or go to any religious service or follow any religious belief, and be all the things Jesus said we should be -- and NOT be a Christian. Or a Jew, Muslim, Hindu, etc.

If you need some religious belief in your life in order to be a good person, more power to you but, well, what does that say about you? That you wouldn't be a good person without your religious beliefs? Come on.

I'm a much happier, more successful, and better person since I cast aside all the religious rules and mumbo-jumbo I tried to live by. Freedom from doubt and guilt is a pretty wonderful thing.

One last thing: please explain to the child of poverty and disease, who has done nothing to deserve such a terrible life, why it is that "God" didn't answer his/her prayers and bring food today, or shelter today, or relief from violence today. It's because "God" has nothing to do with it. It's all about people and their behavior, and no amount of preaching or church attendance, etc., is going to change truly evil people into truly good people.

I don't pretend to understand all the concepts taught by this religion that calls itself "Christianity". I am a strong believer in Jesus Christ through his words recorded in the Bible, but from what I've seen and experienced by many of these christians is hate, elitism, greed and intolerance and these qualities do not go hand in hand with the teachings of Jesus. I especially don't understand how one can lay claim to Jesus Christ if he or she practices that we should exclude those of other faiths and beliefs and demonize them.

Pushing aside Dawkins' and Harris's point about Christian violence throughout history by claiming "but these were departures from Jesus's teachings!" is disingenuous. Men like Columbus and the Conquistadores WERE devout, true Catholics; in terms of following the religion and orthodoxy of their time, most of them were probably more devout than modern Catholics.

Huzzah! The NRA defense! Guns don't kill people, people kill people!

Those who criticise religion on the basis of its moral failings are exactly wrong. Religion is one of the only institutions in most societies that calls people to something greater than themselves. The wrongs of men are not a product of the teachings of Christianity and other religions but in spite of them. No, the real problem with religion is that there is no evidence for a higher power. We scour the universe with all sorts of instruments, not one of which has found God. Organized religion in our world is a form of uplifting and beneficial witchcraft. Thank God for it, but in the end it is nonsense.

He claims that Jesus' teachings should be equated with "religion". That's just teaching, religion is the organized practice of people who claim to follow leaders. The history of religion is replete with the violence and intolerance he rationalizes away.

People who look askance at religion don't "drop the whole weight of human depravity at the door of religious faith", rather we say it's time for religion to admit that. For instance, Osterman's own church still denies a few massacres it performed.

Instead, he uses the old standby of blaming others for thinking as he does. He tries to claim that none of the violence should be blamed on religion, just on a few "aberrant" people, rather than the heads of the churches.

As for atheism, both he and the people he complains about miss the important point: Atheism is just as much a religion as theism. Both claim to know the unknowable, and demand others agree. That's why both are responsible for tragedies and why you've never seen an agnostic killing for our non-beliefs.

When people commit offenses against others, they may apologize as they should for the offense. But institutions like the Mormon Church have a tough time, it seems, apologizing for centuries of religiously ordained racial discrimination against people of African ancestry and appearance.Even the Southern Baptists and the Catholic Church have apologized for slavery and racism in their denominations. But all the Mormon Church has stated on the change in their rules of membership is that their Prophet in the 1960s had a "revelation" that the Church ought no longer to bar African Americans on racial grounds from full membership into their all-white ministry. I was offended then, and I am still offended by Mormon racial history and Mormon silence on it.
But that concern aside, Otterson fails to consider that atheists and theists argue about two separate realities when they posit their views in conflict. Having faith to agree on a statement of principles to organize into a social group, with its hierarchy, has nothing to do with agreeing about a predictable, verifiable, and reproducible perception of how nature works. Atheists who argue that religions are in conflict with reality fail to see the difference. The reason is simple. Atheists are right about the nature of the universe, but they are wrong about human nature. And theists are right about the innate need for people to agree on faith to organize themselves into society, but they are wrong about the scientific basis of the principles of agreement. Nothing that religions expound about the supernatural can be scientifically tested, reproduced and subject to prediction, thus increasing scientific knowledge through further research. But nothing that science understands has anything to do with the social impulse of people to submit to the injunctions of an appeal based on mere faith. There is no conflict between the two forms of human activity. Otherwise, no scientist could belong to any religion, or any religious person could not seek treatment for ailments from either medical doctors or pharmaceuticals.

When people commit offenses against others, they may apologize as they should for the offense. But institutions like the Mormon Church have a tough time, it seems, apologizing for centuries of religiously ordained racial discrimination against people of African ancestry and appearance.Even the Southern Baptists and the Catholic Church have apologized for slavery and racism in their denominations. But all the Mormon Church as stated on the change in their rules of membership is that their Prophet in the 1960s had a "revelation" that the Church ought no longer to bar African Americans on racial grounds from full membership into their all-white ministry. I was offended then, and I am still offended by Mormon racial history and Mormon silence on it.
But that concern aside, Otterson fails to consider that atheists and theists argue about two separate realities when they posit their views in conflict. Having faith to agree on a statement of principles to organize into a social group, with its hierarchy, has nothing to do with agreeing about a predictable, verifiable, and reproducible perception of how nature works. Atheists who argue that religions are in conflict with reality fail to see the difference. The reason is simple. Atheists are right about the nature of the universe, but they are wrong about human nature. And theists are right about the innate need for people to agree on faith to organize themselves into society, but they are wrong about the scientific basis of the principles of agreement. Nothing that religions expound about the supernatural can be scientifically tested, reproduced and subject to prediction, thus increasing scientific knowledge through further research. But nothing that science understands has anything to do with the social impulse of people to submit to the injunctions of an appeal based on mere faith. There is no conflict between the two forms of human activity. Otherwise, no scientist could belong to any religion, or any religious person could not seek treatment for ailments from either medical doctors or pharmaceuticals.

Chris

I understood what you said, and said again, and you are dead wrong.

Moral reasoning IS innate according to our best knowledge. Loads of research shows that. Hauser and Singer illustrate EXActly that point.

Google "marc hauser peter singer" and you will get an article reference in the first 10 items that addresses exactly your point.

You are living a lie. There's not much more to say. Your god is a fantasy. If you cared at all about truth you would stop brainwashing people.

Henry James: not what I said. My point is that moral reasoning is difficult, does not come naturally, and many are no more capable of it than a dog is capable of reading. Religion serves as a (wholly inadequate and destructive) substitute.

I don't need fear of the Great Spirit to keep me from enjoying sadism; I have too keen a sense of reciprocity and empathy. But many don't.

An atheist is someone who has a sense of personal authenticity strong enough to resist some of the most powerful social pressures there are; iot is UNREMARKABLE that such people would be far better at moral reasoning than those who beleive out of fear and doubt. Of course atheists have morals. Look who backed the Emancipation and suffrage movements!

Chris you Fox:

who am i gonna believe, You or my own eyes?

There is loads of data that shows that atheists as a group are just as moral as God believers.

Marc Hauser of Harvard's Moral Minds, Peter Singer's research, Hauser/Singer together, the Science of Good and Evil by Shermer are just four of the thousands of studies that are verifying this fact, and are increasingly leading scientists such as Hauser to believe that Morality is evolutionarily ingrained in us in the same way that the ability to learn languages is hard wired.

So take a new look at the research.

Is Hitchens or the Mormon Church
Polemical, Unreasonable, and Bizarre?

Polemical: "A controversial Argument", such as
"The Mormon Church is the only true church, and the Catholics who say they are don't no what they are talking about."

Unreasonable: Mormons believe God lives on a planet called Kolob, that we will be united with our family and spouse and live with them together, that Joseph "translated" an ordinary Egyptian funeral document, that Angels and God and Jesus appeared to him, that........

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. Not.

Bizarre: See "unreasonable" right above.

Otterson says *Hitchens* is unreasonable for noting that religious beliefs are by and large "unreasonable."

Orwell said the first tactic of totalitarian systems was saying things were the opposite of what they are.

Henry James: sorry to disagree but moral reasoning is not built-in to human beings. Moral reasoning lies at the edge of our powers and most people are never really capable of it. I refer you to the depressing findings of the clinicial Lawrence Kohlberg, whose studies show that large numbers of adults are stuck in simplistic "RULES are RULES!" reasoning.

This is why I never rail too shrilly against religion: the cops can't be everywhere at once. I tryly believe that without the "with till your father gets home" of God-fear that a lot of people would kill their neighbors for a slightly larger TV set. There really is something to this "no morality without God" stuff, but not in the sense that the faithful believe.

the whole concept of religion makes no sense, and the notion of an invisible, all-powerful god as the basis for moral values is offensive to all sentient beings.

I do not need the fear of never-ending punishment to know that stealing, lying, and murder are wrong. One only has to be the victim of a crime, the subject of an untrue rumor, and to experience the loss of a grandparent to know that this causes pain to the people affected. Psychologically healthy people do not deliberately cause pain to others.

What the author says is true. It is however not anomalous, but inevitable. Give people a philosophy of love and a few will respond to the core message while the majority and remainder will respond more to the opportunity for groupthink.

Where I think Hitchens errs is blaming religion's buses on religion; I blame them on the groupthink encouraged -- demanded -- of the faithful. Groupthink always leads to harm.

A week ago I was moved to tears by the news of a group of Christian fathers at the beach with their children, spontaneously kneeling around the burned boy Youssif and his father to pray for them. It was that same Christianity that had these men at the beach with their kids, a great thing, and caring for a little boy of another country and religion, a great thing indeed.

Religion is not all bad. But if we had to weigh its good and bad over time, groupthink or das Ding on sich, I'm afraid I would have to turn the thumb down.

If religion is of merit, it is because it appeals to what is already present in human nature.

So, for example, the Judeo-Christian notion of "do unto others as you would have done unto yourself" makes sense and is useful NOT because it is written in scripture, but because it makes sense.

So, if one believes in and is committed to what makes sense, there are no differences between atheists and theists.

If, on the other hand, one believes that scripture is accurate regardless of what does or even could make sense, then one has taken scripture to the level that Hitchens describes: dogma, false authority, renunciation of personal responsibility.

I was amazed that in his speech at Yale, Ahmenijidad spoke of "illumination" as the authoritative "science" whereas the science that is derived from reconciling contradictions from observations is a secondary and prospectively fallacious one.

There is religion that is oriented to changing persons, to appealing to the best in people. There is also religion that is oriented instead to rigid social order, inflexible even in changing conditions, that rejects the importance of conscience in favor of obedience.

And, those religious expressions, usually end up harming others (in violation of the best of scripture) either in expression of the more trivial and misunderstood scriptural authority, or in defense of the scriptural authority.

Better that we just get on with the mission of appealing to the most reasonable and most compassionate.

If religion is of merit, it is because it appeals to what is already present in human nature.

So, for example, the Judeo-Christian notion of "do unto others as you would have done unto yourself" makes sense and is useful NOT because it is written in scripture, but because it makes sense.

So, if one believes in and is committed to what makes sense, there are no differences between atheists and theists.

If, on the other hand, one believes that scripture is accurate regardless of what does or even could make sense, then one has taken scripture to the level that Hitchens describes: dogma, false authority, renunciation of personal responsibility.

I was amazed that in his speech at Yale, Ahmenijidad spoke of "illumination" as the authoritative "science" whereas the science that is derived from reconciling contradictions from observations is a secondary and prospectively fallacious one.

There is religion that is oriented to changing persons, to appealing to the best in people. There is also religion that is oriented instead to rigid social order, inflexible even in changing conditions, that rejects the importance of conscience in favor of obedience.

And, those religious expressions, usually end up harming others (in violation of the best of scripture) either in expression of the more trivial and misunderstood scriptural authority, or in defense of the scriptural authority.

Better that we just get on with the mission of appealing to the most reasonable and most compassionate.

The Jewish "faith" has no Heaven, no Hell, no Souls, no SIN, no Reincarnation, no Resurrection, no Virgin births....
Jesus was a Jew, so was Paul, Peter, Mary, and the rest! Who added all of this craziness???

Why would anyone celebrate the torture and murder of their GOD when their GOD lived, worked, and moved amoung them? What a perversion it is, to invent a condition of man, to justify this brutal event! What sort of people believe that eating the flesh of their God and drinking the blood of their God would be benficial? This is a Canabilistic practice with no redeeming merit, another perversion!

What kind of people overlook immoral behaviors, immoral wars, insane acts of political neccessity, cruel and inhuman treatment of anyone, murder in the name of a God??

They apparently call them religious people!

VIsitor and NellieH

Your two posts were wonderful and wise and compassionate.

Yes, religion does both good and bad.

At the very least we should identify the bad and try to minimize it. There is little doubt that believing one's own faith is the Only True Faith has overwhelmingly led to bad effects, besides its being manifestly irrational (ALL the faiths that claim to be the only one CaN"t be the Only One).

So instead of defending our religious turf, let's educate everyone that there are thousands of traditions in which people are overwhelmingly moral, including atheism and secular humanism, and humanely seek after truth, justice, and beauty (I watched too much Superman when i was a kid in the 1850s).

Henry James,
I know that you are so right. Thank you for your gentle tone here, in the midst of so much debate.

I suppose some of the recent posts are implying that Brother Otterson should write a book on the subject rather than a short comment so that he could explain his position in more detail and substance, and I for one wish that he would because I learn so much from his perspective. (Also from yours--many thanks.)

Blitz,
Well put, and well thought out. I personally feel that this life is a multi-test environment, incredibly designed to be so. A rational approach is a valid, healthy, and safe position to take. When you look much deeper, there are also reasons to not rely solely on what we observe consciously, to find a new realm of testing that is much more complicated but still can make sense to a rational being when considering the stakes involved. Much peace to you.

Whenever people turn off their brains and uncritically accept dogma, anything can be justified and the world is in trouble. Doesn't matter if the dogma is religious or political. Many religious leaders seem to promote blind acceptance of their interpretation of dogma and discourage critical thinking.

Otterson ought to read the Bible, if he expects to make a point about "Jesus' teachings":

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)

I'm so sick of Zionochristian jihadism!

I've been reading these selections for a few days now and am beginning to recognize some of the characters involved as well as some of the arguments being made. It is nice to read a few positive assertions rather than simple attacks and counter-attacks.

I believe the impulse toward spirituality is innately human. How could this human journey we all share inspire anything but wonder? Unfortunately, conventional religion all too often plays on that human need to find a place in the midst of this wondrous world, by offering simplistic explanations in exchange for fealty and a few hard earned shekels. Doubtless, wonder often becomes mixed with fear. The certainties offered by most religions may assuage the fear, but as has been observed often in these discussions, the bargain is a bad one when it induces people to give up reason and to practice divisiveness. Religions are very adept at driving wedges between what is considered acceptable and what is deemed evil. They may argue for "hating the sin and loving the sinner" but more often they hate both, often with dire consequences. (Matthew Shepherd comes to mind...)

I appreciate Henry's observations about Buddhism. I've found Buddhism to be a welcome refuge from the Christianity of my early and middle years. Practicing loving kindness in every encounter strikes me as eminently preferable to staking my claim to heaven by genuflecting at an altar and being a good little boy acceptable to a heavenly "father." I've no doubt there are practicing Christians for whom compassion and service are important, but unfortunately, the bureaucracies of the myriad Christian churches with their internecine conflicts over doctrine and faith, leave me cold. And has been observed, it is invariably the organized church that leads its followers into bigotry and the many acts of cruelty that mark human history.

I've always been moved by the Buddhist Metta prayer, "May all beings me peaceful, may all beings be happy." So long as my religion is right and yours is wrong, we are doomed to a life of suffering. That is a lesson Christians with their evangelizing spirit have had great difficulty learning. Sadly, their attitude is much like that of our President, a born-again Christian who says "Its my way or the highway." Methinks that is at the heart of the problem we're facing at the moment in our relations with the rest of the world.

Chris Hitchens and other militant hustlers of opinion do not speak for most atheists and they certainly don't speak for me. The fact is that humanity itself is violent and uncompromising by nature, and that until only recently, religion and most quazi-religious philosophies and most governments reflected this shouldn't surprise anyone. Few pundits seem to appreciate what a momentous acheivement it is that we've come so far in overcoming our nature. Most of us don't rape children or hate anyone who isn't from our extended family, nor die before we reach the age of nineteen. Most of our ancestors did. Religion had a role in that, but philosophies always take credit for the acheivements of politics, local customs, individual endeavor or other, more diffuse factors in human progress.

Would it be logical or fair to condemn all science because science has been misused and continues to be misused? Some modern-day luddites actual make this argument. Without science, they contend, there could be no Holocaust, no Chernobyl, no totalitariam states, no global warming, and so on.

Most reasonable people would recognize such an argument as so over-simplified as to be silly.

But Hitchens, Dawkins, and the rest make the same logical fallacy. They condemn religion because it has been misused in the past and will undoubtedly be misused in the future. But this argument fails to address the good that has been done by religion. The abolition of slavery and the civil rights movements, to give just two examples, had very large religious components. You may feel superior to Frederick Douglas and Martin Luther King, but leave open the possibility they may have had insights about the human condition you have not had yet.

Dear Michael,
I am 74 years old and have distanced myself from tne Protestant religion going on 60 years. I have been married 50 years this April to the same woman, have two educated daughters, 4 lovely and handsome grandchildren, served my country 4 years in the U.S.Navy and spent almost 60 years in the workforce. I am an athiest and I think I am a better person because of it. I don't try to 'pray' ny way out of problems and wait for a 'spirit to give me a solution. I asddress problems head on and attempt what 'I' believe to be the best solution. I would rather alighn myself with Jefferson, Franklin ant the SECULAR Constitution than Dobson Perkins, Robertson, Falwell, Bakker, Jones, Koresh, And the likes of Haggard and Swaggert. These people want to take over my morals direct my life. Not on your life!
Robert N. Horey
Amherst, Oh.
P.S. My life and marriage hasn't been like 'Father Knows Best' but we made it and are continuing to do so. My wife and one daughter are practicing Catholics and NEVER hear a discouraging word from me. I just wish "born agains' could keep the BS to themselves.

What a string of smart posts by
Yockel, Tom, Robert Stern, JKubie

Reasoned, unvitriolic,very impressive.

My Alternative Religion is
Education Education Education
with a secular humanist buddhist emphasis on
respect and loving kindness towards all other humans.

It is pretty well established these days that we don't need religion to enforce morality. Countries where 10% of the people believe in God and go to church are as moral, or more so, than those like the US where 90% of people believe in God.

Good education in world religions induces tolerance and understanding, and makes it very hard to believe that one's fundamentalist religion is the Only True Religion.

It also makes one feel much more like a citizen of the world rather than a citizen of the US or the Christian Nation. And that is a sure deterrent to tribal warfare.

And the countries with the highest educational level measure highest on positive social indicators like low homicide and rape and abortion rates, infant mortality, equality between the sexes etc.

AND good education is NON dognatic. It is dedicated to an open pursuit of the truth, not the defense of Jesus or Allah or Zeus being the only true God. Which they all clearly cannot be.

Mr. Otterson, you have failed to respond to Hitchens' simple challenge to relgious believers: what noble act motivated by religion could not be motivated by a secular motivation? It's dissapointing that you are unable to see you were unable to see your human potential without the threat of a hell or promise of a heaven. In your "youthful atheism", whether you were aware or not, you were capable of constantly working to be a better person, friend, family member, citizen. There was no "limit" to this ability that needed to be magically unlocked by Joseph Smith. The potential to work toward these goals in spite of human imperfections existed in you before your conversion, and would remain if you left your religious beliefs behind. Even if you were unable to motivate yourself to do so, it is incredibly arrogant to imply that no atheist is capable of doing so either.

Parker

i admire you even more for your interest in Emerson. My father, when preaching in the Mormon church as he often did, would always cite secular thinkers and poets like Emerson and Shakespeare, and I think the deepest religious feelers and thinkers always have a mix of their scriptures and the great secular writers.

As to your comment last night that you have learned a lot since you were 20: well-taken. My reflections on, say, the Mormon Church ARE based on a combination of my early experience as an active member and my ongoing connection with my brother and other relatives who remain active. As well as reading, of course.

One thing you learn as you get older is that no person or institution is perfect, and few of them are suited to everyone. The support and moral striving of communities of good people are positive forces in the world. Emerson's citing of the non-conformist is telling: for me, i couldn't be the kind of non-conformist i wanted to be within the morays of the institution, but many can, and more power to them (and you).

Mr. Otterson, you are certainly entitled to your faith, but you have attacked straw men in your piece here. It would help to actually read Hitchens and Harris rather than mischaracterizing them.

"Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."

By their fruits not what they profess to believe.

Michael Otterson says: "The excesses that Hitchens, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins like to document, from the Crusades to the Conquistadores, are departures from Jesus’ teachings, not the results of them. No twisting of the gospel message can justify these excesses as being Christian acts as I understand the meaning of that word."

Mr. Otterson fails to appreciate Adam Smith's insight that virtue is more to be feared than vice because it is not regulated by the conscience. Unfortunately, suspension of the conscience is a recurrent feature of organized religion.

Otterson claims that no one can reasonably mistake cruelty as an implication of the gospel. Too bad the crusaders did not understand that. They believed that they were doing the will of God.

In that respect, the crusades are a product of Christianity. Faith suspended people's conscience, which empowered them to commit unspeakable acts of cruelty.

We can observe similar dynamics in Mormon culture where believers continue to demonstrate their faithfulness by invoking racist statements of Mormon prophets. Those people don't mean to be racist. They just want to be faithful.

The same applies to the LDS referenda campaigns were thousands of Mormons are unwittingly participating in hurting their fellow neighbors because the perpetrators want to follow their prophet.

If people suspended faith and studied biology then they would realize that homosexuality is an irrevocable aspect of human nature. If they weren't Mormons, they would never participate in the assault on civil rights.

Otterson is not only wrong about the facts. He fails to appreciate how his own behavior continues to hurt his neighbors.

Michael Otterson hurts other because he wants to be a good Mormon and follow his prophet. It seems to me that Otterson's own case confirms not only Sam Harris's and Richard Dawkins' concerns but that Adam Smith was right after all.

Mr. Otterson conveniently mischaracterizes the rationalist point of view entirely.

Insofar as believers, be they Taliban or Mormon, make ontological claims, such claims can be challenged on evidentiary grounds.
The strongest claims made by rationalists are expressed in Scientific Theory. Such assertions are not ontological claims but, rather, provisional models expressing a degree of empirical and predictive accountability.

When it comes to "values", religions do not agree on what is appropriate human behavior. It certainly appears that morals are no more than esthetics with an exclamation point, evolving much as fashions do. Evidence? Mr. Otterson's church has changed fundamentally in its teachings on polygamy, race and gender. Were the revelations true before but untrue now?

Of course, hypocrisy, fashion and irrationality is not the exclusive domain of the religious.

I live in continual confusion. Both the believers in the supernatural and the rationalists argue over the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, and yet neither side ever looks at reality.

Religious organizations claim to perform good services for the public, then:

lobby the US Congress in favor of their right to hate those who are not like them,

compel half the population to propagate even if their lives are in danger by continuing the pregnancy and even if they were raped by a family member and will produce an inbred ignorant bastard that will adversely effect us all,

actively engage in racism and discrimination,

ban books,

burn libraries,

mis-rewrite our nation's history to their advantage,

turn back the clock on scientific knowledge (turn Fred Flintstone and Dino into real living characters in a young earth where the Sun evolves around our flat Earth),

terminate the US Department of Education and all public schools in the US,

and the worst of all,

turn the United States of America into IRAN, a stark raving crazy theocracy.

Whether or not anyone finds solace or exaltation in the supernatural is a freedom that each individual should be allowed to determine for themselves. Religious organizations should stop getting in the way of allowing all of us this freedom. And for Christ's sake, stop lobbying for the right to conduct hate crimes. It is way too unseemly.

"and even with all my admitted imperfections today I know I am a better person than I would have been without the gospel of Jesus Christ in my life."

Would one of those imperfections be joining a church that was established in part so that old men could rape teenage girls?

1fw

I agree with Richmond Stalgis.
There really is a God.There really is.There is.
I feel it in my bones.There really is a God.

There is a God.There really is a God.There is.There is.There is.There is a God.There is a God.There really is a God.There is a God.There really is a God.
I hate atheists.I love god.There really is a God.
Just ask Thomas Baum.He met God.God really exists.
There is a God.There is a God.There is a God.There is.

Part of our "innate moral sense" results from a neurological chemical reward when we carry out a moral action. So whether religious or not, morality is ultimately based on a reward system.

Positive/Negative reinforcement has been shown to ellict desired behaviors, what troubles me is how easily these false truths are ingrained into the pyschie. i.e. Why are these people so easily deluded?

If the Crusades were a departure from Christ's teaching, why does the Vatican refuse to apologise for calling them?

"He or she, if they are living their religion, tend toward generosity of spirit, kindness, compassion, integrity, service and self-sacrifice as well as self-improvement."

These observations are different from my own: I have observed little if any correlation between a given person's exhibition of these traits, and his or her degree of religious observance. In fact, often it seems that there is a negative correlation here, with the most religious also being the least tolerant, the least compassionate, and the most self-serving.

Both the religious and the atheist can commit evil acts. However, the counter-argument that the religious who have committed evil acts are deviating from the "truth" of any particular religion misses the point. It is no more relevant than the athiest who brutalizes in the name of communism. The key question is which method of gaining knowledge of the truth is more suceptible to evil? One that can be tested against reality or one that relies upon the use of faith?

One can challenge the rational athiest's assertions by reasoned argument using an objective evaluation of reality. But for the religious, it is the faith in the untestable apriori statements that inevitably leads to very bad results, because the statements are by their very nature untestable against any objective standard. Morality then becomes a menu of "beliefs" (the choices from that menu forming the basis of the various segregated religions). The act of faith empowers those who pronounce the principles, for it they who define the "good". The good is not defined by man's needs as man in an objective reality, but by what particular men pronounce. The very act of faith is a submission of one's mind to that of another. Without a standard, the various belief systems, organized into religions, have no objective method of determining who's beliefs are better, so they are left to only command blind obedience by their adherents and use force against those who have opposing views. How many centuries of wars based on conflicting religious belief systems do we need before the majority of humans will understand this?

I know many religious people who are moral, good people. Without religion, they would be just as moral, as their actions are guided by truths that religion is unnecessary to authenticate. Unfortunately, there are others who can speak untestable truths and gain adherents to follow them that are evil, and it is the use of faith and its sublimation of reason that has the greatest potential for facilitating evil acts. The danger in religion is that the first set of people, who are moral but also religious, give power to the second set, by the sharing of the same epistemological principles of gaining knowledge.

In my opinion, the most contemptible error is the person who, after an evil has been committed in the name of their shared association, fail to ask themselves whether it was their own method of seeking truth that was in fact the cause. They gave permission to those who justify their acts in their name, in the name of their religion, in the name of their beliefs. They are guilty of sanctioning the evil because they sanction the method of letting that evil go unchallenged by any standard that can be tested. They may challenge the evil of stoning a woman who steals bread for her family, but sanction another evil in the minds of those who throw the stones. Neither one can submit their principles to be tested by an objective analysis of reality, because to do so would upend the system of obedience that is necessary for any system of faith.

Both the religious and the atheist can commit evil acts. However, the counter-argument that the religious who have committed evil acts are deviating from the "truth" of any particular religion misses the point. It is no more relevant than the athiest who brutalizes in the name of communism. The key question is which method of gaining knowledge of the truth is more suceptible to evil? One that can be tested against reality or one that relies upon the use of faith?

One can challenge the rational athiest's assertions by reasoned argument using an objective evaluation of reality. But for the religious, it is the faith in the untestable apriori statements that inevitably leads to very bad results, because the statements are by their very nature untestable against any objective standard. Morality then becomes a menu of "beliefs" (the choices from that menu forming the basis of the various segregated religions). The act of faith empowers those who pronounce the principles, for it they who define the "good". The good is not defined by man's needs as man in an objective reality, but by what particular men pronounce. The very act of faith is a submission of one's mind to that of another. Without a standard, the various belief systems, organized into religions, have no objective method of determining who's beliefs are better, so they are left to only command blind obedience by their adherents and use force against those who have opposing views. How many centuries of wars based on conflicting religious belief systems do we need before the majority of humans will understand this?

I know many religious people who are moral, good people. Without religion, they would be just as moral, as their actions are guided by truths that religion is unnecessary to authenticate. Unfortunately, there are others who can speak untestable truths and gain adherents to follow them that are evil, and it is the use of faith and its sublimation of reason that has the greatest potential for facilitating evil acts. The danger in religion is that the first set of people, who are moral but also religious, give power to the second set, by the sharing of the same epistemological principles of gaining knowledge.

In my opinion, the most contemptible error is the person who, after an evil has been committed in the name of their shared association, fail to ask themselves whether it was their own method of seeking truth that was in fact the cause. They gave permission to those who justify their acts in their name, in the name of their religion, in the name of their beliefs. They are guilty of sanctioning the evil because they sanction the method of letting that evil go unchallenged by any standard that can be tested. They may challenge the evil of stoning a woman who steals bread for her family, but sanction another evil in the minds of those who throw the stones. Neither one can submit their principles to be tested by an objective analysis of reality, because to do so would upend the system of obedience that is necessary for any system of faith.

Would that Mr. Otterson was correct, but he is not. The fruits of Christianity across the centuries have been moralism instead of morality, judgment instead of compassion, bitterness instead of love, abnegation instead of celebration, division rather than unity, chastisement rather than embraces, elitism rather than inclusion. Religion boils down to "believing what you known isn't really so," to paraphrase Mark Twain. The heart of the religious conflicts that have been the scourge of human history are nothing more than "my invisible friend is better than your invisible friend." All gods have the same basis in demonstrable fact.

If Mr. Otterson's faith truly makes him a better person, that's wonderful. But it does not make up for the torment and ruined lives that have flowed and still continue to flow from a fervent belief in the non-existent.

"Hitchens’ statements strike me as not just polemical, but unreasonable and even bizarre."

This is coming from someone who wears holy underwear? Seriously?

1fw

Ahhh no theistic argument against the charge that religion fosters hate seems complete now a days without the Pol Pot/Stalin reference. The only problem is the comparisons are false. Pol Pt/Stalin where mass murderers, but not because of their atheism! They justified none of their actions with atheistic arguments, they killed for political reasons. Harris’s argument is that Hitler definitely had religious motives in his murdering of the Jews. I mean come on people, Pol Pot/Stalin would kill anyone they thought was getting in there way…Hitler pretty much was focused on the Jews, How can you say that had nothing to do with religion?

Mr. Otterson's argument covers every religion, living and dead. Yet the core mythology of almost all come into conflict. So, as I see it, the argument is not that religion is true or valid, it is that it helps people become better people. Or, perhaps, it helps people feel that they are better people because of their religious faith.

I think your argument undermines the inherent flaws in organized religion on two grounds. First, there is no evidence that I am aware of that religious people are better people. Some are good, some are bad and some are very bad. Most atheists are highly moral. Penn Teller, in his famous "What I believe" piece makes an excellent argument that believing there is no god makes him a better person.

The second and to my mind the more important question is the search for truth. Your argument undermines the notion that religion will lead to truth. If all religions "work", in the sense that they make people better people, then all are, by your terms, equally valid. Yet the truth of all religions is in conflict. If I am a truth seeker (which I am) which am I to believe? Here is where religion fails. Religious leaders say things like "look to your heart", which, essentially means, choose the one that feels right. But I completely don't trust that. Intuition and feeling are not roads to truth. We know that humans want truth, that they want answers to questions. This is hard-wired into our brains. Religions give simplistic answers to these questions. Accepting a simplistic answer - having faith - may induce a feeling of joy or ecstasy, but it doesn't make it true. Clear evidence is that conflicting religions induce ecstatic states in different people. We must rely on better evidence.

The only religious leader I have seen who has made serious statements about scientific evidence is the Dali Lama. In a New York Times Op Ed a few years ago he stated that if Scientific evidence comes into conflict with the teaching of his religion, the religion must change. Here is an honest truth seeker. His statement is a challenge to other religious leaders and followers.

Mr. Otterson's defense of region is remarkably weak. Perhaps it will lead others on the path to truth that leads away from organized religion.

All myths are irrational-- religious "stories" are myths, though they contain elements of truth. They certainly can elevate us to a relationship with the earth, with the ground of being and with the other inhabitants of the planet. "Sincere" atheists are capable of these relationships too, but that gives them no right to attack the means and methods by which others achieve them. The idea that the mysteries of the Universe can be solved solely by science is itself a mythos, a myth, in which they too have invested their treasure. God bless them for that, that is their right.

I have been amused by what appears to be this string of religious "muckety mucks" lining up to critique what they see as a weakness in Hitchen's argument. Yet they are unable to debate his and others greater points or answer their qestions concerning religion's absurdities or failures. Is this all they have to offer? If so I think they are doing their followers and believers a disservice.

HJ,
Delightful to read some of your commentary. I am re-reading some of Emerson's "Self-Reliance" this morning to see if my memory was hazy from having read it in college. The quote that seemed to be in my hazy memory was this: "There is a time in every man's education when he arrives at the conviction that envy is ignorance; that imitation is suicide; that he must take himself for better, for worse, as his portion; that though the wide universe is full of good, no kernel of nourishing corn can come to him but through his toil bestowed on that plot of ground which is given him to till."

Emerson also said, "Whoso would be a man, must be a nonconformist." I know on the surface "becoming like Christ" may seem to some to yield a notion of conformity, but Paul didn't look at it that way when he said in essence that everyone has different gifts and the community has need of "every member" (acknowledging each others' differences, and celebrating them)--that's how the gospel really works.

Emerson and Thoreau provide examples through their lives and writings of how to dissent positively, constructively, synergistically--and that would be applying the essence of the gospel also. I know this is a very touchy subject, but I think we can all learn from those two "nonconformists".

I figured I'd better clarify what I had written yesterday about Emerson, so here you go. I enjoy reading your perspectives. All the best to you.

"A true Christian believes the teachings of Jesus Christ and accepts Him as the Son of God and the Savior of mankind."

What's a true Christian?

Morman? Babtist? Chatolic? Lutheran?

You attack Hitchens because he "condemns all religions for allegedly extreme, unreasonable and intolerant claims – and then promptly supports his arguments with extreme, unreasonable and intolerant claims," but can you support your belief in the primacy of Mormanism over other Christian faiths without resort to the same type of claims?

"Harris argues, lamely, that Adolf Hitler’s maniacal behavior and excesses, even the Holocaust itself, was rooted in his “Christian” belief. Harris also likes to skip past inconvenient mass murderers like Pol Pot and Stalin (neither of whom was exactly known for religious devotion) because they don’t fit his argument."

Harris doesn't argue that attrocities won't not occur in a world without Religion. He merely explains why there would be less of them in such a world.

Parker
thoughtful and insightful comments. tomorrow when i am more awake i will respond more substantively, but thank you and may the Goddess bless you my friend.

David
best wishes to you. i think i pulled a muscle.

David: I love you and i could never love Hitchens, though my perverse side does find him entertaining at times, and he is surely a smart SOB.

he is also a misanthropic alcoholic SOB, and I would much rather be like you than like him.

peace

HJ,

Hello my friend. How was the dancing. C'mon now, an old man like yourself out there giggin'? Hope you didn't pull a hammy!

:)

Just wanted to say hi and hope your doing good. I'm enjoying the exchange and the new topics that are being discussed. I'm gonna keep my filthy paws off of these subjects but just wanted to say I aprreciate watching the dialogue.

Hello to you too Parker. Hope you and the fam are good.

Regardless of our difference in beliefs, I'm glad to have found this site to talk to you all and build friendships. I especially enjoy hearing other worldviews. Regardless of the disagreements, I think it's the best way to gain understanding and respect for "our fellow man" (as HJ puts it). I only wish that "extreme" atheists like Sam Harris and Hitchens could just try to understand religion instead of putting it down and assuming we are all brain washed idiots. Obviously that kind of dialogue will get no one no where.

Take care,

David

HJ,
Interesting comments; refreshing exchanges of ideas. From my perspective, I have about 95% more knowledge and real understanding of the gospel than when I was 21 or 25--an "RM" or a newlywed. So it seems to me that though you may think you know a great deal about the gospel and its application in people's lives, that doesn't square with my experience, though I've been "active" all my life. There was so much more to learn when I thought I knew so much!

SML talked about being child-like. To me the real sense of that is observing my children and realizing how much I am learning from them, realizing I still have so much more to learn and am truly "just a child" in my understanding.

The LDS don't have a corner on this market, of course, nor do religious people versus non-religious people. The biggest lessons of life are learned within relationships, and that is the nature of why we are here in this life. So we all get to learn, regardless of who we are or where we live on this Mother earth.

Within that context, the "law of restoration" applies to all. Every good action, every discernable virtue, every good thought is its own reward, and will become its own reward in the future. Truth, knowledge, the love of truth, are their own reward. I think Emerson had those kind of thoughts, no, in Self-Reliance? The "heaven" and "hell" reward/punishment belief system becomes insignificant in this context, I agree with you. I doubt if a child understands this, so we learn as we go, become adults, yet are still children because we have so much to learn. All the best to you, kind friend.

JD
to expand a bit on your internal brain reward system.

The key point is the "nature" of the reward.

You know the old saying
"virtue is its own reward."

Kids who grow up traumatized by the message that they are going to Hell if they commit the slightest transgression are operating on a low level reward/punishment system.

People who operate on a reward system that they get a transcendent feeling of connection with others and the universe when they work in a homeless shelter as a volunteer are operating on a much higher level moral reward system.

Yes, they are both getting rewards. But of a much different nature. And the felt motivation of the volunteer is much different than that of the Hell-evader, poor soul.

As i have said before, Mormons are very good on the avoidance of scaring the hell out of their members with hell.

ps
my 22 year old niec is a return missionary who is finishing her accounting degree at BYU and is working for Gay status improvement in the church.

she hasn't been excommunicated yet, so maybe she will make a difference.

JD
I am going out dancing. The minuet.

You are absolutely right: most people act out of their intrinsic fellow feeling of concern for others as well as themselves, and the intricacies and abstractions of heaven and prophecies are pretty far removed from their everyday motivations and pleasures and pains.

Good people are good people whehter they like jazz or bluegrass or are muslims or jains or mormons or atheists.

hj

Hello Henry James,

You are fine fellow. I think that ultimately the motivation for moral behavior for all of us derives from the immediate feel good reward, whether one believes in the CK or not. It makes sense that a more immediate reward is the more likely motivator than the distant reward of Eternal Life. So we are not that different after all.

The essence of celestial glory is not some external paradise, but finally reaching complete, perfect, undifferentiated, Godlike morality which will be used to bless others. So in this case, as in your case, morality IS an end in itself. And that makes me feel good.

Now go do something fun. It's Friday! (but no heroin. Feed the poor if you want to feel good.)

Best,

Jd1

JD

I think it is a good thing to have being kind to others "feel good" (release endorphins and oxytocin).

I think it is bad/dangerous for Heroin to make one "feel good."

So: I think that the elevated good feeling derived from kindness to others is a good thing

AND the major point to me is that is suportive of the goal of being spiritually present IN THIS WORLD in "natural" relation with our fellows

rather than staking one's pleasure, to whatever degree, on THE NEXT WORLD, which has a number of detrimental by products. (again, not ABSOLUTE negatives but impurities).

Morally and ethically I want to love you for the true and transcendent feeling of common humanity and connection that results. Not because it will help me reach the Celestial Kingdom.

luv
henry

JD and Mr Otterson

Are you the same person? (joke)

thank you both for very thoughtful responses. Mr O, as would be true for most of us, you come across as much more authentic in dialog than when writing a "column." Again, I think that goes with the form, but it underlines the virtue of your responding once in a while.

Mike: as a 20 year mormon at the end of 5 generations, my motivation for "good behavior" was complicated. I wanted to be a good boy. I didn't want to embarrass my parents. I loved most of my fellow mormons. But a *significant* part of my motivation (10%, 50%? i don't know, i am not that self aware) was that I should follow the path for that ultimate goal of the Celestial Kingdom. and percentage variations aside, i know i was (am) not alone.

that is not wholly a bad thing. all this is very complicated, as JD keeps reminding us (and why i love him).

It IS part of our struggle. And Mormons turn out to be lovely wonderful people in many many ways.

My spiritual value today is more the Buddhist pure quest to attain pure loving kindness for my fellows in this world. and to the extent that i believe in any next-world benefit to my this-world love, it takes away from my feeling of purity of purpose.

The real test is not what people believe heaven will be like, but how they act to their felllows inthis world, IMO. I am sure you and John are great to most of your fellows. I am deeply troubled by what the Mormon Church does to Gays, and some other issues, so I am not 100& approbative. If you knew me you would have your demerits for me too, i realize.

peace and love and eternal harmony
henry

Henry James,

Part of our "innate moral sense" results from a neurological chemical reward when we carry out a moral action. So whether religious or not, morality is ultimately based on a reward system.

Best,

Jd1

Henry:

I agree with your basic point, which you have also made in some of your previous posts some months back, as I recall.

Religion is, after all, an intensely personal experience. In my own life, I have never been hung up much on reward or punishment. How much other Latter-day Saints - or any Christians, for that matter - are motivated by that is something each person must answer. But in my own interaction with Mormons in particular, and Christians in general, I have encountered many whose motivation stems from profound gratitude for the Atonement. A deep understanding of Christ's personal sacrifice for each of us leads such a person to strive for a more moral life out of that sense of overwhelming gratitude. In fact, I think that the inner peace and humility associated with gratitude is more likely to minimize thoughts of reward. But that's just me.

I'm facing a very busy few days and may not get a chance to continue this, but thanks for participating.

The negative statements about Joseph Smith are hard to answer because they are so general, and because I understand how some could read his story, especially an unsympathetic account, and think something awful was going on. He made extraordinary and counter-intuitive claims. Towards the end of his life he said that he understood if people did not believe his history, had he not experienced what he had, he would not have believed it himself. There are things in the history of the church that make me uncomfortable. They made Joseph’s followers uncomfortable also, and I think they made Joseph himself uncomfortable. However, I think even from a secular perspective it is debatable whether Joseph was a conscious fraud. I think there is a prevailing willingness among historians to accept that he really believed in his calling. Bushman argues that from Joseph’s behavior, it appears he believed in the revelations he received more than anybody.

I do not believe he was a fraud, I believe he told the truth about his encounters with the divine.

I do not believe he was a womanizer, rather by revelation he instituted a radical, Old Testament based, marriage system that contributed Mormonism’s survival as a united people. Sociologically it can be argued that practice of plural marriage turned the church into a large family, which engendered much needed cohesion during decades where schisms usually cause new movements like Mormonism to crumble to pieces. Inspired directives like plural marriage and the gathering contributed to the Restored Church of Christ being the only heretical sect of the nineteenth century to survive.

I understand why people would vehemently disagree with me. I don’t think Joseph did everything right while instituting the practice. But I believe he instituted it in response to a divine directive. Once again, as an heir of western monogamy and romantic love I can fully understand why you would differ with me. I share part of your difference since I and most Mormons (all strict monogamists)are internally ambivalent about it.

Best to you all!

Jd1

Mr Mike Otterson

First, I appreciate your "showing up." I know you are very busy and it is a nice gesture.

I also appreciate your "thoughtful" question.

Having grown up at the end of five generations of Mormons, I know that their eminently moral behavior is a result of number of factors.

The good side of religion in general, and Mormonism in particular, is the reverence it engenders for creation and for other human beings.

I of course think there are better ways than relgion to accomplish that goal, but my saintly Mormon mother was a paragon of virtue and proper, admirable reverence.

I prefer the purer moral basis of loving kindness and empathy and fellow feeling to the Mormon motivation which is largely the desire to reach the Celestial Kingdom with the rest of the family.

In other words, a Reward for Good Behavior.

And I think any Christian system, including Mormonism, keeps people partially in that state of moral infancy where the reward is crucial if not totally determinative of their moral decisions.

Mike Otterson ~

Do you suppose little children are acting out of gratitude when they behave as you have described above?

"Behaving morally because of the threat of punishment or the promise of reward is not behaving morally at all. It is acting out of fear or greed."

Henry:

I agree. But you're a thoughtful person. Have you considered that it might also be acting out of gratitude?

Parker

*Perhaps* you are right about Gaby's reaction to the Prophet.

Or perhaps she had experiences where she was hurt and betrayed by a person whose behavior she perceives as quite similar to Smith's

and her reaction is one of "righteous anger" at the exploitation and deception of one human being by another.

Lovely and apt thoughts, SML my troth.

Trailing clouds of glory do the little ones.

Otterson's One More Reason is a detriment to authentic moral reasoning, of the kind that little children possess naturally (through evolution).

Behaving morally because of the threat of punishment or the promise of reward is not behaving morally at all. It is acting out of fear or greed.

Gaby,
The bitterness your language reflects is pretty hyperbolic, it seems to me. Perhaps Phaedrus could chime in and calm you down a bit? You might live longer by diverting your thoughts elsewhere, to avoid the boiling blood. I'm not trying to provoke you further, or put you on the defensive, but the broad brush you paint with illustrates more the painter than the painted...a la Hitchens.

Otterson writes of Christians: "if they are living their religion, tend toward generosity of spirit, kindness, compassion, integrity, service and self-sacrifice as well as self-improvement. Living gospel principles is my kind of Christianity because, for me, it elevates and enriches the human soul rather than suppresses it."

I believe that we are all born with those traits ~ we carry them inherently.

Don't Christians believe that Jesus taught all of us to become like little children? That always meant (to me) that I was to become generous, kind, compassionate, etc...like a little child is. Little children exhibit these traits without understanding religion at all. To me, that is what atheism is. It means having all those traits and behaving with compassion, integrity, and self-sacrifice, only without fear of retribution or hope for eternal reward by one's God as motivation.

"This is not to say that atheists aren’t moral, either individually or as a group. What it does say is that a person of faith who tries to live their religion has one more reason to invest in the effort..."

Fear of God's punishment or hope for eternal reward is not that impressive to me as one more reason to invest the effort to behave morally.

Hi David and Henry James:

You are right, I am angry.

I find men like Smith totally offensive and reprehensible, but I do have to concede that he had a certain charismatic genius abut him. How else could he have possibly deceived so many people. There are others who meet that criteria as well, like Koresh, Jones, and all the other cult leaders who bamboozle peoples minds with half-truth and outright lies.

What I find equally offensive is that the Mormom church elders who know full well the extent of the fraud perpetuate it by covering it up, making excuses, etc. For them it's about power, and power only. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Concerned

Do you doubt that Smith was charismatic? If so, you go against all the histories that were written about him.

Do you doubt that he started a religion?

Genius is a matter of opinion. But he started a religion that is now rich and famous and one of the largest in America after 200 years. Did you do that? No one else did. He is often listed as one of the 100 most influential people in American history.

You don't have to believe him to believe he was a Charismatic Religious Genius.

Hmmm, Joe Smith was hardly a "charismatic religious genius". He definitely was a good con man and should have been included with the top 10 con men of all time. See http://listverse.com/crime/top-10-famous-con-men/

To the general reader:
The yipping and guffawing,
the catcalls of manipulative obfuscation,
may masquerade as intelligent dialogue,
but the hunting party is baying at a tree with no prey and 'ere long will have nothing to show for their trouble but sore feet and an empty bag.

"The masses of men lead lives of quiet desperation." Well doth Thoreau say.

If only Darwin were here to balance out the rhetoric of Hitchens and Dawkins and their ilk as regards the positive role of religion in society.

Eric implies that there is something abnormal with

Gaby getting upset by Joseph Smith's multiple and well-documented frauds and depradations.

What Gaby feels is righteous anger, totally justified.

The fact that Smith was also a charismatic religious genius doesn't mean Gaby's reaction is not completelymorally appropriate.

Agreed here as well Gaby. Hello to you.

What's up GB? Hope all is well with you bro!

Eric,

If you mean have I read Hitchens' books, no, I haven't. Only what is posted on this website.

However, I have read quite a bit about that miserable, little fraud called Joseph Smith. There is nothing left to fuel the imagination.

I am normally a reasonable person with a live and let live attitude, but when it comes to Smith my pot boils over.

Hi Ghostbuster,

Yes, the same one. All is well with me and mine. Hope the same goes for you!

A non-essentialist & non-reductivist but nonetheless historically informative definition of 'religion' would have been helpful - - -

X is a religion if X has at least a majority of the following characteristics: . . . . . . . . .

Otherwise claims about the vices or virtues of religion-as-such or a particular religion are worthless and only invite self-serving defensiveness from the so-called "faithful" of all "faiths", religious & non-religious, naturalist & non-naturalist, X & non-X!

As it was once well put, all of us live by "the substance of things unseen, the evidence of things hoped for", that is, that part of each person's web of beliefs in which we each, respectively, put our ultimate trust, only to be vindicated or not by living by those beliefs.

Hey Gaby. I'm guessing you are the same Gaby I chatted with a while back. Hope all is well.

Dear Gaby,

I see the same one-liner about Joseph Smith posted from you (or someone with your unusual name) all over the net.

I wonder if you have even read any Christopher Hitchens, because you don't seem to have anything new fueling your imagination.

Mr. Otterson, for a Mormom, especially a Mormon of your standing, to call Chris Hitchens unreasonable and bizzre......now, that is truly unreasonable and bizzare.

The founder of your church has been so totally discredited that it is unfathomable to me how anyone, let alone supposedly intelligent people, can perpetuate and defend his so-called teachings.

Mr. Smith was an uneducated, lying, stealing, womanizing, neer-do-well who happened to have the gift of gab. And that is all he amounted to.

Polemical: "A controversial Argument", such as
"The Mormon Church is the only true church, and the Catholics who say they are don't no what they are talking about."

Unreasonable: Mormons believe God lives on a planet called Kolob, that we will be united with our family and spouse and live with them together, that Joseph "translated" an ordinary Egyptian funeral document, that Angels and God and Jesus appeared to him, that........

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. Not.

Bizarre: See "unreasonable" right above.

Otterson says *Hitchens* is unreasonable for noting that religious beliefs are by and large "unreasonable."

Orwell said the first tactic of totalitarian systems was saying things were the opposite of what they are.

"Me wonders":

If the flaws in all the foundations of contemporary religions were fixed, would there be any "gods" or "god reps" left??????? Jesus would definitely be downgraded to a well-meaning preacher/peasant.

And Mohammed, he would be downgraded to the warmongering, womanizing, plagiarizing, and hallucinator that he was.

And Joe Smith, he would be downgraded to a womanizing and plagiarizing hallucinator/fabricator.

"Some scholars have theorized that Smith became familiar with the name "Moroni" through his study of the treasure-hunting stories of Captain William Kidd.[2] Because Kidd was said to have buried treasure in the Comoros islands, and Moroni is the name of the capital city and largest settlement in the Comoros, it has been suggested that Smith borrowed the name of the settlement and applied it to the angel who led him to buried treasure—the golden plates. Complementing this proposal is the theory that Smith borrowed the names of the Comoros islands and applied them to hill where he found the golden plates, which he named Cumorah.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_Moroni

Hitchens is a Provocateur, but is He Wrong?

Certainly ANY statement that says ALL x are y is bound to be not COMPLETELY accurate. But the bold style of H apart, is he correct "in general". Let's take a couple of examples (and of course H is not talking about Mormons specifically).

Violent: there have been 20 religious wars in the last 15 years. By far the greatest cause of role STILL TODAY, let alone history.

Irrational: A virgin conceived. People fly up into the sky. The sun stopped. An Angel appeared to me. The earth was created 6,000 years ago. We are going to live forever in Jesus.

Racism: the Mormons are probably sensitive about this one. Did an institution bar black men from the priesthood for 140 years?

Hostile to Free Inquiry: Has a person ever been punished by his religion for free inquiry? Is the pope catholic? Galileo. The BYU six. Excommunication.

So there is clearly and evidently much truth in Hitchens assertions.

Otterson is a PR man dedicated to making his group look good, not to examining the truth.

Mr. Georgiason,

I disagree with your notion. This country was founded on Christianity and your altering of the words is what makes it sound like "poppycock" This nation was not founded to "free the shackles of religious dogma and cant" as you say, but wars were waged for and by the people so posterity would later be offered religious FREEDOM. Religious freedom does not mean that the people of this nation will not have any religion, but rather anyone is permitted to worship, who, what, where, when and how they want.

You should visit this website and do a bit more research before coming to the conclusion that you have.

http://www.afn.org/~govern/Christian_Nation.html

My congratulations to Christopher Hitchens for continuing to pose logical questions to those who swim in the religious (or religiosity) culture without thinking. He's bearing the torch of the Enlightenment, and we Americans are children of the Enlightenment. Our Founding Fathers conceived a nation based on the idea that it should be populated by citizens whose minds were freed of the shackles of religious dogma and cant. The idea that they wanted to create a "Christian nation" is pure poppycock.

How anyone could witness the moral implosion of the political party that claimed to be the embodiment of moral values in America and not see the hypocrisy and lies inherent in the right-wing fundamentalist movement boggles the human mind. Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, in particular, would have been appalled.

My congratulations to Christopher Hitchens for continuing to pose logical questions to those who swim in the religious (or religiosity) culture without thinking. He's bearing the torch of the Enlightenment, and we Americans are children of the Enlightenment. Our Founding Fathers conceived a nation based on the idea that it should be populated by citizens whose minds were freed of the shackles of religious dogma and cant. The idea that they wanted to create a "Christian nation" is pure poppycock.

How anyone could witness the moral implosion of the political party that claimed to be the embodiment of moral values in America and not see the hypocrisy and lies inherent in the right-wing fundamentalist movement boggles the human mind. Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, in particular, would have been appalled.

As an Oriental, I would like to know if I am a Jaredite. God's mysteries are strange, so did I go extinct in the past or is this an inexplicable prophecy?
Brigham young and bring 'um fast, got a rocket in my pocket and I'm ready to blast.

"Hitchens’ statements strike me as not just polemical, but unreasonable and even bizarre."

A Mormon wrote this?

How about Moroni and the golden plates, and Jesus in America, and the other Mormon teachings?

How would Mr. Otterson characterize them?

"I have not read a lot of Hitchens. I have read more of Sam Harris, but it seems to me that their arguments are pretty much the same." Yes, all us athiests are the same, the same reasonable arguements, the same and sane level of reason to look beyond fantasy.
Hitchens does infact deal with secular totalitarians in "God is not great" so when you say you havent read much, I beleive it. I suggest before you launch a tirade against someone you at lease do them the courtesy of studying their works. Its the same academic dishonesty you display in your faith that you display in this article.
Morality existed long before Christianity and is inherant in the animal species. It is primal. Certain animals protect each other and help each other to survive but do not have the cognative ability to think of such a simplistic concept as god but still show traits of morality in their existance.
Do you claim that humanity had no morality before the Judeo Christain god came into existance? Please, if god was so moral, why did he butcher men, women and children in Sodom and Gomorrah?
Saddaam must go but you bend down and support a being that will kill all except his beleivers in the rapture. You can't cherry pick your religion, its dishonest.

Thus they are fools who place their faith in idols for they worship things made by themselves and give the name of guardians to those they guard . . .

I never thought I would say this, but I actually agree with a mormon right now. Whew...ok...I said it!

Nice job Mr. Otterson. If there is anything we can agree on apart from our theology, it is the fact that we agree that atheism is extremely illogical and strips meaning and hope from the lives of those who are created in the image of God.

Again, nicely presented Mr. Otterson especially in light of the fact that atheists of course never like to point out what irreligion has done.

David

Hi Brother Otterson,

Thank you for the thoughtful and bold comments. I personally find the language of Neo-Atheism fascinating. Its almost a human universal to portray worldviews that differ sharply from yours as the embodiment of evil and the root of the world’s problems. Some of the rhetoric of Neo-Atheism shows that secularists are not at all exempt from this tendency.

I also think it’s a cop-out to exclude communist ideologies from the realm of the secular, and place them into the category of religion. Some Christians attempt to do the same with the crusades, saying it wasn’t really Christianity because it was perpetrated by the Catholics. I wouldn’t say the atrocities of crusades, or communism were the result of religion or the lack thereof, but the result of human tendencies that exist independent of religion (perhaps testosterone is largely to blame).

I am grateful that the society we live in has come so far. It’s pluralism, with its secular and religious mix, provides the checks and balances to keep potentially dominating and oppressive ideologies in check. American is geographically large enough, and culturally diverse enough to prevent the hegemony of the “secular” or “religious“, which is evident in America’s “culture wars” stalemate.

Best to you!

Jd1

Dr. Krister Stendahl of the Harvard Divinity School presented three rules for interfaith engagement that would seem to apply here:

(1) When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies.

(2) Don't compare your best to their worst.

(3) Leave room for "holy envy." (By this Stendahl meant that you should be willing to find elements in the other religious tradition and faith that you admire and wish could, in some way, be reflected in your own religious tradition or faith.)

(From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krister_Stendahl)

It seems unfair of Mr. Hitchens to compare the best acts of atheists to the worst acts of believers. Usually these "believers" aren't adhering to their own beliefs anyway.

Likewise, I find it much more compelling and interesting to hear someone explain why his own particular belief system is so good rather than why someone else's is so bad. Good salesmen sell their own products, not the alleged defects of their competitors'.

I've personally found faith to be a source of peace and strength in my life.