The Boundaries of Belief

Atheism is not a belief or a religion. It is anti-belief.

Truly, I don't know why it is even address or included in the forum. This section is called ON FAITH, not lack of faith or ridicule faith.

I find it very unfortunate that there is so much belief bashing and ridiculing on this site. If you don't want to believe, don't believe. BUT DON'T mock or scorn those who do.

Your filtering process is pathetic. Not believing in the Bible or the God of the Bible does not make one an "atheist." Buddhists, Deists, Hindus, Scientologists, Wiccans and I think even Muslims would all be "Atheists" by your criteria. Try again.

That is interesting. I call myself an atheist because I believe in no God, hence the "a" in "atheist."

Obviously the PEW survey was flawed. Their "atheists" were more likely individuals who had a problem with their own particular style of religion or denomination. More and more people are choosing to stay away from a system of faith that deals with do's and don'ts, while not abandoning the erronious belief in some type of magical deity beyond the clouds. True atheists resist the ideal of a sky genie who grants wishes and acts as a father figure. I recenly came out of the closet as an atheist. I now not only resist dogmatic religion, but I also don't believe that a mind reading genie is ever present and dicatiting his personal wishes to certain pious individuals. The existence of some being beyond the heavens exists, we may never know. But there certainly is no god that we humans have imagined who is jealous, easy to anger, emotional unstable, willing to damn people to eternal torment and of course CARING and LOVING.

It appears to me that the issue of belief in God has very little import. I would assign a higher priority to the answer to the question, " Is the long term survival of human civilization your highest priority?". Whether the origin of this belief is God or evolution matters less than that it replaces the alternative self absorbed view, "aprez moi le deluge".

Disbelieve strongly=god of the bible
Disbelieve strongly = bible is the word of god

Sam:

maybe the question was like this:

"Are you a theist?"

Keep up the good work! You and your books are life affirming for me!

--Chiron

Everybody has the freedom to believe in what he/she believs without disturbing others. We have a huge problem living close to the Mosque. Several appeals fell on deaf ears. Christian evangalists are the other problem. They roam the poor non christan countries around the world to convert poor and ginorant Hindus, Buddhists and others and one such organization is the "world vision" Please stop them.

Gautama Buddha is the only religious leader who totally rejected a creator god. Through ignorance of reality human beings need god for protection throughout lifetime. Ignorance is the crowning glory.

i made a statement, "I KNOW GOD EXISTS" and see people scurrying around the bush.. no i do not go to church on sunday, ?what else is left to do other than be myself?. besides they also feel uneasy or worse if i'm in their midst. anyway please notice a statement was made.

Or maybe they were deists, and so could consider themselves 'atheist' in the very limited sense of being 'against theism'with a 'th'.

It's hard to understand how anyone could seriously confuse the issue like this... the only thing I can think if is that maybe the subjects thought the question was asking them if they were 'a theist' and thought it was just a typo that the two words were pushed together? Seems ridiculous.

please don't be emotional with your thoughts, it makes you say things like... i really hate to make distinction between reasonable intelligence and ignorance or worse... thoughts and study are mind generated. I like You see the onslaught of religions.. ?is being an elitist know it all, really desirable?. the good news is that you yourself are not your body-mind complex, yourself has been displaced has been displaced by the mind, heck the mind is not only not yourself, it is not even on your side, so please do not let it get the best of you.. and understand that irrationality, is mind generated.. like i said i see what you see in religions.
take care, please.

Atheists are so often identified as a bunch of elitist know-it-alls. I really hate to align myself as such or make distinctions between reasonalbe intelligence and complete ignorance or even worse stupidity but this really wins the prize. It takes considerable thought and not a little study to be an atheist considering the daily onslaught from birth to death from all religions, not just the bad ones like the 3 horrible monothisms so I cannot believe an atheist, any true atheist could make such a blunder. So like it or not, I'd rather be an elitist know-it-all; at least I know the meaning of the word.

ah, someone is awake. i salute you professor.
I (speaking only to the extent of myself) know god exists, also i assure you, your advice is heard.
never the less please let me dream that ignorance is temporary and can be nibbled at in the right ears. this being said without presumption.

Comments:

There is only bounderies to knowledge, because we know how much we know.

There is no bounderies to ignorance, because
we do not know how much we do not know.

Faith and belief belong to our ignorance, because
we know what we know, but we believe and have faith in what we do not know (our ignorance).

The atheist who "believes". the atheist that does "not believe". the religious who commit atrocities, are all de facto in the same level of ignorance, throwing stones at each other. on the other hand a human CAN know that, that people mistakenly tagname god.. it is closer to a human than he is to himself, there is however a need to stop "seeing" god as a concept in the mind.

The atheists who "believed' were simply lying about being atheists. They see it as a way to confuse the issue, to create doubt among atheists. They consider it a moral victory if they can get someone to admit the possibility of an involved god.
The researchers have been had, that's all. Of course, some are just stupid, they don't know what an atheist is supposed to not believe.
Of course, atheists seem to have the same certainty they scorn in theists. You cannot know there is or isn't a god. In either case, god is irrelevant to daily life, except when the religious commit their abuses and atrocities in god's name.

BELIEF does not hold water, even empirical belief is limited to physical parameters. Agnostics by definition disqualify the belief none belief bucket. You are right, emotions are also limited to human parameters. Anger, Resentment are in the light of Reality, not a human emotion, heck even love is not a human emotion, in the light of Reality.

I think there is considerably more evidence for the existence of extraterrestrial aliens than for the existence of God. The Bible is just a book like any other that was written a long time ago.
There are two ways of examining evidence for belief of anything. One is empirical, what you can see, hear, feel (tactilely) etc. The other is emotionally. Agnostics can only relate to the empirical. It governs how the world really works. I have never understood how perfectly intelligent people can accept emotional evidence as true. I know they do, but it just doesn't make sense to me. Robin

KIMI our conversation is going fine, albeit sandwiched between the long winded, tunnel vision, punny lil prides and egos. ?was your questioning my statement, honest inquiry?

Sadly, I think the state of education in this country contributes to people not knowing what being an atheist is!

How silly to say you're an Atheist, and yet believe in a God.

Keep up the good work Sam, we're glad for all your efforts down in the Red state of Texas ;-)

what people believe in and/or don't believe in not debatable; it's fact. we all have priviledge to think whatever we may about these subjects. As a believer, i find it appalling to question ridicule ar belittle one's personal beliefs or non beliefs. It's insulting and narcissistic in nature. the most vociferous on both sides of the issue are dogmatic in nature. it's pre-fascism in action; to say one's own view is correct and the other's is not is an invalidation of one's own viewpoint; respect for everybody would be ideal, but we don't believe in ideals, we believe in choosing sides and pointing fingers at the others... no wonder the rest of the world laughs at us all to often. religion, spirituality in all of it's forms, and likewise, atheism and agnosticism, and everyhing in between, is relevant to the other; without one, the other doesn't have much value. I wish everyone could respect others for just who they are; but that would just be too darn idealistic, now, wouldn't it? too bad...

Sam:

I think the simple truth us that a lot of people don't understand the differnce between agnosticism and atheism. Rejecting the existence of the god of abraham or islam and rejecting the existence of an unknown creator are two completely different things - and unfortunately the term "atheist" is incorrectly applied to both groups of people - most often by the religious.

"No myth needs to be embraced for us to commune with the profundity of our circumstance. No personal God need be worshipped for us to live in awe at the beauty and immensity of creation."

Agreed completely. To think that something that is patently incomprehensible could be explained and explained flawlessly in a 2,000+ year old book is absurd. Judeo Chrisitians who claim they possess the divine outline of the beginnings of our existence in the form of scripture are undoubtedly delusional. I would never be so presumptuous as to claim that I have the answer to the greatest question(s) of all time. Its a question that is without answer and could never be answered. But you yourself use the word 'creation'. Why is that? Do I believe in a creator? I could never claim that with any amount of certainty. But by the same token I could never claim that there is not. How could I possibly?

And for that reason I am an agnostic. To be certain, on way or the other, is blatantly ignorant in my opinion. If you have the time I would love to hear your thoughts.

Best Regards,

Matt

i do not know if you need to say more. perhaps we agree the know bucket does hold water. the other two buckets for sure do not.

Hi Don Mac Brown,

DMB: "Faith is not the problem. What people have faith in is the the problem. I have faith in Science; in the absolute demand for proof; in the efficacy of testing theory as the only path to truth."

You're right, it is what people have faith in that is the problem. And in evolutionary science how do you determine that which is absolute and 100% provable?

Evolutionary science has a track record less than 100% provable. It is dismal. Scientists are constantly changing their beliefs on how and why things happen and the relationships of how, when why they came about as the evidence changes and they "learn" more.

Without God how objective is objectivity? You are not infinite in your wisdom and knowledge and therefore you do not see every aspect of the fact or object that you examine and how it is related to other objects or facts. Every fact can only be known truly in reference to Him and for fact to be established as fact we must think God's thoughts after Him in order for the conclusion to be true.

Your knowledge of the universe and how it came to be can never be complete and comprehensive. Science is a tool and as a tool it can only be used to ascertain truth when it correctly interprets the facts. God made the facts. God has told us the how and why of the facts in some cases. In others we discover them by thinking His thoughts after Him.

DMB: "Faith in God is the province of the innocent, the ignorant and unfortunately of those who prey upon the innocent and the ignorant."

In some cases, but how do you know this is the case for every person? You don't, you just take it for granted because of the limited scope of your worldview.

For the soft atheist or agnostic, it is a worldview that says we cannot know if there is or is not a God, but the evidence points to there not being one. As Van Til said, it is like saying "Nobody knows anything for sure, but we know that you are wrong"! That is the problem with the skeptic.

For the hard atheist or the one who says there is absolutely no God, the problem is just as acute. To make such a statement the atheist would have to be all knowing in his certainty, the final standard and objective, absolute judge on all matters, without error.

The believers and unbelievers epistemology have two different starting points. Your knowledge starts with you and how you build on the facts; ours rests on God and how He has revealed the facts. Yours rests on how you make the facts to be; ours rests on God's revelation, the Bible, or on our discovery of God's thoughts after Him. Yours is in the fallible mind of man, which is subjective for its reference point is limited; ours, as believers, is in the infinite mind of God who understands every single thing, sees every facet of every fact (for He made a fact what it is) therefore it is true, objective, absolute and ultimate, when it is correctly interpreted.

So to expand on that last thought, we look at the universe as a creation of God (In the beginning God made...), for He has told us as much, whereas evolutionary science looks at the universe and speculates how it came to be. It cannot make sense of it. It just happened with a Big Bang. But with every effect there is a cause. What is the cause of the supposed Big Bang?

No, the atheist is just as biased and committed to his framework in his negation of God. There is no neutrality.

We know a bucket holds water...thats a fact. If the bucket cannot hold water...it has a hole in it. I think the facts speak for them selves. Fiction is another story entirely. Need I say more?

BELIEF IS A BUCKET THAT DOES NOT HOLD WATER
NONBELIEF IS A BUCKET THAT DOES NOT HOLD WATER EITHER
TO KNOW, AH TO KNOW, THAT BUCKET HOLDS WATER.
I KNOW GOD EXISTS.
IF YOU QUESTION THE PREVIOUS STATEMENT, YOU ARE WELCOME TO DO SO. HONEST INQUIRIES ONLY PLEASE.

BELIEF IS A BUCKET THAT DOES NOT HOLD WATER
NONBELIEF A A BUCKET THAT DOES NOT HOLD WATER EITHER
TO KNOW, AH TO KNOW, THAT BUCKET HOLDS WATER.
I KNOW GOD EXISTS.
IF YOU QUESTION THE PREVIOUS STATEMENT, YOU ARE WELCOME TO DO SO. HONEST INQUIRIES ONLY PLEASE.

Faith is not the problem. What people have faith in is the the problem. I have faith in Science; in the absolute demand for proof; in the efficacy of testing theory as the only path to truth.

Faith in God is the province of the innocent, the ignorant and unfortunately of those who prey upon the innocent and the ignorant.

It's nice to have someone who have courage to deliver the trith without hesitate. Thanks Sam!

E Favourite, you are most welcome!

If born alone on this planet and able to survive without interaction of already established civilizations of previous humans, one would find absolutly no reason or evidence to even vaguely suggest any sort of god in his environment both in nature or in thought. There is not one natrually occuring shred of hint to any god was ever here or exist at all. No writings, no signs, nothing. It is only from man's own desire of explaining to himself has such a story come about. To worship gods, you worship men. Be human but don't be a fool, say no to ignorance and live in peaceful coexistance as a species floating on a rock in space looking for the truth through unfalsifiable evidence.

I would be really interested to see a poll as to WHY people believe in God and how many say they do out of a fear. I think the answers would be enlightening to both Atheists and Christians.
Thanks,
Shannon Bradshaw
W/M/38
China Grove, NC

To the Agnostic who considers Atheists his "kin." According to Atheists, Agnostics are "not sure if there are unicorns, fairies, and Santa Claus."

Thank God for Sam Harris!

Two reasons why Sam is amazing:
The line "Rarely does one discover nonsense in such a pristine state"
And the phrase "putative atheists"

It's a big universe, 95% undetectable. Seems as silly to say "there is no God" as to affirm "there is", since both are equally unknowable and unverifiable. We're all agnostics in that sense.

What's accomplished by asking people what they believe about invisible, supernatural stuff? Just believing something, ever so strongly, doesn't make it so. Or not.

There is an ultimate reality out there: how matter, energy and conciousness came to be, why, where it's headed; whether or not there's extra-terrestrial intelligence that had something to do with our existence, etc.

Why not let such questions play themselves out and, meantime, just "don't hurt anybody"? (And the flip side, "take care of everybody".)

Belief in God could be just "whistling in the dark", or absolute truth. We can't know, for now. If he's out there, I imagine he can see through a "belief" just to "hedge one's bets".

Maybe if we want to see God we just need to be God, to each other. "Worship" conciousness and treat each other like we're all little pieces of "divinity".

If there is an all-powerful God out there, I can't imagine he'd have a problem with that. If he does, I don't want to be in the same universe with him anyway.

Ummm...it seems quite apparent to me that when one calls oneself an "atheist" that entails the meaning of the word. It means "no belief in god," which means that one cannot believe or maybe believe in a "higher power" or "spiritual being." What is wrong with our world that we are so afraid to pull ourselves through tough situations without questioning our mortality? When I became a atheist, I felt liberated! Freedom from oppression of a false belief in god was so....freeing! I now feel stronger! Stronger than I ever did when I was a fundamentalist Christian. I can only hope that we will wake up one day, realize the stupidity of religion and spirituality, and learn that life here is about helping one another. Not about how much one can gain, not about selfishness or ego. It's about love and humanity. Only then will everyone be fed, everyone feel loved and nurtured, and be free from oppression and persecution. Rock on Sam! We support you!

- being a secular scandinavian (Norway) I have defined the point of view of most of us here up north. We look at the the turbulence from afar. But some of us see the dangers to humanity's survival if the religious insanity is allowed to grow. Your books are widespread reading - both in original and in translation.
'The Four Horsemen' are doing a wonderful job !

Please keep me on the mail-list - I send every message all around to my extensive contact network.

Johan Marinius Holst

It would seem to me Sam that you would have liked to have been a lot stronger in your condenation of the answers given, i thought the survey couldnt have been any simpler than it was, am i right in thinking on what you have just written that some Atheists actually belive in a God? i hate to say this but "God help us" yours..........R.Chapps

I'm glad I haven't been asked to respond to the two questions in your survey because I would have had great difficulty giving straight answers. They are clearly designed for the simple-minded. By simple-minded I mean the default position that we all labor under which is the incessant objectifying of everything. What we miss is the understanding that what we are, and what God is, are not objects (things) but subjectivity. By seeing everything as objects we miss seeing the seer (our real self or God by another name) as subject which is what we are when we are not the objects that we appear to be. But we can't and never will be able to see the seer because we are it. Obvious, isn't it?

The word 'God' is a symbol (i.e. an idea, a concept) for what cannot be perceived,spoken about or even thought about without turning it into an object, which is what it isn't. It (which is not an 'it' because 'its' are objects)is Subjectivity. Subjectivity does not exist. Only objects exist and even they are only appearances as the word 'phenomena' indicates. So God neither exists nor does not exist. It is beyond existing or not existing (although the word 'beyond' suggests space which is misleading).

This is basic philosophy although there is no reason why we can't all understand it because it uses the process of reason.If I am accosted by your surveyor and asked if I believe in God or not, my hesitation to launch into the reason I cannot give a straight answer in the terms in which the question is framed would certainly land me as a tick in the 'Don't know' box. But I do know. It's obvious. But the words that I must use to answer a badly-framed question cannot be contained in a sentence or two.

The awakened sages of the last few thousand years have left us very few pointers to the truth and their short but succinct sayings have failed to produce universal understanding. However, Eastern philosophy has provided plenty of pointers as Sam Harris so eloquently pointed out in the last chapter of his "The End of Faith".

This e-mail is far too long but to read further, look up my take on it in: www.whatweare.co.uk.

Again, very interesting. No big surprises here; but is is a bit shocking that, when it comes to a belief in God, education does not seem to matter much to matter much until the graduate level. Is this evidence that American education has failed to teach people how to think critically?

To "Reason over faith" henceforth ROV,

ROV: "Sorry. Reason and faith do not go hand in hand. They are both opposites. Faith is the antithesis of reason."

You have faith that your reasoning supports the facts. Your reasoning does not stand alone. It is built on starting presuppositions that you take by faith and that act as a crutch for how you look at the world. "In the beginning the Big Bang." You were not there for it but you presume to correctly interpret it using your god - fallible human reason. You do not see the contradictions of your worldview, such as the subjectivity of your outlook. God created the facts so to look upon the world as it really is you must think His thoughts after Him.

ROV: "Reason is when you believe something to be true based on facts that support it and there is no contradictory evidence against it."

Well there is lots of contradictory evidence against evolution and atheism. Since you are entangled in this worldview you are like a fish in a bowl. You need to get some insight from the One who made both the fish and the bowl. In His light we see light. The rest is darkness.

ROV: "Faith is the exact opposite. It is when you believe something to be true based on no factual evidence to support it, and in the face of contradictory evidence against it."

The factual evidence is all around you. You need to open your eyes before you can see it and you need to see it as God sees it before you see it correctly.

ROV: "Not all belief is faith based."

Yes it is. All belief is faith based. The question is on what standard it rests. What is the ultimate reference point that your belief rests on, yourself or some other subjective men? Do you decide what is reasonable in your rebellion to God? Are you your ultimate although limited and subjective final authority? Well, why should I believe you? You do not have the bigger weapon in reasoning. God's word is masterful at tearing down strongholds that oppose it (2 Corinthians 10:3-5; Hebrews 4:12-13)

ROV: "This is yet another misconception and bad definition from those who just do not understand."

I understand quite well for God has made it plain (Psalm 14:1; Proverbs 1:20-2:15). There is no higher authority to appeal to. Why would I want to appeal to some subject opinion in opposition to ultimate objective truth?

Victoria, Victoria, Victoria,

Pamela Taylor has submitted her answers to the following survey. Where are your answers??

Do you believe:

1. In "pretty/ugly wingie" thingies?

2. That the long-dead Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words now listed in the koran?

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life?

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7 800 year-old feud between Sunnis and Shiites give significant credence that suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran?

5. That having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of lust and polygamy?

6. And that the condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of anger and greed???????

How about defining the word "ATHEIST" first for the illiterate? Someone screwed up designing the questionnaire.
What's going to be next, catholics not believing in Christ's resurrection? This is a caricature of a survey.

Here's an atheist who survived the holocaust, and who during his most desperate moments, refused to pray;

Primo Levi.

I entered the Lager (Auschwitz) as a non-believer, and as a non-believer I was liberated and have lived to this day. Actually, the experience of the Lager with its frightful iniquity confirmed me in my nonbelief. It has prevented me, and still prevents me, from conceiving of any form of providence or transcendent justice...I must nevertheless admit that I experienced (and again only once) the temptation to yield, to seek refuge in prayer. This happened in October 1944, in the one moment in which I lucidly perceived the imminence of death...naked and compressed among my naked companions with my personal index card in hand, I was waiting to file past the 'commission' that with one glance would decide whether I should go immediately into the gas chamber or was instead strong enough to go on working. For one instance I felt the need to ask for help and asylum; then, despite my anguish , equanimity prevailed; one does not change the rules of the game at the end of the match, nor when you are losing. A prayer under these conditions would have been not only absurd (what rights could I claim? and from whom?) but blasphemous , obscene, laden with the greatest impiety of which a nonbeliver is capable. I rejected the temptation; I knew that otherwise were I to survive, I would have to be ashamed of it."
From Primo Levi; The Drowned and The Saved.(1986)

It was Arthur Jones who once said, "Never be so arrogant that you fail to give people the credit for being as stupid as they really are." This may very well be the case. However, I find your idea that, being a sort of non-conformist sort of folks as we are, it may have been a little deliberate mischief for amusement. As Anthony Hopkins said while playing the part of Hannibal Lecter, "You're not going to dissect me with you blunt little tools." I for one love to mess with pollsters and believers. Having been a fundamentalist christian for about a year and a half (fortunately I've had 30 years of innoculations before converting in a moment of weakeness) I like to get their heads nodding in agreement and then start pointing out the errors, logical fallacies and atrocities while pretending to be dismissive of them. Fun for the whole family! I just wish I could break the spell my wife is under. Our two young children are being done a great disservice.

I cannot help but think this muddles things a bit. The issue is, either God exists or God does not exist. Beliefs about this issue are irrelevant. Now if we only want to believe what is true, then we must consider the facts. A fact is a thing or action that exists, observable by all. What do we mean by True? Truth is simply that which is the case. So, what is the case? The facts do not support any belief in any God!

I don't understand this whole "test of faith" thing. It makes no sense. All you have to do is see how the world is and how nature works to know that there is no god running the show. Live for now cause thats all there is. The test is to survive. If you can do that, you have succeeded. So enjoy the here and now because this is the only experience there is....there is no proof of another after death. How sad it is to live for death. Live for life! Because its the only one you will ever get.

SOJA- E FAVORITE posed the rewording of your original question posited by myself-

SOJA- "Real faith is strengthened when tested, weak faith dies away."

i wrote on June 29 @ 7:42PM-

"i'll steal half of soja's statement-
real faith is strengthened when questioned"

so that is where e favorite got the mixup-

"Since I didn't mention anything about questioning and faith, why do you pose such a question? I have never questioned my faith, nor has it been tested... But that doesn't lead to question the existence of God."

however your response does beg the question-

since you contend that faith is strengthened by being tested, but then state that your own has never actually been tested- how do you know if it is strengthened or not to make the original statement?

just thinking out loud-

i promised to think about my answer for e favorite- but out of respect for the atheists do not wish to sidetrack their discussion-

peace all sorry for the interruption-

It was a pew survey...like conduced in a church..what kind of an atheist even goes to church?

For clarification purposes:

Sunyata = Shunyata phonetically speaking....

& references Emptiness or the Void - the true nature of reality. This is experienced intuitively through Bodhi or Prajna wisdom, and frees one from Dukha, or entanglements and suffering in the material world e.g. the result of the Buddha's enlightenment. The fundamental paradox cannot be explained, but can only be experienced first-hand, according to those that have achieved this profound insight.

Samsara is the ever-repetitive round of birth and death in the material world of desire - Nirvana is freedom from this eons long cycle...by seeing into the nature of the One Reality - delusion and enlightenment are ultimately not different.

C'mon, when PEW does these polls, it leans to the Right. Has anyone asked WHO are the poll takers? How the questions are phrased, how the responses are analyzed?
If so many atheist individuals reply that they believe in a 'spirit', chances are they mean that we are all, all living beings, on this planet related at the mitochondrial level. Humans are not that distant from a banana on the DNA level.Who knows, we might subconsciously 'sense' a faint connection with trees and ants but our intellectual functions are so absorbed in dealing with material matters. Early on, some Eastern 'religions' were focused on this sort of thing.Perhaps they were on theright track but science hadn't caught up with them. I do not believe in any super-natural spirits, but I sure connect with my dog!

Do liberty, justice, or generosity exist? I hope so. Even though they can be abstract, there is a way to measure them in terms of actions, laws, or habits. God, or perhaps some sort of ethereal force, may also exist, but prevention of evil was clearly never part of that being's design or interest. Therefore, it is probably more important to defend the existence of liberty, justice, and generosity--things which plenty of "believers" tend to doubt or despise.

Unfortunately, persons of other religions can also answer 1 for both questions. This would seem to skew the results for your factual vs. religious scans.

Interesting observations regarding Buddhism and Christianity. There are some notable core differences between the two however. Christians seem to regard God as a person, and indeed this is reflected in the singular divinity of Jesus. You can't have one without the other (and you need to include the Holy Spirit as well, given the Trinitarian doctrine that prevails today).

The doctrine of salvation (by proxy) is at the heart of Christianity. Not so with Buddhism.

But when all is said and done, Christianity believes wholeheartedly in a material world - as opposed to the spirit world that comes later. So we see that the fundamental nature of Christianity is dualism, as compared to the monism of Buddhism. Buddhism also takes the ideal of compassion and empathy for all sentient creatures seriously.

I don't see this with Christianity - where domination and authoritarian rule are the order of the day. Sure you can find superficial similarities in any human enterprise, but you have to look at the foundation beliefs to see the real differences.

Apart from the religious flourishes to be found in Buddhism, the core belief of Shunyata means that nothing whatsoever has ever really existed....because the nature of the Absolute is singular, beyond concept, without any identifiable characteristics, and is all that is ever really present - despite a myriad of forms and appearances. There is only Tathata or Suchness, which is ineffable.

This is not the same idea as the Self or Atman of Hinduism....Buddhist thinkers have always guarded against conceptualization of the Absolute (although it's called by many names).

Hui Neng, the 6th Zen patriach, says that one must really perceive directly (intuitively) that nothing whatsoever has ever truly existed ('from the first, not a thing is') and that Nirvana and Samsara are in fact identical and indistinguishable from one another.

There is no material world, and no spirit world - this is the nature of Shunyata.

Seeing this for oneself is the goal of Buddhism - nothing more nor less. Life is shaped by this orientation to reality.

To clarify my previous post which may lead to some confusion, when I said "soemetimes I talk to someone", I meant no one who is physically present at the time.

martimr1 brings up a good point that may explain some of the descrepancies in the poll. This may be how people define "praying". Like martimr1, I too sometimes in the middle of a cold and lonely night, talk to someone about my problems. Especially when life seems particularly harse and unfair. When times are hard and problems seem to pile up to an unmanageable state. Do I expect that anyone is actually listening to all this talk. No. Do I expect that some miracle or even action will come from this. No. Then why do I do it? It tends to sooth me, similar to the efects that can come from sharing your problems with a good friend. And, like martimr1 said, sometimes there is just nothing else to do ...

Soja - thanks for getting back to me

Ego many times gets in the way of normal thinking. Those that think they have a choice between believing and not believing in God are both egotistical and naive. We all are forced to believe in all things within our awareness. That which cannot be believed does not exist in our minds. Existence demands belief.

God performed certain acts that remind us of his awesome power. 2008 years ago God stop time as we knew it and restarted time as we now know it. The bible states early on that God could do this. 2008 years ago God did it again in honor of his son and there is nothing an atheist, a scientist or any of us can do about it.

God created tithes and commanded us to pay them in order for mankind to prosper. Man changed the terminology from tithes to taxes but everyone must pay them including atheist. When in Rome do as the Romans do. It does not matter if you attend church and pay tithes or do not attend church and do not pay tithes. We all pay tithes to God called taxes.

God promised man a life span of approximately 75 years, guess what the average lifespan is? I could go on but what’s the point. Atheist, scientist all of us must believe in God in order to deny him. Death, taxes and time are all controlled by God, prove me wrong. END THE WAR IN IRAQ.

JMeyrick, you said "And isn't that kind of what churches, mosques and synagogues function as? Community gathering places to reinforce their belief systems. Because most believers have there doubts sometimes, too. Don't they?"

I think the community aspect is important in itself. As the most detested minority in America, we need each other for support. I used to work for the DC government, which is riddled with hyper-religious African-Americans. In Texas I was surrounded by hyper-religious "middle Americans." I wasn't secretive about being an atheist but I had to bite my tongue a lot and it's nice to have people to talk to who won't offer to pray for me if I have a bad day or quote the bible in random moments in conversation.

Are these surveys a fraud or what? Atheists that believe in God? Catholics that believe in abortion? What a crock!

GeorgiaSon:

Before we are subjected to more comments from Muslims giving us their objective opinion that Islam is a touch-feely religion that embodies love and respect for all mankind, please do a few mouse clicks to the NEWS section of the POST and read this article in full:

"Egypt's Coptic Christians Are Choosing Isolation - Violent Clashes With Majority Muslims and an Increase in Separate Institutions Help Sever Centuries-Old Ties

By Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, July 7, 2008; A08

CAIRO -- Under pressure from fundamentalist forms of Islam and bursts of sectarian violence, the most populous Christian community in the Middle East is seeking safety by turning inward, cutting day-to-day social ties that have bound Muslim to Christian in Egypt for centuries, members of both communities say.
Attacks this summer on monks and shopkeepers belonging to Egypt's Coptic Christian minority, and scattered clashes between Muslims and Christians, have compelled many of Egypt's estimated 6 million to 8 million Copts to isolate themselves in a nation with more than 70 million Muslims..."

I am one of those Americans who has pointed out the monumental hypocrisy at work when Muslims harp on the alleged ignorance of Americans about Islam, while ignoring the fact that Muslim countries refuse to grant Christians in their midst the freedoms enjoyed every day by Muslims in America. I rest my case.

July 7, 2008 6:30 AM

No, you're wrong. I'm one of those atheists who responded to the Pew survey and admitted to sometimes praying. Here's the truth: I don't believe in God. While I admit that it's not knowable, my deepest conviction is that there is no Creator, no omniscient mind, certainly no personal, interested, Abrahamic God. Nobody listening.

Still, in the depths of the atavistic night, when my only child is out on the rain-slicked streets at 3am on prom night, and I'm not sure her damned boyfriend didn't have a few drinks he didn't tell her about before they started on the round of after-parties, and there is nothing I can do but give her judgement the well-earned trust it deserves, and wait, sometimes I pray. Not because I have any faith that it will do any good, but just because there's nothing else to do.

So there it is. Just as believers still sin, atheists still pray.

(As posted on Pamela Taylor's blog)

E Favourite: "By the way, you still haven’t responded to my earlier question – how does questioning make your faith stronger? If you don’t want to answer, could you at least tell me that. Then I won’t ask again. If you do answer, I promise not to challenge your response. Thanks. ( July 7, 2008 8:24 AM)"

E Favourite

This is what I wrote on Claire Hoffman's thread (George Carlin):

"E Favourite, reason is a double edged sword. It can cut both ways, lead one away from faith or towards faith. Who is to judge how the complex mind in each one works? Even two scientists may look at the same data set and draw two different conclusions. Real faith is strengthened when tested, weak faith dies away."
(June 28, 2008 9:18 AM)

Since I didn't mention anything about questioning and faith, why do you pose such a question? I have never questioned my faith, nor has it been tested. O there are many things I don't understand, and the world is not like I would like it to be. But that doesn't lead to question the existence of God. Sure, I sometimes do wish He didn't give us so much free will for it comes with the ability to do evil and destroy ourselves and others.

However every time I read the "proof" for atheism from clever atheists and even cleverer anti-theists, I'm convinced more than ever why I believe in God as Creator of the Universe. It is a logical and rational conclusion. The more atheists try to describe the world God created as "proof" God does not exist, the more I'm convinced reason can cut both ways.

B-man: "Buddhism is atheistic. Buddhism is not a religion. There is nothing about the teachings of Buddha that one need believe on insufficient evidence. There is no Buddhist sky-god." (July 7, 2008 10:12 PM)

B-man

One reads this misconception all the time that Buddhism is not a religion. Just as Christianity can be stripped of Jesus and all other worldly stuff and reduced to the teachings of a good Rabbi, so have some people in the West reduced Buddhism to its basic teachings minus its religious aspects. Ask any real Buddhist from Asia for the real answer. Buddhism believes in reincarnation just like the Hindus do. Buddhists have all sorts of teachings about the spiritual world. Tibetan Buddhism is almost like Catholicism. Buddhism merely defines the Absolute, which other religions call by different names, in negative terms. Shunyata, Emptiness etc is a universal void which contains the fullness of everything. It is a kind of pure monotheism expressed differently.

Have you noticed the Pew in Pew research? Yes you sit on one in church and you should consider any research by the Pew research group tainted.

It is pure oxymoronic that an atheist would believe in any form of higher power. It's simply not possible.
The PEW survey is obviously errant to the max.

"Allahluia", "Allahuluia, "Allahuluia",

Finally a Muslim has submitted answers to the six point survey/poll. And she is even an On Faith panelist. See Pamela Taylor's response posted on her commentary page today.

For the rest of the Muslims out there, once again:

Do you believe:

1. In "pretty/ugly wingie" thingies? (Pamela does but in some different undefined way.)

2. That the long-dead Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words now listed in the koran? (Pamela even has bought into this legend.)

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life? (Apparently Pamela is the only Sunni Muslim that does not believe this).

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7 800 year-old feud between Sunnis and Shiites give significant credence that suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran? (Pamela apparently never reads the news.)

5. That having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of lust and polygamy? (What else can one conclude but Pamela reads from a different koran than the other 1 billion Muslims out there).

6. And that the condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of anger and greed??????? (Again Pamela reads from a different koran than the other 1 billion Muslims out there).

From Hirsi Ali's book, Infidel:

paperback issue, p. 47:

"Some of the Saudi women in our neighborhood were regularly beaten by their husbands. You could hear them at night. Their screams resounded across the courtyards. "No! Please! By Allah!" This appalled my father. He saw this horrible, casual violence as a prime example of the crudeness of the Saudis."

Jihadist, you ask...

"Don’t you, as an atheist, wants to know for certain and with empirical proof as to how belief in the supernatural may, or may not happen in a tabula rasa society on the supernatural?"

Jihadist, I know I'm wasting my breath here, but...as an atheist I don't accept the idea that there's a supernatural dimension to existence at all. There is NO REASON why I should. If I then belief in a God would be no stretch at all. The supernatural world would seem to be our own personal imaginations, and have nothing to do with reality.

Science has no more data on the supernatural than it does on Skygods and FSM's. So why would I expect empirical proof? There isn't any, and never will be.

And regards religious thinking, I agree with the great Thomas Paine who says;

"The study of theology ,as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on nothing; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing."

Thomas Paine 1737-1809 "The Age of Reason

I have difficulty giving significance to this survey, or any surveys that simplify questions of this magnitude to the extent that they do. I realize that it is an initial cog in a greater process that you are conducting, so I will certainly follow the along with the results. However, I feel as though campusing views without more attention to rationale and explanation (as you and all of us in the atheist corner generally do) allows those buying into the God of the Bible to simply state their views and walk-away, just as many of them do on a regular basis. Its yet another means for followers to undermine the thorough process of study and reflection.

Are you a Christian? says:

"If you are Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, Shinto, or any non-Christian (And some Christians, such as Gnostics, which could arguably place them in the same category), you have now been labeled an Atheist."

Buddhism is atheistic. Buddhism is not a religion. There is nothing about the teachings of Buddha that one need believe on insufficient evidence. There is no Buddhist sky-god.

Jihadist;

1) Generally speaking eating vegetable is healthier for adult human body than meat.
2) Animal also feels pain
3) Even an average decent heart/soul (actually mind) person tries to disassociate his/her bad deeds from his/her loved ones and/or "admirable" ones. [Altruism Gene Pressure]
Allah of Quran asked us to sacrifice animal in the name of Allah (preferably while reciting "Allah Hu Akbar”) on the day of Eid-ul-Adha?

Knowing above 3 points to be true , wouldn’t it be better to tie the legs of a cow with rope and force the cow down to the floor before slaughtering it in the name of Allah on Eid-ul-Azha as we Muslims are required and do it all the time, ..…we then should say, we the imperfect people with all of our weaknesses, who despite of knowing above 3 points have been eating meat all year long but today, on this one special day, special day of Eid-ul-Azha, at least for only one day out of 365 days of the year, we will be vegetarian. We will not eat meat today. To remember Ibrahim and in an attempt to emulate our great Allah’s kindness and mercy we will not kill this cow today. At least for one day, I will be kind and merciful.

We should say, just for this special day I will not associate my selfish act of killing with Allah who I love and admire. Today, I will not kill. Then move the knife away from the neck of the cow with a jerky motion, cut the rope that was tying the cow down and gently slap the cow on its hip. The cow gets up and runs away. At that time everyone watching can cheer up, jump up and down with joy, and then shout “Allah Hu Akbar”. Wouldn’t that be a scene of worth watching?
What kind of sick heart (mind) cut the neck of a cow on a special day (Eid-Ul-Azha) in the name of a special entity (Allah) who he/she loves and admire and then feel proud of it? What has happened to our (Muslims) soul? Is it dead, sleeping, sicken or sold to someone?

Because of our own weaknesses all of us do wrong and/or bad thing once in a while but only Islam make human capable of (mold in such a way) doing horrible things without a guilt. Key phrase here is not “doing bad thing” but “without a guilt”. Guilt, the power of “Altruism Gene” is the force that keeps average people in line. Islamic brain washing damages our Altruism gene. Muslims feel no guilt.

“Soul” is the part of the brain that is formed by teaching and has fundamental logic circuit with which we, homo-sapient, think, reason, and sort out truth from lies, good from bad. Islam destroys human soul. Due to Islamic teaching Muslims are no longer capable of finding the truth. Yes, Islamic teaching damages human brain, physical and logical.

We need to have this animal cruelty (sawing the neck of animal only half way and let it slowly bleed to death in a most painful manner) be banned in the Western world.

I was born and raised in an Islamic country, have lived and breathe with Muslims for decades. I know every genetic code of Muslims. I know Islamic neurons. I know every blood cell of Muslims. Muslims are the victim of Islam. Let's help cure them of the disease (“submission” of their brain) that directly attacks their neural network. I am aware of the death of their soul.

We should “Fight for the Right to blasphemy with impunity"
This is very important because the only way to make Muslims aware of the sickness of Islam is to talk about it. Hundreds of thousands of Ex-Muslims are hiding in the West from the wrath of Islam. We need some protection before we can come out in public. Muslims in the West and elsewhere can fool the relatively simple hearted Industrialized nations but they cannot fool us, the Ex-Muslims. Gullible West has no idea of Islamic teaching. We, ex-Muslims do. We will make Islam stark naked on the street as is.

Do they teach the Old Testament in parochial Christian schools ?
I am curious as to how they explain all the negative components of God's behavior and teachings.
I am 65 and still find it hard to believe in the way religion and God-belief had permeated human society.

Do they teach the Old Testament in parochial Christian schools ?
I am curious as to how they explain all the negative components of God's behavior and teachings.
I am 65 and still find it hard to believe in the way religion and God-belief had permeated human society.

If you are Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, Shinto, or any non-Christian (And some Christians, such as Gnostics, which could arguably place them in the same category), you have now been labeled an Atheist. If you don't believe in the God of the Bible, your God doesn't count.

So, Sam sez: "...a proper war of ideas can be finally waged and won."

An atheist jihad? Even against those of us believers who have never thrust our beliefs in the face of anyone?

What is the definitin of 'won' here, anyway?

Although I do appreciate others views on religion, it's almost amusing to me, a true atheist that there are a ton of these polls claiming that we obviously must not understand the meaning of the term. I personally do not believe in any god/s, heaven, hell, angels, or any others religious affectation. I have been involved in Freethinkers and Atheist groups for many many years and have never met one person who was interviewed for one of these polls.
We all must be able to find our own peace in the world and not judge others for not beleiving in the same god/s. There are those of us out there that are good moral citizens without religion. Just food for thought.

Erika - you could be a Zen master. Huang Po would be proud of you!

This morning I talked to god and she moved her tail. Oooops! I made a spelling mistake: This morning I spoke to dog and she moved her tail.

TTWS wrote:
"What will the bumbling majority do with all the crosses at Arlington?"

Man, you are really thick, aren't you? Have you already forgotten that I told you on another thread that there are no crosses at Arlington???

I told you that I drive by Arlington Cemetery twice a day, five days a week - I gave you a link to a site with photos of Arlington Cemetery and the symbols that they use to signify *whatever* a persons religion might be, including no religion at all.

Here it is again, just in case:
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.org/text/authorized_emblems_text.html

Be sure to scroll to the bottom and click on "Photo Gallery."

There are not, and never have been, crosses in Arlington Cemetery, so shut up about it already.

Frank Velazquez: "to hell with these christian a*$#@holes lets move on and forget about them,already."

* Unfortunately, all sort of believers are around you in real life - as neighbours, in schools, in the workplace. Can't run away, move on, move away from reality of this.

**************************************************

Evan Donner : "An atheist who prays is not an atheist."

* Of course, by the defination of "real atheists" who don't believe in God and have nothing to pray to and pray about.

Evan Donner : Atheists don't believe in gods, or anything supernatural, and think that praying is very silly because there's nobody up there to take your call.

Of course, by the constant refrain of "real atheists".

Evan Donner : "I am an atheist and have atheist friends; we giggle at the idiocy of prayer and belief in superstitious mumbo jumbo."

I am a believer and have atheist friends too, not just friends who are believers, and friends of every sort of beliefs in between "real atheists" and "real believers".

We don't giggle at one another's religious or non-religious beliefs. We work and have fun together and giggle at the antics of our politicians and on life, work, the arts.

There is an elephant in our city zoo named Mumbo. She is playfully called Mumbo the Jumbo.

Evan Donner : "An atheist who prays makes as much sense as a vegetarian who eats meat. The behavior cancels out the label."

A Hindu vegeterian would be surprised to hear some westerners said they are vegetarians, but do eat fish and/or other seafood. For some reason best known to them, fish and/or seafood is not meat like beef or chicken.

We don't really need to go hair-splitting on what is "real meat" or take vegetarians who eat fish to court for mislabelling themselves.

Or to have a sub-category of vegetarians call "fishy vegetarians".

Cheers and out of here.
"J"

thanks Amy.

I didn't really emphasize my sarcasm.
But support group meetings, and "communities" seem too much like trying to justify a belief or lack of belief, to me anyway.
And isn't that kind of what churches, mosques and synagogues function as? Community gathering places to reinforce their belief systems.
Because most believers have there doubts sometimes, too. Don't they?

I'd rather just not need any sort of validation or critique of my spiritualism or lack of spiritualism.

to hell with these christian a*$#@holes lets move on and forget about them,already.

Real Atheist to Mahmoud:)

"Islam is even worse It precludes any form of question, is highly dogmatic, and the only answer it provides is a meaningless reference to allah. It does not provide answers, on the contrary: it requires you as a follower to abandon your quest for answers."

Thanks for your fatwa on what Islam and Muslims should be. We will certainly acceded to your fatwa to make it so.

And now, to keep atheists (the real ones) awake at the ramparts until a proper war of ideas can be finally waged and won:

- I am a theist, I am a monotheist, I am a Muslim.

- I believe there is a God. I believe in God.

- I pray. Every blinking day.

I believe in God, therefore I am a Godeist and into Godeism. There is no God, but God.

I pray, therefore I am a prayist and into prayism. I pray to God, I pray for myself.

Oh ye atheists, the real ones,
Oh ye unbelievers, the real ones
Oh ye non-believers, the real ones
Oh ye disbelievers, the real ones
Stay awake, stay alert, stay vigililant
Stay by the ramparts, stay in the foxholes
Stay, stay and stay forever
Until a proper war of ideas there be
Until it can be finally waged and won

God is on our side
Onward theists and polytheists
God's soldiers, crusaders and jihadists
into the ramparts, into the foxholes
of the anti-theists and anti-polythiests

...and so, if Mr. Harris wants "a proper war of ideas" to "be finally waged and won", we will have to wait for him to finally finish his PhD, figure out and get clear in his mind on spiritualism and mysticism etc.

We also await a most "honest" autobiography and/or biography of Mr. Harris. Honesty and ethics is also a virtue, even for "real atheists".

Being unfair and unreasonable and illogical and irrational? Afraid so. I'm a believer.

Cheers

"J"

jmeyrick check out http://www.infidels.org for an active message board community. There are several others, too.

Also, the DC atheist meetup group meets regularly, and there are some other groups, like Beltway Atheists. There's an upcoming event you might enjoy: http://atheistdays.com/

Saying that you "disbelieve strongly" in the god of the bible is like saying you "disbelieve stongly" in Santa Claus- isn't it? I suspect that many of those confused "atheists" are rather trying to express the idea that they no longer "believe" in the doctrines of a particular religion while still having a spritual life with a deep personal experience of something that can not be expressed in words but that we might call "God" for want of a better (though totally inadequate)name.

There's an Atheist community???
where do I join?

wow, and I thought we were individuals, all alone in this silly universe.

actually need an agnostic support group...

I strongly disbelieve in both, and yes I'm an atheist.

I am sorry to hear that Sam Harris views this as a "war of ideas" that must be "won". This is why there is such disdain for atheists. They represent a small minority of this country but yet they feel they can dictate their ideas on the rest of us.

No idea, no human, can ever make me not believe in God. I only wish that someday atheists find it in their hearts to open up and allow the Holy Spirit to show them the peace and beauty that comes with surrendering to the Lord.

Mahmoud:

Islam is even worse It precludes any form of question, is highly dogmatic, and the only answer it provides is a meaningless reference to allah. It does not provide answers, on the contrary: it requires you as a follower to abandon your quest for answers.

Mahmoud,

For your eyes only:

A six question survey for you:

Do you believe:

1. In "pretty/ugly wingie" thingies aka angels?

2. That the long-dead Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words now listed in the koran?

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life?

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7 800 year-old feud between Sunnis and Shiites give significant credence that suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran?

5. That having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of lust and polygamy?

6. And that the condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of anger and greed???????

U R GAY!

it is impossible .. this systemized universe has no creator.those atheists like to do everything they long to (they are secular.) they don't want to tire themselves in worshiping the creator of everything in the universe ( Allah) . I think those people need help, need to seek fact, to read about islam . they will find what will answers to their questions.

Just to complete my thought from below:

At least some of those who identify themselves as "atheists" who believe in god are therefore probably Christians who have experienced some personal tragedy that they're working through. Even if they do attend church, they're probably going through the motions to please their family. But the root of the issue is that, at present, they believe in god, but their religion is of scant comfort. Though they still believe in a god, they feel distant from him, so, by their incorrect self-definition, they are "atheists."

I don't know if anyone has mentioned it yet, but the small number of people who identify themselves as being "atheists" who "believe in god" may be explained as follows:

Some theists (particularly of the more fundamentalist bent) define an atheist as "somebody who refuses to worship God." This is usually because he is "mad at God" because of personal tragedies. Being an "atheist" is therefore a spiteful refusal to recognize God, even though they still actually believe in a God.

Theists who use this definition are probably unable to even conceive that there are people who genuinely do not believe in a god, at all; in their mind, everyone believes, it is just a willful act of sin that some people reject God's authority.

Once you realize this, you realize that this is the reason why so many Christian apologetics (CS Lewis, Josh McDowell, etc.) are so laughably poor: they always proceed from the basic assumption that God exists. But that's okay; most apologetics aren't intended to actually convert any (actual) atheists, but to bring the wavering believer safely back into the fold, before they become an (actual) atheist.

Not-so-scared Christian:

That was a great post and as an atheist, I do respect your beliefs. Certainly a feeling of "blessing" is more than enough to cause belief in a higher power. Unfortunately, I don't believe that every (or even most) of the people who do devote their life to religion offer the same logical and tolerant outlook on the issue. And personally, I believe that humans by themselves can be benevolent, and such, my feelings of being "blessed" come as a result of the goodness in certain people (including myself) - not from a higher power.

And in regards to your "scared-of" comments, it's not necessarily death itself that people are referring to. If a person believes in and is afraid of going to hell - that's another form of "fear of death" in my opinion.

Americans are hopeless, We are a superstitious, ignorant arrogant people who can't even be bothered to check on the basis of any of our core beliefs.
I used to be beat up by Christians for believing in dinosaurs when I was little. I read the other day that over 51% of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein perpetuated the 9/11 attacks...The same number of Americans who believe we are being visited by space aliens.

I do believe something, I believe the PEW pollsters are trying to reach a certain conclusion. They want to show that most Americans believe in a god. To this end they ask vague questions without definitions.

What is a "universal spirit"? This could be construed to mean that everything and everyone is connected. That is not religion, nor does it mean you believe in a god or gods. It's in our DNA not in some "soul". But I can see an atheist or a buddhist saying yes to that question and trying to explain it to some moron pollster too. I can also see christian right jerks saying they are atheists that believe in god just to skew results.

So why does the Pew poll always ask some ephemeral thing as part of the "do you believe in god" question? Because that ensures a report that most Americans believe in some god. It's utter nonsense and they do it every time, making it more vague each time.

There are a lot of things that don't make sense in the Pew poll on religion. This is just one of them. I for one, do not believe the % of people reporting they go to church every week or twice a week. If it were true our roads in No VA would be totally congested on Sunday mornings (based on their poll about how many are christians), and that does NOT happen.

This survey still frames the poll in the context of theism. Some current atheist thinking removes the difficulty of proving or disproving a negative by questioning the relevance of the creator hypothesis based on measurable impact, i.e. did you forget to fill your gas tank or did the evil petroleum fairy steal it while you weren't looking? - even if you filled the tank, there are several other explanations that don't require the introduction of an entity that shows no other evidence of existence (like somebody with a siphon, gas can and octane breath).

It may not be about belief or disbelief, but about acknowledging the relevance of the question. One could equally ask the same questions substituting "Flying Spaghetti Monster" for "God", many atheists consider this to be the same question. In either case attributing disbelief is still conceding what the atheist perceives as a false premise.

I see a lot of comments from athiests here (not the confused, 21% of self-proclaimed athiests, but the real thing, I think) that percieve people who believe in a god as "scared" of death or the unexplainable. Actually, some of us are not religious because we are scared, but because we feel blessed and grateful. Maybe we have too rosy an outlook on things, but it certainly isn't fear (actually, "Hell" is a lot scarier than oblivion, I think, and the same survey found that 59% believe in Hell - yikes - I really wish I could choose to believe in oblivion instead).

What really scares me is religious intollerance. I hate to see a Muslim treat a Jew with disrespect. I hate to see a Christian treat a Hindu with disrespect. And I hate to see an athiest treat a religious person with disrespect. After all, we are all struggling to understand a complicated universe and none of really has irrefutable proof of our beliefs. Our "melting pot" nation not only was founded on tolerance, but because of our diversity and education, we depend on tolerance for our survival. So athiests, I respect you. I know you couldn't have come to the conclusions that you did without education, soul-searching, and careful thought. And I hope that you respect that I am not scared.

Thanks Sam. Rather enlightening. Three things jump out:

First, giving the respondents the benefit of a doubt that they are not as dumb as a bag of hammers we must presume they know what the word ‘atheist’ means. Ergo a small percent delight in wasting pollsters’ time so nonsense can walk about on stilts. They are the percent who simply mock polls.

Second, the margin for error (as you suggest) nullifies the mischief done by that exercise in intellectual rubbish.

Finally, and most important, the stunning statistics of your own surveys help explain how it is that a “Liberal” Harvard-educated civil rights lawyer (so-called) can, over nary a bubble of protest, get away with speaking Ketman as he pays lip service to the Separation of Church and State at the very same time he,

(1) proposes to deny a ‘fundamental’ civil right for no other reason than religion (Obama’s repeated and unequivocal position) and thereby promise to twice violate the Constitution by dishonoring the First Amendment for the nefarious explicit purpose of denying rights of “due process” and ‘equal protection” guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment (see "Untangling Barack Obama's audacious mumbo jumbo," ) and

(2) promising to further erode Jefferson’s “WALL” by increasing federal expenditures for already unconstitutional taxpayer contributions to Faith-Based Initiatives. Of course the Supreme Court knows this is illegal which is why they avoided addressing the issue by simply stripping taxpayers of their standing to sue.

Given the results of your own polls it is easy to understand how such intellectual and legal rubbish can so audaciously walk about on silts as American marches backwards in lockstep on two left feet.

For this phenomenon Bryant Daniels provides le mot juste: “zombies”

John P. Mortimer

The comments pointing out that the strangely deistic atheists indicated by the Pew survey cannot be ascribed to "sampling error" (which is what is typically meant by "polling error") are correct. This type of error measures only how much the results are expected to deviate from the whole population being sampled for statistical reasons.

However there is entirely distinct type of error that afflicts all types of data collection and polling particularly. It is measurement error. (Some posters here have alluded to particular special cases of this.)

If for example you take a poll of some measurable attribute of a person (say, height), and minimize as much as humanly possible the temptation of vanity answers, and plot the results you will end up with a bell curve - up to a point. After you get a few standard deviations from the mean in either direction though you start getting results that are far off (much larger) than statistics (or objective measurements of the same population) would yield. (This is from personal experience in analyzing surveys, by the way.)

What is happening is that there is an underlying error rate (for what ever reason) in the answers to survey questions. Some fraction of them (and it is much greater than 1 in 1000) are simply wrong.

Thus most of the "deistic atheists" are likely deists who simply answered the one question about being an athiest incorrectly.

The problem with this survey and those answering it is the too broad (could mean anything) definition of what and who is "God". The survey is meaningless if it does not seriously pin down a strict meaning of what is and is not. An atheist by it modern reading by it nature cannot believe in a god, a supernatural designer/conductor. An atheist who admits they believe in god is not an atheist, they are a believer in a God, a supra-natural force. The English language has set aside one word, that sums up a total non-believer of divinity, Atheist... for believers to steal this word and muddy it leave zero words in our language to describe this mindset... if this word is forever stolen, then a new word needs to be created to end this confusion.

People will always believe what they want to believe. Whether they're afraid of death, afraid of the unknown, unable to comprehend, or simply unwilling to make an unbiased informed decision, people will always have a reason to believe in an omnipotent power.

Religion used to be a good thing. At one point, it was created to explain the unexplainable, and to provide a universal set of morals and ethics that every sane, logical person should live by. It has since turned into a cause for war, a reason for killing, and an excuse for power. Much like communism, religion is the greatest idea that will never be able to attain it's true goal due to one fatal flaw: human error.

People who claim to be atheists, yet believe in God, may be described best by another word - stupid.

The bible was written by MAN.
A bunch of stories to:
1. Explain the unexplainable.
2. Scare people into doing the right thing (morals).
3. Scare people out of believing differently.

I am sure Jesus existed. He was a good man. A good man in that day and age was unexplainable. So, he must be the son of God. There, I just explained the unexplainable.
Without science and knowlege, all they had was the bible.
Times have changed. The science books have all but replaced the bible.
Except for the masses of people who are still scared. They believe in the scientist's "reason" a cloud is formed, but still think God made it happen. There are many "Christians" that don't believe in God, but they feel it is not PC to say so.
When Earth was formed, it is simple.
Our "rock" was thrown from our sun the perfect distance. The size of our sun, the size of earth, and the distance from that sun, all add up to - LIFE. The ratios were there and "we" are what happened.
I am so glad I am not scared any more.

This column seems confused as to the nature of polling error. In general this is the degree to which the sampling population is taken to be representative of the general population. It is not the percentage of the population that somehow answers the question wrong.

I don't pretend to know what is going through the mind of someone who claims to be an atheist who believes in a personal god. But pointing to sample error does nothing to explain it.

"a happily married bachelor"
Hmmm...seems that I'm divorcing one of those now!

I think the problem is some people don't know the meaning of the word atheist. How is it that people who identify themselves as atheists even asked if about god and the bible. There should be a "skip to part c"instruction or something.

I guess the problem is that some people consider themselves "atheists" because they do not belong to a church. Another possibility is that they are simply ignorant.
I am an atheist because I am as certain that no god or gods exist as that the Pope is Catholic.

Some are probably Deists Sam, but are not aware of the term "deism", so because they reject revelation and faith they probably think of themselves as Atheists by accident. I myself for example am an Anti-theistic Agnostic-Deist, I know I'm not an Atheist, but I consider Atheists my kin.
By the way, I'm Canadaian but I took your survey.

Anyways Sam, keep up the good work.

In Reason:
Bill Baker

I refuse to be called anything. If I do not belive in black holes does that mean a lable must be made for me ? The presure for folks who are so afraid of death is so scary that their need to belive there is something beside living here. As any scientist would tell you without absolute proof there is always the slightiest possibility of anything. So an alternative universe, that we are on the head of a pin, etc. I like science and discovering new things. But belief in a 'political moral control system' that is arbitrary, is not one of the systems I appreciate. I do wish folks would believe in science and try human ways appreciate each other without witches, gods, sprits, saints, etc. I like thngs that are tangable and aid in humaity.

Sam:

Can you please provide a link to or a link to this " recent Pew survey"? Thanks

Well,

Let's see now, I just recently—over a three-day period—made an almost-impossible attempt to try and prove to a local Tampa right wing group that there is no such thing as Jesus. Even with the newly-found tablet portraying a “written-in-stone” version of the Dead Sea Scrolls—issued in Yahoo News two days ago—and actually found about 10 years ago, depicting the absolute truths that Jesus never did exist; this tablet signifying another extinguishing of the zombie-like entranced state of mind that, we would like to “believe,” anyway, would help bring a tranquil subsiding to the lives of those indoctrinated into a fairytale of utopian dreams with glimpses of angels’ wings. And, of course, I received nothing but an ear-full of manipulated words of false hopes and dreams—full of rhetorical pompousness, to say the least—that there is nothing in this world that came to being except through the power of God “Himself.”

Our brethren here in the US are so sickly retarded and ignorant, that I find it nauseating to try and comprehend their absurdities. For example, one Catholic comrade has convinced himself that only God can allow for the components of Thermodynamics to exist; that being, mass and energy can only happen by omnipotence—bottom line. If this is being tought in the Catholic Church then we need a lot of help with the minds of humankind.

It is almost impossible for me to begin to fathom the realization that our friends and families actually believe that the Homo sapiens sapiens have a soul dwelling within the natural body of what had become by an evolutionary happening of naturalistic selection of environmental adaptation.

What is it that makes a person’s mind believe that the human being has a soul that will float up and away once the body dies? How can an immaterial force of energy (god/God) be an omnipotent happening when our world of physics and astrophysics proves to us that nothing can possess energy without having mass? Does God, as well as our so-called soul, have a quality of consistency that could be made of atomic particles so small that no mechanical instrument is able to detect what could be an impossible task to achieve? Do you think that this could be "Dark Matter?" And why would we, Homo sapiens sapiens, have souls and our own household pets would not? There is not that much difference; we just happened to have turned a different corner around 4 million years ago when we began as the Australopithecus.

So, I must ask once again: What makes us so special that we would be any different or more special than that of a cock roach? What makes us any more special than that of a chimp, bonobo, or a gorilla, that we would have a soul and they would not? Then shouldn’t microorganisms have souls? Why not? They are living creatures; let me put it this way: NO!!! What we see is what we get, and what we cannot detect is not in any way, shape or form, going to reciprocate to us what we may search for the rest of our lives here on this “Pale Blue Dot” in order to reach palatability—that being reality.

Sincerely, Bryant Daniels

There is just no way to be an atheist and also believe in a God or any supernatural/mystical entity. A true atheist (and I am one) takes a very hardcore position on the subject. There is no wiggle room. And frankly, I feel to say you believe in God (whether some personal God or some organized religion's God) is not much of an agnostic view, either. In a nutshell, agnostics are open to both possibilities -- there is or is not a God. The moment you say you believe in God (whatever your God is) you ARE religious. Just what religion depends on what God. I think what this survey really shows is that many Americans are completely clueless... no surprise there.

Anotherpointofview:

The universe itself is a giant laboratory where things are tried 'this way' and 'that way'..., constrained by a number of natural laws of physics. Things that work remain, things that don't work disappear. It's actually a very simple mechanism that does not require infinite wisdom to 'design' things. The mechanism is called EVOLUTION, and the only thing it requires is time. Given that the estimated age of the universe is about 14 billion years, chances are that after such time has elapsed a neural net has succeeded in making sure your little toe keeps you in balance. Your design premise is faulty in that you disregard the mechanism of time/adaptation as trials in a lab.
On the other hand, I'm always aching to ask advocates of intelligent design why if all was "designed" by a superior intelligence, nothing has appeared simultaneously in history, i.e., what took god so long to put us on Earth after the dinosaurs, and why if he intended for us to walk upright did he give us such weak knees!

i haven't seen this issue in a while and believe the right wants to bring it up in an election year, will encourage any discussion, no matter how far removed from the issues, that will create an emotional response in the voters. it's typically manipulative, and the post is sponsoring it.

Unbelievable is the fact that anyone believes anything not observed, not experienced through the senses, not intellectually deduced, not actually tested. Bertrand Russell asked it best, "Who made God?" Who is that, I would ask? I've only been told by others or mentioned in literature and the arts that this personage is there, somewhere. That is like believing that we can live after dying or be raised from the dead. Why hasn't anyone come back from the dead to tell us of their experiences? That's simple, because they can't.

Mr. Harris:

Thank you for your voice of reason!

Mr. Harris:

Thank you for your voice of reason!

I am an atheist and I know many atheist people. Not one of them believes in any "entity" in the sky or a higher power. The people I know who have doubts or are not sure call themselves agonostics or are mildly religious.

We don't believe in determinism. Things happened by chance. I am who I am because my mother married my father and not her ex-BF.

Seems like a poll made my religious folks trying to prove they are not wrong, that even atheists can believe in fantasies...

Beyond Belief

Now I like that phrase. Personally I don't consider the stuff. So I'm none of the above.

Maybe atheists don't read well. They should pray about that.

It think the problem is that the majority of Americans, even atheists, think of "God" as Yahweh, the God described by Hebrew scholars in the Torah.

For many people "atheist" means that a person does not believe in Yahweh.

But as we Americans begin to learn more about God, without the shackles of the Hebrew framework, we see that a belief in God - the God of Nature as Thomas Jefferson suggested - is possible.

That is the source of our confusion. Atheist, by definition, is one who believes in NO God of any description. However, in our naive state of devotion in America, we still think that God is that big angry Poseidon-like fellow with the rumbly voice and the ancient morals.

Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of atheist either. The "plain meaning of words" doesn't mean much when the original Greek "atheist" (Godless) has taken on so much baggage over the last 2500 years.

Believing in a universal spirit doesn't necessitate believe in "God." You can reject "God," whether Yaweh, Juno or the great spaghetti monster, without throwing teleology out the window.

Similarly, it stands within reason that someone could believe in an ontological organization to the universe, even complete with a heaven, hell and purgatory, (or their equivalents), without a God.

The apparent contradictions you find aren't from the stupidity of the people polled, but from the narrowness of your biased definitions.

Poster [insert name here],

I agree completely.

If only everyone would just believe exactly what we believe, then everything would be fine. Anybody who doesn't is clearly mentally defective and should be ignored.

Thank you for your wisdom.

Those who call themselves "Agnostics" are simply hedging their bets.

Those who call themselves "Athiests" and really are, have no invisible (mystic) means of support are confident and secure within their own thoughts.

Those who call themselves "Athiests" and still (kinda)believe(alittle), please review the first sentence".

All other "Religious Types" are hanging on to an ego that states " I can't die" I'll live forever, have a great afterlife,see Pearly Gates, Walk Golden Streets, visit past relatives, ancestors, and even some virgins.

Invention comes after study and experiment, neither of which 'nature' is inherently capable of. No decision making there. No 'lets try it this way' there either. Rather, it (nature) encompasses chance and and environment.

Invention can include chance (breakthrough) thru design or process change, but can also be accomplished regardless of environment in many cases if so pursued.

The fine operative of the human physical system, from the smallest neuron in the brain to the balance afforded us by our smallest toe cannot be by chance.

It is a wondrous creation that you or I can only hope to mimick mere parts of on an exponentially smaller scale.

"It may well be that some atheists, lacking the requisite fear of hell, find it amusing to maliciously waste a pollster’s time."

That's what I'm thinking. Then again, never underestimate the power of people to be, well, idiots. If you've ever seen Jay Walking (on Jay Leno) you realize that there are a lot of people out there who just don't get it. And by 'it' I mean... anything.

There may be a very simple and mundane explanation. When asked the question some of our semi-literate populace may have thought they were being asked if they we "A Theist".

Anotherpointofview:
There is a huge difference between a belief in a creator or God, and a belief in radiowaves or radiation and air.

The effects of radiowaves, radiation and air can all be demonstrated and objective data can be collected to support their hypothesis. There have been no successful attempts (many have tried) to find any objective evidence that supports a God. Not a single verifiable prayer experiment (properly constructed) has ever shown evidence of a supernatural intercession. Imagine how different our world would be if it did! Don't you think the scientist would love for this to be the case, think of the research grants! - Unfortunately the facts do not support it, despite your beliefs and wishes for it to be true - sorry!

The term "Athiest" has indeed been butchered and mis-categorized to ridiculous levels. In fact, the term should not even exist. There is no term for people who do not believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, etc..

Actually, I think there is, and the term is: Adult.

"2) mankind can make certain inventions, but not without thought, planning, design and effort. (ie the invention cannot evolve of itself without a designer)."

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

Completely false. Many "inventions," discoveries, or creations come by complete accident with zero thought, planning, design, or effort. Evolution itself always comes about through a designer, which happens to be nature and the evolved subject itself.

I agree with your final statement though: "Lots of unknowns out there. We shouldnt be too quick to discount or disregard any possibilities or probabilities or realities." But through my own research, education, analysis, and logic, I feel I have diligently formed my opinion and beliefs with regards to all possibilities.

Could it be that some of these people confuse "atheist" with not belonging to an organized church?

Or are they too frightened at the concept of no afterlife at all to completely throw god out the window? Many people cling to religion just because of the afterlife question.

Should we expect to see mega-churches soon for athiests? It would give athiest to find nice mates and participate in the music programs because they didn't make it as a long haired musician during the 80's.

Hi Sam,

I don't really know in what I believe in, but I'm pretty sure everybody is wrong. My sister had a made who, in christmas eve, was waiting for Santa with the kids. She was thirty years old at that time. That made me think about it. We know that when you tell someone about something and this person tells it to another, the versions will be different. Now imagine two thousand years ago. If people are ignorant now, imagine then. Imagine David Blane at that time. He'd be God. With the knowledge that I have now I would be a God.
If somebody told us, when kids, that easter bunny exists, that Santa exists, with no one to tell us the truth it would be extremely difficult to know what is true and what is fantasy. That is the power of a lie told over and over again. You end up believing it's true. Was there a Jesus? Did he have superpowers? Or was he just some guy? I thing was there just as Hercules, Thor and He-man. A lie told over and over, until the point humanity could't dare think if it's real or fantasy. Human kind needs a hero and needs an example to be fallowed. A garantee of punishment for crimes not solved here on Earth. A big father on heaven to help us solve our problems. Pleople just can't live knowing that they will die. In fact, I think religion only exists because of the fear of dying. Also it's a tool for manovering people's behavior. A method of institutionalization.
God may not exist, but people aren't ready to know about it. People need God. People aren't ready to believe in their selves, so they believe in God. It's like a stick to help us walk. You can walk by yourself, but most pleople don't, so they use a stick called God. There might be something like a spirit after you die. Who knows? But it has nothing to do with God, it's just some other kind of existence a part of nature. We are so important as ants, flies, dogs. We all came from the same place and we'll all go back to where ever it is. We are star dust. A gigantic sum of coincidences that ended up in all of this. It can all disapear just as easily as it appeared.
Sorry for the bad spelling, hope you understood what I ment.
Thank's for the attention.
Zé Luiz
Brazil

God is alive and well. All who disbelieve in God are in for quite surprise.

I read the same poll (Pew) and they definitely did not know how to ask the questions, which shouldn't surprise any atheist. It's part on the inherited game.
I am agnostic, as defined by society, therefore I am atheist (small A) by default. I am also nostic (knows) in that my god is the human (or living) spirit: no celesial being, deity, divinity, or Irish Cop-In-The-Sky. This is very close to the original Gnostic thought which the Christians attemped to kill. They did kill a lot of the followers, and destroyed most of their written dogma.
I also believe in god (small g). I believe in the essence, but not the existance. This is still very convenient and useful to most humans who need a little "dream father help". I pray to the golf gods every time I line up a putt. (I bet Tiger Woods does too.) The reality of heaven/hell or living for eternity is ridiculous. God (small g) is a useable product and should be called upon in curses and moments of sexual ecstasy. He\She is for our use as we see fit. After all, the belivers use Him for that.

Wow - "nonsense in such a pristine state" hardly begins to describe the ridiculous results of this poll.

Either the poll was deliberately constructed to mislead, or some of the respondents should have been required to take an IQ test.

The existence of a Creator God is just as easy to beleive/comprehend as the fact that something cannot come from nothing, or specifically, something so intricate as the human mind and body and the human spirit within cannot evolve just as 1) mankind can in no way or fashion make a replicate of the same and 2) mankind can make certain inventions, but not without thought, planning, design and effort. (ie the invention cannot evolve of itself without a designer).

Mankind limits their own universe when they can observe and realize that they have dominion over certain other creations, yet they cannot phathom, suggest, realize, contemplate, ponder or whatever adjective you desire that would make the point that they, too, are the subjects of a higher power than they.

Can one 'see' radio frequencies?

Can one 'see' radiation?

Can one 'see' the air they breathe?

Lots of unknowns out there. We shouldnt be too quick to discount or disregard any possibilities or probabilities or realities.

If I had to define my own spiritual life, if spirituality as defined in main stream or fundamentalist Christianity were on one side and Atheistic views were as far away from it on the other, I might define myself as Atheistic - just to distance myself as far as possible from that definition of God awareness. Every belief held from the use of the Earth to the covenant of all men being equal to tolerance to acceptance of other ideas to suffering little children to come onto him and forbiding them not (don't you think that the Pope's edict of excommunication for all women who wish to became priests comes under that one) to a life of pure love as opposed to the belief that there are actually people who are choosen and singled out for God's love, wouldn't all that be a reason to distance oneself from a belief system?

I believe science, including biology, and religion are compatible. In humans the sex determiner is provided by the mail sperm. So the virgin birth is reasonable if Jesus was a transvestite.

/shrug

Sartre wrote that "hell is other people." If there is no god, he would be right.

Sam Harris has just given me yet another reason to swallow a bullet. Thermodynamics wins in the end.

The notion of a "god-fearing" atheist is truly a proposition too hopelessly absurd to contemplate with any seriousness. Pure and splendid idiocy. Such responses should be eliminated from the survey on the grounds that the respondents lack the necessary mental competence to answer questions coherently.

The term "Athiest" has indeed been butchered and mis-categorized to ridiculous levels. In fact, the term should not even exist. There is no term for people who do not believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, etc.. There shouldn't be one for those who do not believe in "God" either.

Wow! I can't wait to hear M.R.I. data. What a split when it comes to belief. It will be interesting to see what is really thought in the mind where no one but the thinker truly knows. I get the suspicion there are more atheists than admitted, because surely they cannot believe blatant lies!

In virtually all discussions of Atheism vs Theism which are common these days, severasl viewpoints are conspicuous by theirabsence,ie,in discussions not absent in the real world. These are Agnostic
uncertainty which can "lean" either toward or against religious values, a more-or-less "Taoist"
viewpoint that holds that teleology exists in the natural order even if this does not conform to conventional religios paradigms, and Goddess devotion in many forms. This last is especially important since the number of Goddess devotees in the world is about 2 billion, counting Hindus, Mahayana Buddhists, etc,as well as Neo-Pagans of many persuasions. It would ne nice, in other words, if discussion of religious issues ot of the war of ideas between Atheists and believers
took into account human reality rather than the simplistic model of "religion" which is promoted about equally by many Atheists and many, many
so-called Fundamentalists.
Thank you, Billy Rojas
recently retired teacher of Comparative Religion

The religions of the world are very worried. They see cracks forming in the foundation and they are beginning to crank up their spin machines.

reason over faith: "Atheism is not a religion, nor a belief system. It is a LACK of a belief system."

Anyone who believes they can function without a belief system is obviously confused about the nature of belief. In this case the person believes they do not have a belief system. We can accept that as a proposition, but doesn't the person have some obligation to describe the logic behind it? How does this person perform even the most menial tasks, without belief. Anyone observing this behavior for a while would be able to tell what they believe, even if they are not themselves aware of it.

The ACLU supports the right of individuals (their families) to have the symbols of individual religious beliefs of veterans recognized on headstones in military cemeteries.

The ACLU does not support the government support of religous symbols (such as Mt. Soledad Latin Cross) where we have state suuported religious symbol located on government property and that it is maintained and financed by the government.

This nation should respect the religious beliefs (or non-beliefs) of all of its citizens.
==
On the poll issue it seems like they should include questions that will allow them to screen out answers that indicate the interviewie was just randomly picking answers, maybe with the purpose of gettig the poll over with quicker.

Just like Sally ?

Says Sam: "The incongruity and moral carelessness of such certainty is reason enough to keep atheists (the real ones) awake at the ramparts until a proper war of ideas can be finally waged and won."

The point being that he is spoiling for a proper War of Ideas?

ahem...Mr. Harris has constructed a career by publically goading believers and striking his strident protector-of-rationality pose in much the same fashion, time after wearying time.

Rather than bemoan the diversity of belief, perhaps he can accept the innate human quality of spirituality and move on to other combative endeavors that may have more heft and potential good for society. Endlessly arguing with straw men opponents over how many angels cannot dance on the head of a pin is not only getting tiresome but is fruitless.

This is a comment to Peter Huff.

Sorry. Reason and faith do not go hand in hand. They are both opposites. Faith is the antithesis of reason.

Reason is when you believe something to be true based on facts that support it and there is no contradictory evidence against it.

Faith is the exact opposite. It is when you believe something to be true based on no factual evidence to support it, and in the face of contradictory evidence against it.

Not all belief is faith-based. In fact, most beliefs are reason-based.

This is yet another misconception and bad definition from those who just do not understand.

As an atheist, I am somewhat annoyed and exasperated about how the definition of an atheist has been butchered, misused,etc..

Let me clear it up:

ATHEIST: Someone who lacks a belief in a god or gods.

That simple. Atheism is not a religion, nor a belief system. It is a LACK of a belief system.

A theist makes the positive claim that a god or gods exist. I respond with please provide logical, non-contradictory, factual proof a god or gods exist. I have yet to receive or read a coherent such argument.

Therefore, I choose NOT to believe a theists positive claim that a god or gods exist.

It is that simple.

Either you are atheist or theist. Being a so-called agnostic is just a contradictory cop out.

If you do not believe in a theist's claim that a god or gods exist, then you are an atheist. Not that, "Well, I do not believe you, but I do not know how to prove you wrong" argument.

Try not to pass your ignorance or lack of desire to research the claim on the rest of us.

Why even write about this? At least 5% of the population ate too many paint chips and will always answer questions stupidly, because they are simply morons.

The above results suggest two things the author partially accounts for: (1) the participants didn't understand the question or the terms (e.g., athiest) properly; or (2) the question was complex/ambiguous and therefore has limited authenticity. The results suggest, even if the former, then the latter is certainly true. If I remember, the same Pew survey also accounted that many "God" fearing believers did not believe in God. So, it cuts both ways and one must be wary of these results, even if the sample was statistically very large; that doesn't solve poor questioning and psychometrics (and this is what I do for a living).

1) Generally speaking eating vegetable is healthier for adult human body than meat.
2) Animal also feels pain
3) Even an average decent heart/soul (actually mind) person tries to disassociate his/her bad deeds from his/her loved ones and/or "admirable" ones. [Altruism Gene Pressure]
Allah of Quran asked us to sacrifice animal in the name of Allah (preferably while reciting "Allah Hu Akbar”) on the day of Eid-ul-Azha?

Knowing above 3 points to be true , wouldn’t it be better to tie the legs of a cow with rope and force the cow down to the floor before slaughtering it in the name of Allah on Eid-ul-Azha as we Muslims are required and do it all the time, ..…we then should say, we the imperfect people with all of our weaknesses, who despite of knowing above 3 points have been eating meat all year long but today, on this one special day, special day of Eid-ul-Azha, at least for only one day out of 365 days of the year, we will be vegetarian. We will not eat meat today. To remember Ibrahim and in an attempt to emulate our great Allah’s kindness and mercy we will not kill this cow today. At least for one day, I will be kind and merciful.

We should say, just for this special day I will not associate my selfish act of killing with Allah who I love and admire. Today, I will not kill. Then move the knife away from the neck of the cow with a jerky motion, cut the rope that was tying the cow down and gently slap the cow on its hip. The cow gets up and runs away. At that time everyone watching can cheer up, jump up and down with joy, and then shout “Allah Hu Akbar”. Wouldn’t that be a scene of worth watching?
What kind of sick heart (mind) cut the neck of a cow on a special day (Eid-Ul-Azha) in the name of a special entity (Allah) who he/she loves and admire and then feel proud of it? What has happened to our (Muslims) soul? Is it dead, sleeping, sicken or sold to someone?

Because of our own weaknesses all of us do wrong and/or bad thing once in a while but only Islam make human capable of (mold in such a way) doing horrible things without a guilt. Key phrase here is not “doing bad thing” but “without a guilt”. Guilt, the power of “Altruism Gene” is the force that keeps average people in line. Islamic brain washing damages our Altruism gene. Muslims feel no guilt.

“Soul” is the part of the brain that is formed by teaching and has fundamental logic circuit with which we, homo-sapient, think, reason, and sort out truth from lies, good from bad. Islam destroys human soul. Due to Islamic teaching Muslims are no longer capable of finding the truth. Yes, Islamic teaching damages human brain, physical and logical.

We need to have this animal cruelty (sawing the neck of animal only half way and let it slowly bleed to death in a most painful manner) be banned in the Western world.
I was born and raised in an Islamic country, have lived and breathe with Muslims for decades. I know every genetic code of Muslims. I know Islamic neurons. I know every blood cell of Muslims. Muslims are the victim of Islam. Let's help cure them of the disease (“submission” of their brain) that directly attacks their neural network. I am aware of the death of their soul.

We should “Fight for the Right to blasphemy with impunity"
This is very important because the only way to make Muslims aware of the sickness of Islam is to talk about it. Hundreds of thousands of Ex-Muslims are hiding in the West from the wrath of Islam. We need some protection before we can come out in public. Muslims in the West and elsewhere can fool the relatively simple hearted Industrialized nations but they cannot fool us, the Ex-Muslims. Gullible West has no idea of Islamic teaching. We, ex-Muslims do. We will make Islam stark naked on the street as is.

email: timf1234@yahoo.com

1) Generally speaking eating vegetable is healthier for adult human body than meat.
2) Animal also feels pain
3) Even an average decent heart/soul (actually mind) person tries to disassociate his/her bad deeds from his/her loved ones and/or "admirable" ones. [Altruism Gene Pressure]
Allah of Quran asked us to sacrifice animal in the name of Allah (preferably while reciting "Allah Hu Akbar”) on the day of Eid-ul-Adha?

Knowing above 3 points to be true , wouldn’t it be better to tie the legs of a cow with rope and force the cow down to the floor before slaughtering it in the name of Allah on Eid-ul-Azha as we Muslims are required and do it all the time, ..…we then should say, we the imperfect people with all of our weaknesses, who despite of knowing above 3 points have been eating meat all year long but today, on this one special day, special day of Eid-ul-Azha, at least for only one day out of 365 days of the year, we will be vegetarian. We will not eat meat today. To remember Ibrahim and in an attempt to emulate our great Allah’s kindness and mercy we will not kill this cow today. At least for one day, I will be kind and merciful.

We should say, just for this special day I will not associate my selfish act of killing with Allah who I love and admire. Today, I will not kill. Then move the knife away from the neck of the cow with a jerky motion, cut the rope that was tying the cow down and gently slap the cow on its hip. The cow gets up and runs away. At that time everyone watching can cheer up, jump up and down with joy, and then shout “Allah Hu Akbar”. Wouldn’t that be a scene of worth watching?
What kind of sick heart (mind) cut the neck of a cow on a special day (Eid-Ul-Azha) in the name of a special entity (Allah) who he/she loves and admire and then feel proud of it? What has happened to our (Muslims) soul? Is it dead, sleeping, sicken or sold to someone?

Because of our own weaknesses all of us do wrong and/or bad thing once in a while but only Islam make human capable of (mold in such a way) doing horrible things without a guilt. Key phrase here is not “doing bad thing” but “without a guilt”. Guilt, the power of “Altruism Gene” is the force that keeps average people in line. Islamic brain washing damages our Altruism gene. Muslims feel no guilt.

“Soul” is the part of the brain that is formed by teaching and has fundamental logic circuit with which we, homo-sapient, think, reason, and sort out truth from lies, good from bad. Islam destroys human soul. Due to Islamic teaching Muslims are no longer capable of finding the truth. Yes, Islamic teaching damages human brain, physical and logical.

We need to have this animal cruelty (sawing the neck of animal only half way and let it slowly bleed to death in a most painful manner) be banned in the Western world.

I was born and raised in an Islamic country, have lived and breathe with Muslims for decades. I know every genetic code of Muslims. I know Islamic neurons. I know every blood cell of Muslims. Muslims are the victim of Islam. Let's help cure them of the disease (“submission” of their brain) that directly attacks their neural network. I am aware of the death of their soul.

We should “Fight for the Right to blasphemy with impunity"
This is very important because the only way to make Muslims aware of the sickness of Islam is to talk about it. Hundreds of thousands of Ex-Muslims are hiding in the West from the wrath of Islam. We need some protection before we can come out in public. Muslims in the West and elsewhere can fool the relatively simple hearted Industrialized nations but they cannot fool us, the Ex-Muslims. Gullible West has no idea of Islamic teaching. We, ex-Muslims do. We will make Islam stark naked on the street as is.

An interesting alternative poll might be to ask how many regular church-going members actually don’t believe in any supernatural beings. Although most would lie unless the survey was anonymous, the percentage would probably be a lot higher than the 21% of Atheists who say they believe in God (which is after all an undefined, incomprehensible term. This would include almost all politicians who only pretend to be religious to get votes). It’s impossible for anyone to believe in the existence of something that they can’t comprehend, conceive, imagine or define and have never seen. (Try to define the word ’exist’ without referring to ’atoms’, ’electrons’ or ’quantum’. If anything is composed of nothing - like ‘ghosts‘, that is the definition of non-existence. The words ‘Holy Ghost‘ is double nonsense.) The word ‘God’ has no natural meaning. Neither does the word ’Holy’. (There is no such thing as ‘Super Natural’. Everything that exists in the Universe is natural. Everything that is unnatural doesn’t exist. There is no third category except in human imagination.
Many believe that the word ‘God’ is just a personification of the word ‘Good’, and the word ‘Devil’ is just a personification of the word ‘Evil’. Mythologies have always personified emotions: Venus was the goddess of Love. Does anyone still believe she was a real person?
If only 21% of church-going people are secretly non-believers, there’s a lot of closet Atheists living among us.

The thing that we should be most in awe is not God but the incredible human mind. Here is the thing. An inch is about 2.5 centimeters long. Consider dividing one centimeter by 100,000,000 equal divisions. A myoglobin molecule has a dioameter of about 37 such units. Within this molecule there are about 1500 or so non-hydrogen atoms. To be able to get the structure of this protein, the exact location of these 1,500 atoms in this minute space has to be determined and it has been solved, not by resorting to mumbo-jumbo religion but by the incredibility ingenuity of the human mind.

To say that we (atheists) don't believe in a god puts out the possibility that a god exists and we just choose not to believe.

The bottom line is that atheists know that god does not exist and the people answering the survey are easily confused (as are most people) or don't know what is the definition of atheism.

Nothing surprises me anymore. The ignorance and stupidity of so many Americans these days is appalling. Ask an immigrant from Colombia or Russia what it is like to enter an American high school or college? They are appalled at the level of ignorance of the American students. Religion--why we are the most religious nation in the world, it would seem. So why should it be surprising that our "atheists" believe in some form of deity? The likelihood is that the people who took this survey had not a clue about the meaning of the words "atheist" and "agnostic." And those questions, well does a "personal God" mean: a God who is a person (what would that be?), a God who is personable, perhaps, or maybe my personal conception of God? The old debates about the persons of the Trinity and all that, well who knows about that or even if they do, who understands what was at stake. By the way, I seem to recall that the word "person" goes back to the Latin word for mask.

Nothing surprises me anymore. The ignorance and stupidity of so many Americans these days is appalling. Ask an immigrant from Colombia or Russia what it is like to enter an American high school or college? They are appalled at the level of ignorance of the American students. Religion--why we are the most religious nation in the world, it would seem. So why should it be surprising that our "atheists" believe in some form of deity? The likelihood is that the people who took this survey had not a clue about the meaning of the words "atheist" and "agnostic." And those questions, well does a "personal God" mean: a God who is a person (what would that be?), a God who is personable, perhaps, or maybe my personal conception of God? The old debates about the persons of the Trinity and all that, well who knows about that or even if they do, who understands what was at stake. By the way, I seem to recall that the word "person" goes back to the Latin word for mask.

"John Merrick:

What do you consider Buddhist?

Agnostics or Atheists?"

Good question, but it tends not to get answered in a forum like this because Buddhism doesn't fit into the 'us vs. them' dynamic.

Buddhists do not have a conception of a God, and therefore can certainly be considered atheists (and thus the Dogmatic Religious types don't want to claim them), but they certainly would consider themselves spiritual (and so the Dogmatic Atheists don't want them either).

I also wouldn't consider them agnostics, since they seem pretty clear about their beliefs. It's just that they (ok, we), really are not interested in convincing others to abandon their existing system of belief (atheist or religious) as long as it leads to the generation of love and compassion. In fact, one doesn't necessarily have to follow Buddhism by name in order to achieve enlightenment (or kindness, or clarity, or decency - whatever you want to call it). There are many paths, some religious, some not.

That's probably why I like them so much - they make this whole brouhaha seem kinda comical. But is a good way.

What I wonder is why Pew, after some person declare herself being atheist, follow a question line about her grade of disbelief. It's absolute inusual that kind of questioning.

I refuse to wear the label of atheist. The word is a weight hung around the necks of the rational by lunatics with imaginary friends - and zero evidence. I'm just standing here, minding my own business. It's not up to me to disprove anything.

Right on. When your survey suggests 21% of atheists believe in God, what you are really surveying is not the level of American religiosity but the level of American ignorance (of, among other things, the meaning of basic words). Which is, as it happens, rivaled only by the level of American religiosity.

Nothing surprises me anymore. The ignorance and stupidity of so many Americans these days is appalling. Ask an immigrant from Colombia or Russia what it is like to enter an American high school or college? They are appalled at the level of ignorance of the American students. Religion--why we are the most religious nation in the world, it would seem. So why should it be surprising that our "atheists" believe in some form of deity? The likelihood is that the people who took this survey had not a clue about the meaning of the words "atheist" and "agnostic." And those questions, well does a "personal God" mean: a God who is a person (what would that be?), a God who is personable, perhaps, or maybe my personal conception of God? The old debates about the persons of the Trinity and all that, well who knows about that or even if they do, who understands what was at stake. By the way, I seem to recall that the word "person" goes back to the Latin word for mask.

Jesus was a man - A good man
The bible is a book - written by men
God is an Idea

IN REPLY TO ALL ATHEIEST
A PROOF OF GOD
FROM REASON

The Unmoved Mover in Physics

"Aristotle resolves the problem of how something can become something else inherited from his predecessors by differentiating between the potentiality (dunamis) and actuality (entelecheia) inhering in a substratum or matter. He defines motion (kinêsis) as "the fulfillment of what exists potentially, insofar as it exists potentially" (Physics 3.1; 201a 10-12).

A thing is in a state of actuality, meaning that it is what it is, but it also is potentially something else. Its potentiality is, as it were, an attribute of thing as actual. Aristotle explains further, "It is the fulfilment of what is potential when it is already fully real and operates not as itself but as movable, that is motion. What I mean by 'as' is this: Bronze is potentially a statue.

But it is not the fulfilment of bronze as bronze which is motion. For 'to be bronze' and 'to be a certain potentiality' are not the same" (Physics 3.1; 201a). The actuality of a thing as movable, that is to say, its potentiality as moved, is motion.

Potentiality inheres in a thing and it is the thing as this potentiality in the process of being actualized that can be said to be in motion. For example, a green tomato has the potentiality to be a red tomato.

The actualization of its potentiality to be red is motion, in particular, alteration from being green to being red. Aristotle explains further,

We can define motion as the fulfilment of the movable as movable, the cause of the attribute being contact with what can move so that the mover is also acted on. The mover or agent will always be the vehicle of a form, either a 'this' or 'such', which, when it acts, will be the source and cause of the change, e.g. the full-formed man begets man from what is potentially man. (Physics 3.2; 202a)

A thing as movable is moved by contact with an efficient cause, or a mover. The mover as moved becomes the means by which a form comes to inhere in another moving and then moved thing. It is the actualization of the thing as movable through its contact with a moved efficient cause that is motion. Aristotle would agree with Parmenides and Melissos that being does not come from non-being in an unqualified sense.

But he asserts that being comes from non-being in a qualified sense as the actualization of a potentiality; potentiality is qualified non-being. In this way one can say that something both comes and does not come from something else: it comes from the potentiality inherent in something but does not come from what is actually existing.

From his considerations of the nature of motion in Physics, in Book 8, Aristotle concludes that there must be a logically first unmoved mover in order to explain all other motion. In Physics 8.1, he argues that motion is eternal.

Motion cannot begin without the prior existence of something to impart motion in another thing, so that there will always be something in motion, since something at rest cannot cause motion in another thing.

In addition, if motion were not eternal, then time would not have always existed, since time is the measure of motion; but, according to Aristotle, no one would be willing to say that time has not always been in existence.

Nor can motion cease, since to do so something must cause it to cease, but then the thing that caused motion to cease would require something to cause its cessation and the process would continue ad infinitum.

Aristotle concludes, "That there never was a time when there was not motion, and never will be a time when there will not be motion" (252b 6-

8). Aristotle also objects to the idea that motion may have begun self-caused; he points out that, in those things in which motion is said to be "self-caused," in fact, there is a part of the thing that is already in motion and imparts motion to the whole. Self-caused means that motion is not imparted from without but from some part of the whole that is already in motion. In such cases, the motion of the part that moves the other parts of a things requires a mover.

Since everything is moved by something and since motion is eternal, Aristotle concludes that there must be something that imparts motion without itself being moved; otherwise, there would be an infinite regress of movers, the moved and instruments of moving, which is unacceptable (Physics 8.5). (An axiom for Aristotle is that an infinite regress is impossible.) According to

Aristotle, all movable things are only potentially in motion, and require something else to act upon them in order to be set in motion: "So it is clear that in all these cases the thing does not move itself, but it contains within itself the source of motion—not of moving something or of causing motion, but of suffering it." (Physics 8.4; 255b 29-31).

THUS, IF THERE WERE NO UNMOVED MOVER, THERE COULD BE NO MOTION, because a moved mover requires a cause of its own motion and no infinite regress is possible. In Physics 8.6, Aristotle argues that, since motion is both eternal and necessary, the first mover must be equally eternal and necessary.

Because those things involved in the eternal and continuous process of motion are not eternal and necessary, since they come into being and perish, there must be one or many eternal and necessary thing or things outside the process of motion that imparts or impart motion to the things in motion.

This is the only way that there could be any motion, for non-eternal and contingent movers cannot explain all motion, because their own coming into existence needs a cause. He explains, "There is something that comprehends them all, and that as something apart from each one of them, and this it is that is the cause of the fact that some things are and others are not and of the continuous process of change" (Physics 259a 3-5).

It is not possible to explain eternal motion by postulating a plurality of unmoved movers capable of imparting motion but that do not exist eternally, for "There must clearly be something that causes things that move themselves at one time to be and at another time not to be" (Physics 258b 21).

Aristotle determines that there is only one unmoved mover, not only because many unmoved movers are unnecessary. Moreover, because only one mover could produce a continuous motion, in the sense of being an interconnected system of causes and effects.

Consequently, since it is continuous, motion is one; one effect requires a single cause, so that the unmoved mover must also be one. He concludes that an unmoved mover causing eternal motion must likewise be eternal (Physics 260a 1-2)."

Confucius, He say;

"The illustrious ancients, when they wished to make clear and to propagate the highest virtues in the world, put their states in proper order. Before putting their states in proper order, they regulated their families. Before regulating their families, they cultivated their own selves. Before cultivating their own selves, they perfected their souls. Before perfecting their souls, they tried to be sincere in their thoughts. Before trying to be sincere in their thoughts, they extended to the utmost their knowledge. Such investigation of knowledge lay in the investigation of things, and in seeing them as they really are. When things were thus investigated, knowledge became complete. When knowledge was complete, their thoughts became sincere. When their thoughts were sincere, their souls became perfect. When their souls were perfect, their own selves became cultivated. When their selves were cultivated, their families became regulated. When their families were regulated, their states came to be put into proper order. When their states were in proper order, then the whole world became peaceful and happy."

Sam -- you've created for yourself a methodological error. A person can answer "disbelieve strongly" to both of your questions (one about the God of the Bible, and one about the literalness of the Bible) and still be far from an atheist. Lots of people who have religious faith (including more progressive Christians, Jews and Muslims, as well as Hindus, Wiccans and unaffiliated "spiritual" people) will easily answer both questions with a "1."

Shucks! It's all a misunderstanding. Some theists thought the question was, "Are you a theist?"

Let's see, coming to life after being dead, virgin births, living 900 year, being swallowed by a whale and surviving, kill all the Medonites, take all the virgins for yourselves, angels, demons, devils, faries, angels, arch angels, angels dancing on the head of a needle, witches,
The Witches Hammer, inquisitions, crusades, t.v. preacher hustlers, preists rapeing small children, hate, intolerance, fear-----oh my word.
Enough is enough.

Check out the difference between atheistic and agnostic. I do not accept the theistic God that is presented by most of organized religion (ie Jew, Christian or Moslem). I suspect that most of your respondents will fall into the same catagory. But I am not an agnostic that denies the existance of God or Gods.

Is it good God or is it bad God? It is what is in you.

Mr. Harris writes that "these figures are simply what it sounds like to ram against the error bars in this particular survey." But I'm not sure that he understand the significance of margins of error in opinion polls. The margin of error gives us a sense of how reliable the survey population is as a reflection of the total population. But it does not impeach the reliability of the survey as a measure of the survey population itself.

To put it another way: 21% of the atheists in this survey say they believe in God. Whether the same figure holds true for all the atheists in the United States is less clear. But, as to the people in this particular sample group, the 21% figure is a hard fact. It cannot be waved away. And it is a puzzling fact, which calls for analysis and explanation.

Comfortably agnostic I am. That means I reject fanciful and fabricated descriptions of a god found in various "holy books" such as the bible. How can anyone know, one way or the other, what may constitute a primary force in the universe. Anthropomorphized notions of "God" are laughable, because they ultimately are no more than supernatural humans.

If we humans manage to survive our collective self-destructiveness, scientific inquiry in the centuries to come will move us closer to understanding the ultimate basis of reality.

By the way, looking back from my now gray-haired years, I can conclude from experience that there is no positive correlation between being religious and being a decent and caring human being, and in many instances quite the opposite. So much for the value of religion for "salvation."

Speaking of nonsense:

Today's WP carries an article by Fareed Zakaria: "We are not at war".

And many people seem to believe it. Then, they go explaining why the oppose the current war in Iraq.

This piece, which denies the varieties of religious belief that exist in the world (for example, can't there be a personal god who does not influence events in the world, which would make the believer a deist?) are pretty consistent with Harris' narrow definitions of religiosity. When Harris is reminded that there are liberal religions which do not possess many of the negative features he attributes to faith, his response is generally along the lines of "well those aren't real religions."
I respect Harris' convictions and I believe he has advanced needed dialog in this country, but in many ways he operates under a set of beliefs as narrow as those possessed by the most rabid fundamentalist. The real world doesn't fit these beliefs, as the study shows.

My daughter, when she was very young and impressionable, decided that she was a vegetarian. No doubt about it; she was absolutely adamant that she was a vegetarian.

When asked what her favorite vegetable was, she responded without hesitation, "Ham."

Which, by the strange logic of this topic, proves that vegetarians like pork.

And yet Sam and the "4 Horsemen" cohort all fall over themselves affirming the concept of the "numinous". Isn't that saying that there's something More? And isn't that what the core of religious expression is about?

Yes, far too many believers have it all wrong - but to continue to raise up the straw man of literal interpretation as representing what Christianity (or Islam for that matter) is is not very helpful.

Read someone like Marcus Borg to engage a concept of faith in God that does, in fact, stand up to critical reasoning. I think atheists are railing against a concept of God that many of us rejected a long time ago.

People are confused. An atheist who believes in God is an oxymoron. Theists aren't the only ones who believe in gods or a godhead, e.g., polytheists and pantheists. I suppose a pantheist could be considered an atheist as, while they believe in a "universal spirit" they don't believe in a in a personal god (well, the Hindus do, but they consider this belief an illusion), such as Christians do.

I personally find it interesting that people even respond to the question "do you believe in god and if so in what way?" when they are "on the fence" on the issue (this includes both believers and athiests that are moderate)
I believe that if you are to say you have a belief then you should actually hold...a belief! Either you believe god exists or you believe he does not. There are so many variations in todays age on the belief in a god that I cant believe that everyone has not figured out yet that he is simply a projected image from US, we created him as we saw fit, we made him in OUR image. Now this is my belief, I believe that god does not exist. Now its funny that most of the arguments I get on this actually come from other athiests! How can an "athiest" argue the other side of the argument and also claim to be an athiest? I feel that the term athiest should be discontinued as it now holds too much of a negative and unrealiable reputation. I also feel that those who are uncertain of their beliefs should really exit the debate on god and religeon completely as they are really just sitting pretty with no opinion and no responsibilty and are therby just observers.
With most issues I would say we should not be so black and white but this is a different issue in that we are discussing weather or not god exists and with this question there is no halfway answer.

Charles B. Lane:

Thanks for your summary. You summarized a large number of readings of mine over the last two years, very well. I have more to learn about the council of Nicaea and the times of the Catholic crusades and inquisitions.

My only intimate association with a Quaker was with a work-partner of my wife's, who was one of the most decent human beings I've ever known. Your last paragraph would certainly reflect his worldview.

Thanks again.

Best response so far to this topic. Atheists don't believe in god. That's the definition of an atheist. The only real data that can be derived from this poll is that many people don't know what it is to be an atheist.

Anyone who self-defines as an athiest and believes in god is not an athiest. It's the same as a "vegetarian" who eats chicken.

Personally, I am an athiest and believe in no god whatsoever for anyone. Everyone I've ever met who has self-defined as an athiest does not believe in any god or gods.

Most people who I meet who define themselves as "agnostic" or "spiritual" are usually theists of some kind, but few are willing to use the label "athiest."

Your poll and the confusion about the Pew poll's data has more to say about how the questions were asked than about the real data.

How can one call itself atheist and believe in a god. I was raised as a Roman Catholic and by the age of 9 started to question the nuns about things like: why do I have to the Jewish people..and I did not want t receive communion because I told them I was not a cannibal, and instead of getting logical explanations I was punished.I chose not to fill my kid's heads with such nonsence. I am an atheist and I do not believe in any god, male of female.

The survey results you discuss (a person being an atheist and believing in God at the same time) sound like quantum theory (which is hard to believe with our rational minds even though it works perfectly in practice) where something can be in two opposing states at the same time until "observed". Apparently survey responses occured just before Schroedinger's cat is let out of the box.

ok... I'm a data person, lets talk data analysis.

This is all a load of worthless data, for faith in a deity is not a dichotomous variable. It's continuous, and is free to vary within any individual on any given day. Measuring that way would take a little more effort.

Believing in "atheism/non-atheism" as a dichotomous variable is a complete leap of faith.

Uninteresting garbage research that helps no one. Thanks pew. It does stink.

Mr. Harris
Through this survey on Atheism, Pew has tripped over truth, in that, People are People, regardless of what they believe.
We hear the religiose declare themselves to be, more religious, or holier than thou. All religions wrestle with these self appointed enlightened ones. These individuals’ remarks no longer surprise us.
Surprising are the comments seen on this and other forums that are currently engaging Pews Survey.

It appears that Atheism has its own fair portion of self exalting adherents who declare that a belief against “belief” different from their own falls short of true non-belief, thus making those others something less than Atheist.
These Atheist who are in position to pass judgments on semi non-believers deserve the distinction of
a new name befitting their rank. I humbly suggest they be known as… ATHEON.

Atheons, in essence are saying…
My non-belief is stronger, better, than your non-belief, it is purer too and if you believe or think differently, well then, you are not one of us.

Same story different book…Believer or Non-Believer people are the same.

Sam take care or Atheism as you know it will become watered down into yet another discipline you refuse to believe in.

Ms. Jacoby overlooked the following questions so I now ask you Mr. Harris to consider them. Doing so will cull out the pretenders and redirect those confused as to what Atheist believe or not believe.
How in your view, must an “Atheist” respond?

Which statement is closest to expressing what you
believe about God.

1. I don’t believe in God
2. I don’t know whether there is a God and I don’t believe there is any way to find out.
3. I don’t believe in a personal God, but I do believe in a higher Power of some kind.
4. Find myself believing in God some of the time but not at others.
5. While I have doubts I feel I do believe in God.
6. I know God really exists and have no doubt about it.

And

Do you believe in life after death?
1. Yes, definitely
2. Yes, probably
3. No, probably not
4. No, definitely not

I am a Quaker and probably would be categorized under the "liberal" branch. I question the concept of a personal God, who is a male figure who watches over and controls all that I think and do and what happens to me. I have come to believe that "christianity" is a form of power controlled not by a God but by humans claiming to know God's will and to be acting on it. Quakers are generally understood to believe that all people are "gods" in that God does live in each person, and that each person can access the power that an inborn deity can offer as a guide and comforter in our lives.

The scriptures are likewise the product not of God but of men (literally), and cannot be used to justify all the evil deeds of humans since the beginning of civilization. Jesus was probably an historical figure who preached a radical message of non-violent resistance to Empire - both of the Romans and of the complicit Judaism - and who may or may not have known how to use energy to heal certain people of physical and spiritual maladies. The scriptures are essentially the records of tribal beliefs and history and they contain many stories which were never intended to be understood literally, as so many "Christians" do today. The Prophets were the consciences of this tribe demanding corrections of collective evil committed by the tribe. They served as a valuable counterbalance to the chauvinism of the tribe.

The thesis of the Hebrew scriptures in general aimed toward the liberation of of the tribe by a warrior Messiah who would defeat the secular Empire and usher in the New Jerusalem. Alas, the writers of the Gospels and Paul were all Jews who had been educated in the Jewish school of the End Times, and so their perspective was definitely slanted toward presenting Jesus as the Christ or Messiah who would come again and fulfill the Jews' destiny of becoming the new Empire. We see this in current fundamentalist Christianity and in Israeli militarism. The New Testament treatment of Jesus' sayings and actions is testimony to this perspective. If taken seriously, Jesus teachings about the human condition and our fears and beliefs, would lead people to an opposite conclusion: that we are not here to usher in the New Jerusalem, but to serve our fellow humans and to make our lives richer in all aspects.

The scripture writers were living in a pre-scientific world, although Greek philosophers had already postulated, centuries before the Common Era, that matter was made up of atoms. But in general, to the writers, the world was flat, Heaven was up above, Hell was down below, God dwelt in Heaven and Satan in Hell. These concepts jibed with obvious observations by sane people of the natural world around them. Today we can say we know more than God. He created the world in 6 days, while we know that the Earth and the Universe took 15 billion years to form, and it was more complicated than Genesis makes it out to be. So those Believers in the literal Word of God as captured in the Bible, must perforce leave their current knowledge and understanding at the door when they enter most churches today, because they will be told that their "faith" requires that they deny the the truth of their own eyes and experiences. This is nothing less than a mass hysteria to revert to a time that existed 3000 years ago. As for the Gospels, there were no tape recorders nor cam-corders, so all we have are the various traditional recollections of many people who actually hear Jesus teach, and we all know that such recollections can be full of errors.

The current alliance between the Church and the Empire was again the result not of Divine intervention, but of a struggle in the Council of Nicea, where the Church sold out to the Empire in order to gain power for its leaders, and to use the power of the armies of the Empire to support the spread of the Church's power and influence. The Church (in this case the Catholic Church) sanctioned the actions of the Empire and prevented the masses from rising up against it. The Church instigated and supported the Crusades, the various voyages of discovery and subjugation of other peoples, the Inquisition against heretics and witches, and many of the current inhuman practices about which we hear today. Waterboarding as a form of torture was regularly used by the Inquisition in the 16th Century and beyond. How can any critically thinking person believe that his/her God ordained and approves such cruelty to other humans, and animals for that matter, as we perpetrate today IN HIS NAME! During World War II, my mother, who was of German descent, explained that the Lutheran ministers in Germany were praying to God that their armies would be victorious, while 6 hours later in our town the Lutheran minister was praying, in German, that the Allies would be victorious. I got the irony and folly of such a belief system at an early age.

So what can I say in conclusion? That I feel there is a Power, not a God created in Man's image, a Consciousness which has created the world around us and which has imbued each creature, no matter how exalted or how humble, with the capacity to "know" this Consciousness and to express this Consciousness in our own lives as Love (Agape) towards all our fellow Beings. This Love was shown in those utterances of Jesus, which scholars are pretty sure really were spoken by him, and which we can express by everything we do in this life. By educating people in the need for non-violent cooperation to rescue and restore both the Earth and each other from the follies of the various systems of society which heretofore have been designed to serve the greed of the Empire and its leaders, including the Church, exclusively, we will be serving that Creative Consciousness.

This is a call for Skeptics and Seekers of Truth not to succumb to fear and despair, but to continue to speak out and to act as if we were living in the perfect World of which we dream and towards which we strive.

This article is a load of BIASED NONSNSE.

The questions are rigged and the word ATHEISM is not understood even by the author of the article.

Atheism is not the belief that god does not exists. That is ANTI-THEISM. Atheism is just the lack of belief.

Simply put.. atheists CHOOS NOT TO BELIEVE .. that includes for or against god.

Asking the question
"Please indicate your degree of belief in the God of the Bible."
and giving the options
Disbelieve strongly and
Believe strongly

is a TRAP.

Atheists just DONT BELIEVE. They have 0 degree of belief. Disbelieving strongly is just belief in the other direction.

Please learn the meaning of words before writing an article about it.

1 and 1

1 Strongly disagree

1 Strongly disagree

The flaws of the answers are obvious, but the real flaw is in the ascientific nature of the reporting. The rest of the study must have been either dead boring or just a repetition of previous findings to inspire digging this deeply into the responses of a single percentage.

The idea that atheists are manning the barricades is kind of amusing as well. Nonsense is invincible, pretending otherwise is mere posturing.

THE ALTERNATE WORLD WHERE AN ATHEIST WHO BELIEVES IN GOD IS AT HOME:

Why can't an atheists believe in a God, or pray to God and still be an atheists? Aren't oxymorons today in fashion? Gay marriage is an oxymoron and we have gay marriage in some States.

Contradictions, by our highest Federal Court. are in vogue. The Court banned the Ten Commandments from the Public Square though Moses holding the Commandments adorns the doors to the entrance of the Supreme Court, and Moses and the Commandments decorate the East Pediment of the Supreme Court building.

Many maintain they're not the real Commandments but the Bill of Rights, though there were no Bill of Rights in Moses’ time, Some claim Moses isn't really Moses the Biblical Jewish leader but a symbol for Law.

Moreover Washington D.C. is embellished numerous kinds of little curt religious adages and aphorism that adorn the bases of our historical statues that blanket the grounds of our Capital.

The ACLU has already filed suit to remove crosses at veterans' memorials, like the Mt. Soledad cross in San Diego, a Korean War memorial. Of course, Crucifixes are banned by this audacious blithering Court majority. What will the bumbling majority do with all the crosses at Arlington? It's just another contradiction to them that are awash in contradictions.

Woman was always with child when she was pregnant, but Supreme Court Justice Blackmun's Trimester Theory in Roe v. Wade said a woman was never with child. The conceived, according to Blackmun was a "thing."

In the First Trimester, this thing, a.k.a. the conceived, developed into a 2/3rds "thing" and a 1/3rd human. In the Second Trimester, this "thing" developed further into a 2/3rds human and a 1/3rd "thing." However, it never became human until it was expunged from the womb.

Hence, an abortionist, plunging a scissors into the back of a skull of a little child gasping for his first breath, while being born, was, as Blackmun described him, not a "person." It is the Supreme Contradiction of reality by a Court living in the alternate world.

You see the Fourth Amendment protects “persons,” viz. a person has a right "to be secure in their own person."

However, the Court was not impervious to this Amendment. Blackmun knowing the Constitution protected “person,” a.k.a. human being, circumscribed the Constitution, usurped God’s authority and redefined a human being. It was fine because, truth didn’t matter, the consensus did. Hence, consensus against the truth has caused the murder of over 48 million unborn.

So what does a little contradiction by atheists believing in God matter when over forty-eight million murders of the unborn don’t seem to matter to the majority of Americans. If you can’t see a baby is a baby and you call it a “thing”; how can any truth matter, especially for the unborn dead?

In addition, we are actually living in an era of Global Cooling and not Global Warming. So we allocate billions of dollars to prove a contradiction of the truth is the truth.

Evidence of Global Cooling
Thursday, February 28, 2008
By Brit Hume

FEB 28, 2008
"Now some fresh pickings from the Political Grapevine:

Cold Reception

Tuesday we told you about several areas around the planet experiencing record cold and snow pack — in the face of all the predictions of global warming.

Now there is word that all four major global temperature-tracking outlets have released data showing that temperatures have dropped significantly over the last year. California meteorologist Anthony Watts says the amount of cooling ranges from 65-hundredths of a degree Centigrade to 75-hundreds of a degree.

That is said to be a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. It is reportedly the single fastest temperature change ever recorded — up or down.

Some scientists contend the cooling is the result of reduced solar activity —, which they say, is a larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases."

When you live in the alternate world where up is down and down is up, where evil is good and good is evil, truth doesn’t matter much does it?

"Atheism" as has been said, "It should not be a word."
Often, when asked about my religious beliefs the response to my answer is, "Oh, you're an atheist."
I cannot accept that definition of myself. I am much more than a definitive word, as all people are. In an attempt to catagorize any person with a "word" is to diminish and denigrate the complexity of human thought, no less the human spirit.
If you are interested in understanding what one is about, I say to you, get to know that person before casting judgment.
As we all must be aware that a politician running for the presidency of the United States, who would claim to be an "atheist",could never become President. No matter how moral, intelligent, etc. this person was, the word, "Atheiest" alone would disallow him or her to even be placed on a ballot.
So, you see my reasoning for not accepting a simple word to describe the totality of myself.
Thank you for listening.

Thanks for the humorous article. If you ever needed participants that can answer #1 to both questions I will be happy to participate.

This is quite like the suggestion made by my brother-in-law with his tongue firmly in his cheek that since Hinduism is a very inclusive religion that takes deities from other religions and adds them to the Hindu pantheon it would be wise to add Jesus and Mohammed (or God and Allah)to the Hindu pantheon along with Gautama Buddha and others. And, he said, we might as well add two new Gods "Atheisteswara" (the God of Atheism) and "Agnosticeswara" (the God of Agnosticism) to the Hindu pantheon as well.

Frankly I am amazed that in a nation of English speaking people those who consented to take part in the poll do not understand the meaning of the word "Atheist".

Sam,

It is so simple a thought process. We humans are simply another organism. No better...no worse, just another organism. Man's inability to deal with the finality of death, was the launching pad for all religions. Chauvinism to the nth degree compels humans to suppose that we are the highest life form, when, in fact (in my opinion) there are a number of species that seem to have evolved in their environments to a higher degree of success and longevity.

This assistance to the human group by religious dogma, is nothing more than a very effective crowd control. Meant to dominate! To the point of exterminating those that would not be dominated.

A useful example is the Roman Catholic Church. This institution is not a vestige of Jesus Christ, but a modern day Roman Empire......dominance, wealth, power, huge asset value, and the demand for lock-step adherence.

Until we 6 billion plus humans can shuck the mantle of cruelty, brought on by the rediculous dogmas of the world's religions,and human avarice, we stand to be a life form with an incredibly short life span.

Thank you.

Beliefs are totally invalid unless supported by competent,universally accepted evidence. Who gives a hoot what someone believes. Show me your evidence. I don't even consider myself an atheist. I consider myself as a person whose life purpose is to separate the truth from the BS, and all religions are BS. I am truly dismayed by the number of people who have brains but cannot seem to put any rational thoughts in them. They have no mental process for assessing information for its validity.

As long as we have a society of dummies, we will have religion. All religions are based on the fear of death and wishful thinking.

Have a nice day.

Pointman: “Kinda sounds like you all have your own religion whether you believe in a God or not. The time and energy being spent by all of these people proclaiming the "truth" that there is absolutely no god borders on a religion.”

Really? If a bunch of people proclaimed that they didn’t collect stamps, would that prove that they really did have a hobby and it was non-stamp collecting?

And please point out where you see atheists here proclaiming the “’truth’ that there is absolutely no god?” I don’t see it anywhere. The attitude I see is that there’s no reason to believe without evidence.

Soja: “* The definition of religion as popularized by Sam Harris and Professor Richard Dawkins (i.e. believers fly aircrafts into buildings to kill the innocent, believers do all the evil in the world, believers preach hatred, believers do not believe in science etc etc) makes all the people who do not belong to those categories atheists by their definition of religion. It may be said then that those believers who defined themselves as atheists were simply using Sam Harris - Richard Dawkins definition of theism/religion.”

Soja – It’s unlikely that very many people answering the survey were aware of Harris and Dawkins’ views. Also, I think you know very well that Harris and Dawkins don’t perceive all believers in the absolute way you portray them above.

By the way, you still haven’t responded to my earlier question – how does questioning make your faith stronger? If you don’t want to answer, could you at least tell me that. Then I won’t ask again. If you do answer, I promise not to challenge your response. Thanks

Sam,

I am shocked beyond words at the stupidity of those claiming to be the personifications of an oxymoron. For the record, I disbelieve both strongly. I am a TRUE atheist. A radical one if you will. I find both of the notions mentioned above in this survdey patently absurd. And on another note, am saddened to see that the recent polls about the alleged increase of atheism were conducted poorly and gave misleading results.

Why would someone say they are an atheist if they have any doubts. In this society, atheists are held to scorn.

Why would someone say they are an atheist if they have any doubts. In this society, atheists are held to scorn.

I believe that most people do not absolutely believe there is a 'god' they just believe what they are told,afraid to disbelieve as they have been told they would go to a place called 'hell'. Why are the so called religions given so much publicity and statue,let Atheists be recognised as a true belief and not kept in the background. I read that priests have said there was a difference between a wicked lie and a religious lie and that priests acted under the direct sanction of god and could not lie.

I belong to Jain Community from India, the last of The 24th Tirthankara Mahaveer and Budhha was of same period, In Hinduism there are thousands of Gods and Godesses if we worship all Gods whole life can be spent worshipping those Gods.

Mahaveera rejected the idea of God, that there is no single God who is ruling over the world and put all responsbility of soul evolution on each individual and attainment of Nirvana is the Ultimate purpose of human, they preached that we are telling you the path through which we got liberation and if you follow that you can get your final destiny, either you worship us or hate us we cant neither favor you nor punish you.

All is based on the LAW OF KARMA and those Karma gives their own fruits.Since Chilhood we are being taken care by parents when we become adults we still assume the existance of higher power who is taking care of us, we always want to be child and fights to be responsible for our own Growth.Since ancient times our minds is being conditioned with beliefs that God rules over Man, Man rules over Woman, and parents rules over the child.

Let me tell you that our Soul have amazing power for which we are not aware of it, sometimes we pray from deep heart then our prayers are answered, this we get from our own higher self/soul.

In some section Jains are labelled as Atheist, our Jinas preached yes if you still need a God then there are countless nos of God those who have attained liberation and reached there highest goal they can be named as God, but these Gods do not interfre with us. Recently i studied a web site www.nderf.org which put hundreds of near death experience, one of the common factor was of life review, most of the experiencers reported that we were our own judge, no third person or God was reviewing us and assigning us heaven or hell.

Let me tell you being Atheist is more courageous and responsible task wherin the law of Karma is the main principle , we take responsbility of our own heaven and earth on this physical world and on astral world, the whole Jain philosphy can be summerized in few words-Right Faith, Right Knowledge and Right conduct we dont have to believe on God or Mahaveera- but on seven Tattva which is Being (Soul), Matter, Ashrav (In flow of Karma), Bandh (Bodage of Karma), Samvar(To stop in flow of Karma), Nirjara (To get rid of bondage karam) and last 7th is Moksha (Salvation, Nirvana), without having right faith gaining knowledge is only a intellectual gymnastic, and there is no use of any conduct.

That an Atheist and a Nontheist are essentially the same thing, is I believe, at the heart of confusion for many who claim to be non Religious, or non Dogmatic as far as spirituality. Some seem to believe that to be a non believer in Theism is the same as non belief in a spiritual entity in which the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. It is just cognitive dissonance being confused for a symbolic expression of a kind of zen koan. It is more of a belief in semantics as reality, rather than understanding that words are only a reflection of reality. One is the thing in itself, while the other is a description for the purpose of discovering truth and for communication.

I'm a "1" in both categories, having become a "2" in the sixth grade -- 61 years ago.

I continue to wonder how intelligent, well educated people -- the late Wm F Buckley, Jr is an example -- can believe in all that Jewish/Christian/Muslim nonsense.

Take the Christian: "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son" -- but only to a small corner of the Roman world. He/She/It ignored Europe, nearly all of Asia and Africa, and the entire New World, not to speak of Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific islands.

Or David Berlinski, the writer of elegantly phrased idiocies. The eye is too complex, he argues, for it to have evolved independently of a designer. The human capacity for mathematics, since it can have been of no survival value to early man, must therefore have been implanted by that same designer. And there's this, in the current (July/-August 2008) issue of Commentary:

"{I]f dropped from a great height a stone and a philosopher will accelerate at the same rate of speed. Nonetheless, the philosopher but not the stone will anticipate his immediate future with a marked lack of enthusiasm. Surely this is something that calls for an explanation?

I'm a "1" in both categories, having become a "2" in the sixth grade -- 61 years ago.

I continue to wonder how intelligent, well educated people -- the late Wm F Buckley, Jr is an example -- can believe in all that Jewish/Christian/Muslim nonsense.

Take the Christian: "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son" -- but only to a small corner of the Roman world. He/She/It ignored Europe, nearly all of Asia and Africa, and the entire New World, not to speak of Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific islands.

Or David Berlinski, the writer of elegantly phrased idiocies. The eye is too complex, he argues, for it to have evolved independently of a designer. The human capacity for mathematics, since it can have been of no survival value to early man, must therefore have been implanted by that same designer. And there's this, in the current (July/-August 2008) issue of Commentary:

"{I]f dropped from a great height a stone and a philosopher will accelerate at the same rate of speed. Nonetheless, the philosopher but not the stone will anticipate his immediate future with a marked lack of enthusiasm. Surely this is something that calls for an explanation?

I'm a "1" in both categories, having become a "2" in the sixth grade -- 61 years ago.

I continue to wonder how intelligent, well educated people -- the late Wm F Buckley, Jr is an example -- can believe in all that Jewish/Christian/Muslim nonsense.

Take the Christian: "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son" -- but only to a small corner of the Roman world. He/She/It ignored Europe, nearly all of Asia and Africa, and the entire New World, not to speak of Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific islands.

Or David Berlinski, the writer of elegantly phrased idiocies. The eye is too complex, he argues, for it to have evolved independently of a designer. The human capacity for mathematics, since it can have been of no survival value to early man, must therefore have been implanted by that same designer. And there's this, in the current (July/-August 2008) issue of Commentary:

"{I]f dropped from a great height a stone and a philosopher will accelerate at the same rate of speed. Nonetheless, the philosopher but not the stone will anticipate his immediate future with a marked lack of enthusiasm. Surely this is something that calls for an explanation?

It would be laughable if it wasn't so serious.
Fancy being born on a planet where the dominant lifeform is so self centred.
Imagine if the Dinosaurs hadn't been wiped out by that Asteroid, you'd have scaly creatures worshipping some scaly lizard god.
I just find the whole subject of a god of any type just a pathetic example of derranged minds.
It is becoming like a broken record playing over and over.
I think that the majority of people, once they have been indoctrinated at childhood are incapable of reasoning their way out of the mire.
It seems to me that everyone is in their own "Cone of Silence", like in Maxwell Smart.
Everyone speaking but no one listening.
I'm ashamed to live on a planet where my species is so ignorant.

There are several possible explanations as to why some self designated atheists responded to the questionnaire as they did:

* To the joy of atheists it may be said that some believers were stupid and didn't understand the real meaning of the word atheist.

* The believers were playing a prank on the pollsters.

* Atheists were playing a prank on pollsters.

* The definition of religion as popularized by Sam Harris and Professor Richard Dawkins (i.e. believers fly aircrafts into buildings to kill the innocent, believers do all the evil in the world, believers preach hatred, believers do not believe in science etc etc) makes all the people who do not belong to those categories atheists by their definition of religion. It may be said then that those believers who defined themselves as atheists were simply using Sam Harris - Richard Dawkins definition of theism/religion.

wiccan:

Soja-

All big brothers feel great delight when their little brothers best them. The good ones, that is. ;-)

Thank you for your good wishes on America's birthday. My little grandniece sat on my lap and pretended to cower when the fireworks went off, while her parents and my son worked the grill. A delightful Fourth!

July 5, 2008 2:13 AM

==========================================

Wiccan

That was a really cute way of putting it - big brothers feeling delighted about good little brothers besting them.

I'm so pleased to hear you had a great time with your family on July 4th. As to fire crackers, I don't believe your grandniece was pretending at all. In Kerala, where I originate from, there is a terrible variety of crackers called "Ola Padakkam" and I used to cower as a child on hearing them too.

THE BELIEVE BUCKET HOLDS NO WATER. THE NONBELIEVE BUCKET HOLDS NO WATER EITHER.
THE ONLY BUCKET THAT HOLDS ANY WATER IS THE KNOW BUCKET.
AND I KNOW THERE IS A GOD, WHOEVER READS THIS STATEMENT IS WELCOME TO QUESTION IT, HONEST INQUIRY ONLY PLEASE.

Interested to note the number of people who believe in a "universal spirit." This would be roughly equivalent to the concept of Brahman in Hinduism and the Tao in Taoism. In fact, the term "universal spirit" may be the best way to translate the Sanskrit term "Brahman" into English.

The idea of a personal God (that is, a deity with a distinct personality) has been derided sufficiently, but so far as I know, atheists have not systematically examined the idea of a universal spirit. This idea is somewhat more sophisticated than the idea of a personal God, but it has a similar weakness. The existence of a universal spirit is not subject to empirical verification. That is the main stumbling-block to belief in it.

And still there is one survey/poll that the Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist et al still will not answer. Strange!! Maybe there is a reading comprehension problem amongst the Islamic commentators on this blog. Once again:

A six question survey for the Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist, Victoria, Pamela, Nouri, Daisy, Eboo, Asim, Ahmed, Mo and all the other Muslims out there:

Do you believe:

1. In "pretty/ugly wingie" thingies?

2. That the long-dead Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words now listed in the koran?

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life?

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7 800 year-old feud between Sunnis and Shiites give significant credence that suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran?

5. That having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of lust and polygamy?

6. And that the condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of anger and greed???????

Note: Since atheists are in the general mix of US residents i.e the source of the Pew survey/poll, it is assumed, based on the previously cited official survey of the literacy and literacy deficiency rate in the USA, that many of the atheists who took said Pew poll did not have the proper reading skills to know what they were viewing which resulted in the very odd statistics.

Apparently the survey was not properly conducted. It is a little hard to imagine an atheist praying every day as that is such a complete contradiction between professed belief & practice. I would, however, like to suggest a linkage between a person who has no religious convictions but who nevertheless attempts to cultivate in himself or herself a spiritual sense - as long as it is understood that I use the term "spiritual" in a very different context than that used by organized religions.

My guess is - & since I am a lay person it is only a guess - is that our spiritual sense arises from the same part of our brain as our sense of language, our sense of poetry, our sense of psychology. (I'm probably talking about multiple centers here.) I think our spiritual sense is something that we grew up with as a species & for many people organized religion is something that provides a ready context to explain these feelings. I don't think our spiritual sense comes from religion I think our religion comes from our spiritual sense. What this sense is for & how to put it to the best use are good questions we should all pursue. Asking an atheist "do you try to get in touch with your poetic side?" might be a more sensible question than "do you pray every day?" Thanks for the space to make a comment. Rick Thorne.

Hello Andrew,

Yes, I have read William Golding’s “Lord of the Flies”. It is a work fiction, not a scientific or social science study. And yes, we have read about how belief in the supernatural are said to develop from their own records and archeology and comparative studies etc. A backward look, a retrospective look.

We could be wrong about some ancient societies being into cat worship and all that just because they are buried with some human bodies or buried separately, when it could just be that those societies love cats and buried them together with them as they would their slaves say.

I am curious and being serious in knowing what would happen in leaving people on an island devoid of any belief in the supernatural as a human guinea pig experiment just to see if all clichéd contentions put forth by atheists in these On Faith threads are true on how beliefs in the supernatural and religions evolves and develops.

Including these oft-repeated clichés by atheists:

- religion poisons everything

- religion is the opiate of the masses

- god is a delusion

- religion causes wars and conflicts

- religion is an ideology and means ofcontrol

I am proposing to put a bunch of adults with no knowledge on religions and very young children to see what develop over a century. The adults must be randomly picked from those who never heard of any religous belief, theology or philosophy and not just the best and brightest for a real representation of people.

I am not asking to ban music or mathematics or the arts. I am asking there be lessons on subjects devoid of any and references to God/s, spiritual beings, ghosts, gremlins, fairies and what have you even in literature and movies.

I am asking for critical thinking, for logic, for rational thinking to be taught. I am asking theology and philosophy and religions in any kind of material not be taught nor be available to what happens in children and adults.

Do adults punish children for their fantasies lauded in adults as creativity? Would the adults discourage or punish a child for writing something like “The Metamorphosis” or “Frankenstein” or “Dracula”?

Fairy tales are written by adults for children - including Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. And of course unicorns, or leprechauns or tooth fairy or Santa Claus told by adults to children.

That is why I am really curious if such an experiment can be undertaken and be recorded by scientists and social scientists in all disciplines to determine how and why and when belief in the supernatural happens etc. or not over time a 100 years for a start.

Don’t you, as an atheist, wants to know for certain and with empirical proof as to how belief in the supernatural may, or may not happen in a tabula rasa society on the supernatural?

Cheers

”J”

Aetheism is not a noun intended to definine a group or movement comprised of people who possess a common belief or disbelief. It is simply a noun to describe or identify the disbelief in a mystical, all powerful fictional godhead and the superstitious fairy tales, taboos and mandates that allegedly derive from it. It does not imply or intend to describe a collective active proselytizing movement. An aetheist is simple a person who subscribes to the tenants of aetheism. I fail to understand why atheists and atheism are the object of such hate and derision simply because they will not accept as true that which cannot be proven and which patently offends the basic tenets of logic and reason.

If an atheist can believe in god it must mean that my dear candidate Barak Obama can believe that it is okay with the First Amendment to expand George Bush's Faith Based Initiatives. "...no law respecting an establishment of religion" can also mean "...some laws respecting an establishment of religion"--- right?

belief in the God of the Bible.

#1

belief that the Bible is the word of God.

#1

And still there is one survey/poll that the Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist et al still will not answer. Strange!! Maybe there is a reading comprehension problem amongst the Islamic commentators on this blog. Once again:

A six question survey for the Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist, Victoria, Pamela, Nouri, Daisy, Eboo, Asim, Ahmed, Mo and all the other Muslims out there:

Do you believe:

1. In "pretty/ugly wingie" thingies?

2. That the long-dead Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words now listed in the koran?

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life?

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7 800 year-old feud between Sunnis and Shiites give significant credence that suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran?

5. That having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of lust and polygamy?

6. And that the condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of anger and greed???????

Note: Since atheists are in the general mix of US residents i.e the source of the Pew survey/poll, it is assumed, based on the previously cited official survey of the literacy and literacy deficiency rate in the USA, that many of the atheists who took said Pew poll did not have the proper reading skills to know what they were viewing which resulted in the very odd statistics.

Jihadist;

When our earliest ancestors were left alone on desert islands or wherever, in pre-historic daze, they lost no time inventing gods.

Put a bunch of kids on a desert island under conditions like you describe...well first, children need to play, and they will play or become screwed up. In fact, no matter what else prevails, play (and food) will dominate.
Creative actvities will occur, even if we were to try to discourage them, so your restrictions would be impossible to implement.
Stories are important in childhood too, so to deprive them of fiction and general works of the imagination wouldn't work either.
If your point is that there is more to life than a scientific view of everything, well of course there is. To enjoy works of the imagination whether it be Bach or Byron or Dostoevsky or Jackson Pollack is essential to my mental health and I wouldn't want to deprive children of these pleasures either.
If your argument is that children will spontaneously invent a god all by themselves if left alone, well that's hilarious, so you can't mean that.
There's an interesting book by the English novelist William Golding about a bunch of schoolboys who become stranded on an island far from anywhere, the adults had died.
They try to form a democratic way of organizing themselves (there were maybe 30 or more kids),
but they end up with a dictatorship and a reign of terror and brutality, until they are rescued by adults. The book was 'Lord of The Flies'.

Golding felt that brutality was mans true nature when away from civilizing influences.

However, children need a lot of things. Religion they don't need, because as far as we know, there are no gods.

Kids who grow up believing there's a God believe it because they have been told there's a God. There is no other way for them to receive that information. They have to be told.(many many times I'm sure).

If they had been told that a giant Fatworm on planet Mars was the creator of all things, they might grow up praying twelve times a day facing Mars, and careful not to step on worms.

I don't know. All I do know is that it is a lie we tell our children when we tell them there is a God.
Because it is anything but apparent. I for one, strongly doubt it. And that's what I tell my children too.

Kinda sounds like you all have your own religion whether you believe in a God or not. The time and energy being spent by all of these people proclaiming the "truth" that there is absolutely no god borders on a religion. Even includes the hatred found in other religions. Perosonally I don't see any difference between you all and pucker faced old religios folks.

An atheist who believes in a deity is a type of oxymoron. One cannot believe and not believe at the same time. Sam Harris is right about this contradiction. Maybe some people lack the courage of their convictions to declare that they are atheists.

Very simply, 'There is no God, never has been, never
will be' It's the man behind the curtain. Few if any
have complete Faith in themselves. You are the
motivator of all that comes to you. No religions,
no conflict.

Thank you Sam Harris. I would like your honesty to prevail.

Ten questions regarding religion

1. Is honesty important? To me, an honest view of the world is necessary to form a strong foundation for all that you are, for any action to be correct and any judgment to be accurate. Honesty is accepting only what is, to the best of your ability, without coercion from wishful thinking, cultural demand or unchangeable belief. It is also necessary for all moral judgment. Without honesty we are in danger of becoming insane, maybe without even knowing we have lost touch.

2. What is morality? Self interest is a necessary consideration in any moral decision. For instance, if you're starving should you steal bread? The other component in any moral decision is empathy. The harm caused by a moral person would be restricted to the minimum amount possible while preserving the necessary self interest. Self interest and empathy conflict with each other in any moral dilemma which can be resolved only by rigorous honesty, the only tool for preventing deception and inaccuracy.

3. Is there a god? Most people would agree that their idea of god is of a moral being which created everything, who is omni potent and all aware. Most people also believe god influences our lives, because if god doesn't, god has no importance to us, also if god is less than this it is just a superior being not, "God." What is proof of godhood? If you show that you have led the history of the world or many worlds and can do miraculous deeds does this answer my idea of what my god must be? Or are you just superior to me. Because I know that I'm fallible. Honestly. I don't think I can evaluate any such claim to godhood. Then there is the idea that the complexity of the universe demands the existence of a designer. When I contemplate the complexity and beauty of the universe I do not see proof of morality, or that it cares about me, or anything that I can understand well enough to say that it must be intelligently created. That, lacking any proof of the creation myth, there can be no other alternative which could be the real truth. As to how the universe began or how it works, I can say honestly, "I don't know". All deists and theists should practice saying these words. I don't know. I understand that there are probabilities but without adequate true knowledge I feel that if god were sitting in judgment god would require honesty not faith nor threaten the unbeliever with death or hell. These actions would be unjust and immoral because they would require dishonesty.

4. Is religion about morality? If you look at many situations in holy books through what I believe morality to be, the books do not seem to be any more moral than what one would expect fallible people to write. I do however see one obvious purpose. Respect for authority. This can be a very necessary thing in any society, and still as history has shown time and again, can be powerfully destructive if not tempered with morality.

5. Is faith a good thing? Faith is belief without proof. Faith in ones self can be a very important, necessary thing. Faith in a system of belief can lead to someone telling you what the truth is and telling you not to question this truth with some threat to back it up. Faith needs morality based in reality to be useful otherwise it becomes exceedingly dangerous. Possibly it is the most significant threat to humanity today. Faith in leaders gives great power to people with very limited moral maturity. Faith in religious leaders or books has excused the most heinous crimes innumerable times.

6. Does religion affect a person's core structure? A solid foundation in belief is a requirement in any healthy mind without which one cannot act in a sane manner. Any action based upon decisions made upon unrealistic assumptions result in behavior which is destructive to the person and likely to others who must associate with them as well. Sexual deviation will result from misguided repression. Violent aggression results from the unrealistic ideas of mandatory forgiveness which ignores responsibility and the promises of eternal life encourages careless disregard for this life. Tribal strength, blind hatred, and fervent religious beliefs inherited over many generations are an explosive combination. The fact is, countries that are more religious are less charitable and more violent than secular countries.

7. Is religion fear based? I like Pascal's' Wager as a discussion on moral courage. It goes; if god exists and you choose not to believe in him you will go to hell and yet if god does not exist and you choose to believe you will only improve the world through striving for a higher purpose.
I would respond; if god exists god would not want us to lie to ourselves out of fear, but rather follow truth. We know what we know exactly as much as we know it. To follow Pascals' reasoning only weakens our foundation. Fear and dishonesty cannot be the foundation of a moral or even a sane person. There is no higher purpose in wishful thinking and self deception.

8. Is your culture a good reason to believe in a religion? Would you believe faith based arguments without pressure from your culture? If asked most people will admit that they believe in god and some form of religion because their families believe and most of the people they know believe the same. It's comforting to be accepted as a part of a group, firm in the belief that if many people believe the same thing, it has a high probability of being correct. One look at the world will show that people often get comfortable with cultural trends that on hindsight, or viewed from outside are easily seen to be sick, destructive and insane. A cultural belief is not proof of god nor should people base the foundation of their mind upon tradition without questioning the morality and honesty of these traditions and beliefs.

9. How does belief affect our ability to mature? Could it be wrong to force religion upon the vulnerable minds of children? A baby is totally dependant upon others and as it grows older it becomes more independent. Fully mature we should be interdependent. If interdependency is not achieved in a fully grown person it is a type of disease. Honesty and morality are necessary aspects of maturity. Socially, maturity is a matter of responsibility. To an individual this means that society must care for its young through realistic education, proper health care, and other such protections. As adults it means that we should feel it necessary to protect and advance our society. If we see that things such as belief and faith are causing wars, diminishing morality, we have an obligation to try to stop these behaviors. Insist upon honesty. If people claim to speak for god they should be treated as they are, delusional or dishonest.

10. If god did not create religion how did it begin? In ancient history when people lived in small bands the natural world was beyond explanation so it was useful to create stories which allowed us to accept this helplessness. It was helpful in times of danger or grief to believe in life after death. Groups which could ignore self interest in times of warfare were more likely to survive as a group. Superstitious fear could help keep authority strong. As time went on monarchs grew in power and used the idea of ordination by god to legitimize their cruel hold upon their fellows. During the Middle Ages religion crushed the human spirit putting a halt to science and art. The renaissance allowed science and technology to help through trade and objective thought although the church was a fat tick upon the world sucking at its blood until once again it was necessary for a new revolution. This was the enlightenment which again brought new accomplishments of science and art. Politically, the American Revolution was caused by the new philosophy with George Washington, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Pain espousing the dangers of the system of elitism using religion to enslave humanity. When these ideas were exported to Europe the dangers of Atheism without an alternative system of controlling passion became apparent. Even today we lack much understanding of morality. The use of religion as a placebo has crippled us in ways we cannot even begin to see. With threats of bioweapons and dirty bombs being more likely as we slip into the future under control of an enemy which poisons our minds we cannot just say that small amounts of lack of reality are ok. Like any addict we must see the danger and stand up for our selves.

Thank you for spending your time reading this. I've been told that to have a religious perspective and read this is like looking through a mirror where every thing you know is inverted. I can tell you I know the feeling. I am an optimist and I love life. I love truth and innocent curiosity.

For further reading check out evilbible.com, samharris.org or just Google atheist websites.
These questions were thought up entirely by me after giving many years of time studying and begging others to criticize my understanding to the best of their abilities and can be responded to by writing me at my email address seanbyrne.charter.com

Thank you again,

Sean Byrne

Andrew to George Polley:

"As a curious person George, don't let acceptance of the God hypothesis stop you searching further for the answers to the Big questions."

"Our earliest ancestors were justified in assuming that gods must have made everything."

"In my experience the supernatural route leads nowhere, and magic doesn't exist; reality is quite amazing and magical enough without involving superstition."

On what people believe and why, in the "supernatural", a proposal for research:

- Take 100 children between the ages of two to three years old, and 50 adults with no knowledge at all on any religious beliefs, philosophy, fairy tales or ghost stories.

- Put them on an island with the comfort of modern technology - cars, electicity, electrical appliances, computers but not Internet links.

- Give them all non-fiction books on the sciences, on the natural world and the universe, including law books.

- Do not give them work of fiction or works of literature than has any references on the supernatural - not even the Harry Potter series, not even the Lord of the Rings trilogy, not even Grimm's or Hans Christian Andersen's fairy tales.

- Likewise for movies and DVDs. Not even Nightmare on Elm Street series, not even Halloween series or any other ghost stories. Nor even science fiction or science fantasy, including Star Trek TV and movie series, the Matrix etc.

- Do not give them any books by atheists on atheism and why there is no God and such, including those written by Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett et al.

- Do not give any books on philosophy.

- Teach them all logic, reason, critical thinking apart from the sciences and technology.

- Watch the group, but never interfere at all (like anthropologists), and see what happens in a hundred years : -

- Do they develop myths and legends and fantasy stories? Or not? And when and why.

Cheers

"J"

Mr Mark - try posting in segments. I've found that works when a whole post is "held for review" - don't know why.

Don't take it personally. My embargoed post - to the Quinn essay -- had no bad words or concepts in it

Iam partially amused and somewhat disconcerted by the ruckus that we 1;9 percent of the population who profess to be non beleivers or athiests.Since the four horsemen have published their books, every apologist with grammer school english has been hitting the airways and the television denagrading and bad mouthing we athiests. Who knew that we could cause this kind of kafuffle.
I think that I can smell fear rather than indignation

Although the time of death is approaching me, I am not afraid of dying and going to Hell or (what would be considerably worse) going to the popularized version of Heaven.
I expect death to be nothingness and, for removing me from all possible fears of death, I am thankful to atheism.
Isaac Asimov 1920-1992. Scientist and Writer, "On Religiosity" in "Free Inquiry."

To quote old Uncle Bertie...

The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence that is not utterly absurd; indeed, in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.

Bertrand Russell 'Christian Ethics,' from "Marriage and Morals

The study of anthropology confirmed my atheism, which was the faith of my fathers anyway. Religions were exhibited and studied as the Rube Goldberg inventions I'd always thought they were.

Kurt Vonnegut. "Self Interview"

George Polley

As a curious person George, don't let acceptance of the God hypothesis stop you searching further for the answers to the Big questions.
I mean why stop there with the premise of a supernatural invisible sky god as responsible for everything?
That doesn't seem any kind of answer to me George, and I'm curious too. Very curious.

Would it be that you 'arrived' at your conclusion because it reflects what everybody else in your neighborhood have also concluded, or is that just a coincidence? Believing what everybody else believes sounds more like passive acceptance of the local dogma than actual curiosity to me.

Our earliest ancestors were justified in assuming that gods must have made everything. That was the best answer they could come up with because they didn't know any better. But we today have no such excuse. We do know better.
The answers lie in the scientific domain.( Where else could they lie?) As far as we know there is no supernatural world and no gods.
If you wish to explore further, let me recommend;

"God; The Failed Hypothesis" by Victor Stenger.
It is subtitled, 'How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist'. Pub.Prometheus Books.NY.

The perfect book for the really curious; for those who are not prepared to accept everything they're told as necessarily the truth.

An equally interesting book is "Atheist Universe" by David Mills published by Ulysses Press.SF.Cal.

And anything by Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan.

Curiosity is wonderful and exciting, and the more we learn and understand the more exciting it becomes.
In my experience the supernatural route leads nowhere, and magic doesn't exist; reality is quite amazing and magical enough without involving superstition. It is, I feel sure,the only way to go.

“Certainty of belief” is ambiguous between rational certainty and emotive certainty. When presenting stimuli for fMRI experiments, it might be useful to ensure that these are kept distinct.

For instance, I believe that right now I am typing a sentence on rational and emotive certainty on a computer keyboard. Emotively, I am absolutely certain in my belief, but rationally, I have to acknowledge a modicum of doubt, since I cannot rule out the possibility that I am hallucinating.

In my experience, the kind of certainty that most atheists and theists exhibit is emotive certainty, not rational certainty, because their belief is not a rational conclusion based on rational considerations. (By “atheist” I mean one who does not subscribe to the proposition that there exists a supernatural being who intervenes in natural phenomena, such as curing cancer in response to someone’s prayer.) For most educated and otherwise rational people, even commitments to propositions of scientific knowledge are emotive, not rational. For instance, only a very small percent of university educated individuals are familiar with the evidence and argumentation in support of the belief that the earth spins and goes around the sun. The only basis for their belief is that this is what they have been told by their teachers. (I must confess that I belonged to the same category of people three or four years after my PhD, when it hit me that I wasn’t familiar with the relevant evidence: didn’t even know about the retrograde motion of planets, let alone Foucault’s pendulum experiment.)

My guess is that for people who are in the habit of going for emotive certainty, there won’t be any serious brain scanning differences in their commitments to religious faith and scientific knowledge.

I am not quite sure how the two modes can be distinguished experimentally, but something like the following sounds like a possible candidate. The subjects are asked “If it is true that every male human being has two tails and every female human being has three, and if Belo is a male human being, how many tails would he have, zero, one, two, or three?” The conclusion that Belo has two tails is emotively unacceptable but it follows logically from the premises.

K. P. Mohanan

One can't go by only the term or defination of "atheist" in research anymore.

From a couple of dictionaries:

Atheist : One who denies the existence of God/gods, belief that there is no God.

* The kind of fellow who says –“There is no God”.

Agnostic : One who denies that man knows or can know God and the final nature of things. Or maintains that nothing is, or can actually be known about anything not materially real and present.

* The kind of fellow who neither doubts nor denies, but says – “I don’t know.”

Freethinker : One who develops his opinion independently especially in regard to religious matters and on generally accepted religious thinking.

* The kind of fellow who says – “Yes, I believe in God but not organised and institutionalized religion.”

Sceptic : One who has a doubting attitude, who question the validity of generally accepted conclusions and beliefs in science, natural phenomena and religion.

* The kind of fellow who says, “Are you sure? Are there are studies, other studies, other stats on this?”

Doubter : One who is disinclined to believe, especially in the religious sense.

* The kind of fellow who says - “ I am sure I am not sure.”

Infidel : One who has no belief in a religion, especially one considered to be the “true” religion”.

* The kind of fellow who says - “ I don’t believe in your God/s.”

Atheism is Level 10 of disbelieve on a scale 1 - 10 based on "purity" non-belief?

Agnostics, doubters, infidels, freethinkers may have designated themselves as "atheist" as that was the only option of term given.

Anti-theists the ones on a scale of 12 out out 10? The "atheists (the real ones) awake at the ramparts until a proper war of ideas can be finally waged and won" to quote Mr. Harris?

Those who designated themself "secular humanists" or "spiritual atheists" may have ideas and approaches different from Mr. Harris' "war of ideas"?

Difficult to just let self-designated "atheists" think, believe and be what they want to and not be such without any atheist ayatollah or atheist mufti putting out fatwas on "pristine" atheism or "real atheists"?

Agnostics, freethinkers, sceptics do add to misunderstandings in survey results when those terms and designations are not taken into consideration and one reads the results as those from "faux atheists" as opposed to "real atheists". Barring those who were drunk or stoned when doing the survey.

Cheers

"J"

How could the Pew poll respondents who do not know the meaning of the word atheist. Doesn't that invalidate the poll? This poll seems irrelevant.

The study of theology ,as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on nothing; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing.
Thomas Paine 1737-1809 "The Age of Reason

It was a shock to discover , past the age of 75, not only am I an
atheist, but have really always been one.

Try as I might, I could never truly "believe".

I am eternally grateful to my Sunday School teachers, for without knowing Bible stories, English Literature would have been impossible. But you need the Greeks and Romans too, and they always seemed so much more romantic.

I thoroughly intend to contnue to celebrate ALL religious holidays (I'm a sucker for Christmas), but it is such a relief to
know that I don't have to "believe."

I do believe in magic (see Harry Potter).

So what? How important it this?

I recommend we focus on existential threats.
View "The End of Suburbia" on DVD, for example.

This was my post on the CBC News Blog under Technology, July 6, 08, under DollyR.

Einstein and Richard Dawkins, both had a religious background, and used ideas in religion for their work.

High Tech Science has only been on Earth, for the past 100 years, since the Noah/Atlantis Flood, when most of the population was destroyed. Humans had to repopulate the Planet.

Now we again have the High Tech Science, recorded in the Christian Bible, other religious writings, and myth. Either High Tech Science was used 'in the beginning', by our High Tech Ancestors, in whose Image we were made, or, Life on Earth evolved up from Algae, to our High Tech Science today.

The Supernatural in Religion and Myth, is our 'Super'natural High Tech Science today. Science and Religion on Earth, are both about the Life Species on Earth, and our Eco System, recorded in Genesis.

In Genesis, the Lord God, our Human Asexual Ancestors made Adam an Asexual Male Human without Heterosexual Body Birth. Then made Eve an Asexual Female Clone of Adam. They were High Tech Caretakers, not Mates.

When Adam and Eve, started Reproducing by Heterosexual Body Birth, the Mis-bred Cain, Abel, Seth, and daughters were born. This resulted in Division, Disease, and Death for All Humans reproduced by Body Birth.

Today we Know how to Colonize a Planet and how to reproduce a fetus in the lab, without the sex act, so many immaculate conceptions have been made.

The male sex act was the cause of the Original Sin of Assexual Humans, that 'fell' to Mis-bred Body Birth and Death.

Eternal Physical Life After Birth, is possible on Planets and in Spaceships. Is there really Life After Death, except in Element form?
Life is for the Living, not the Dead.

This was my post on the CBC News Blog under Technology, July 6, 08, under DollyR.

Einstein and Richard Dawkins, both had a religious background, and used ideas in religion for their work.

High Tech Science has only been on Earth, for the past 100 years, since the Noah/Atlantis Flood, when most of the population was destroyed. Humans had to repopulate the Planet.

Now we again have the High Tech Science, recorded in the Christian Bible, other religious writings, and myth. Either High Tech Science was used 'in the beginning', by our High Tech Ancestors, in whose Image we were made, or, Life on Earth evolved up from Algae, to our High Tech Science today.

The Supernatural in Religion and Myth, is our 'Super'natural High Tech Science today. Science and Religion on Earth, are both about the Life Species on Earth, and our Eco System, recorded in Genesis.

In Genesis, the Lord God, our Human Asexual Ancestors made Adam an Asexual Male Human without Heterosexual Body Birth. Then made Eve an Asexual Female Clone of Adam. They were High Tech Caretakers, not Mates.

When Adam and Eve, started Reproducing by Heterosexual Body Birth, the Mis-bred Cain, Abel, Seth, and daughters were born. This resulted in Division, Disease, and Death for All Humans reproduced by Body Birth.

Today we Know how to Colonize a Planet and how to reproduce a fetus in the lab, without the sex act, so many immaculate conceptions have been made.

The male sex act was the cause of the Original Sin of Assexual Humans, that 'fell' to Mis-bred Body Birth and Death.

Eternal Physical Life After Birth, is possible on Planets and in Spaceships. Is there really Life After Death, except in Element form?
Life is for the Living, not the Dead.

A number of those commenting here seem to be under the false impression that an atheist cannot believe in a "universal spirit". An atheist can be a pantheist (such as Einstein, Spinoza, etc.), and being a pantheist is perfectly compatible with belief in a universal spirit. The only doctrine that atheism excludes is theism.

I find the word 'atheist' to be rather negative, although I feel that's what I am. I think the word means that the person rejects the belief in a 'personal God' (as in my case) with which he was brought up. I do believe that there is a 'force' in nature that is greater than I.

I found myself wanting to be agnostic, which I think means "I don't know". The trouble is, I reject any kind of 'super-natural' god.

I consider myself 'Christian' because I like the words that Jesus said. (I think some of his so-called words were not his, since they don't seem to agree with most of his other words.)

I reject any hell or heaven, unless it refers to our existance on Earth. I believe I am part of star-stuff and will go back to that when I die. Any future after life would have to be my DNA in my children.

I think that religion has much common with other psychological disorders. Smart people can believe in destiny, in astrology, in conspiracy theories. I thought religion was a lack of education, ignorance. Now I think differently, even correlation exists between the level of education and faith. The difference is that too many people believe in god. When majority is sick they could think that they are healthy and rather a minority is sick.
Homosexuals also think that they are normal, just little bit different. If majorty become homosexual, humanity will go to end. Fortunatelly religion isn't so dangerous.
We are not so successful treating psychological illnesses. I am afraid our attempts to change religious people's mind will not succeed. I don't think they can hear our arguments. Sorry Sam. You are brilliant, but I am afraid only atheists can value you.

Some of the results cited in the Pew survey would seem to indicate that some of those interviewed did not understand the difference (or the meaning) of atheist versus theist... It is very hard to find perfect wording, and multiple questions are asked to weed out misunderstanding.

Such noise in a survey is otherwise meaningless, and should not be over interpreted. It detracts from the argument.

Sam Harris is always worth listening to and reading. A breath of fresh air. Great site too!

A disregard of precise definitions (or of lexicographical idealism) is obvious among those "atheists" who believe in a personal god or consider the Bible -- and not other allegedly "sacred texts" -- as a god's word. Perhaps delusion; paranoia; the old label, "pseudo-logia fantastica" & nonsensical, narrowminded selfishness of a "god's chosen" have become their principal means of thought & communication to augment their false sense of superiority & me-ism. In a recent message to an alleged atheist, I offered him choices of identifying himself as nontheist or agnostic or secularist or secular humanist or even humanist with supernatural inclinations, but haven't yet read his reply. That "nothing but truth is immortal" probably would force such thinkers into meaningless argumentation or hollow versions of both kindness, "the highest wisdom", and philosophy, the domain of truth (not no an excursion into obedience & piety).

One has to wonder whether proper methodology was followed when the Pew survey was carried out.

The word "frightening" comes to mind reading the results of the survey, and also some of the comments received. It clearly shows that we are not long out of the cave. I adhere to the George Carlin viewpoint on 'religion' and 'god'. Click on this link and listen to it. It really is worth the time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o.

I have watched hockey players go on the ice and make the sign of the cross. I guess god likes hockey and is at all the games. Not only hockey but also the NBA is big on god also. I have heard various players on winning a game thank god for the win. They like to raise up their index finger and point to the "heaven's", when asked "How did you guys pull off this win?". I then wonder about the losing team and why god didn't help them out with a couple of 3 pointers? Makes ya wonder doesn't it?

The Grammy was mentioned and one can't forget about the Academy Awards, where the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ apparently had lots to do with the winner.

The recent floods in the US brought the comment from one woman, on CNN, when she said, "I wonder why god let this happen to us?". I think she should call the weatherman and ask about heavy rains and weak levees. But that would be to simple, one has to either thank or blame a god. Nature apparently has little to do with environmental changes on the planet.

The most frightening, aspect of the upcoming election is that no one dare mention that he is not a 'believer'. You have to believe in an invisible man in the sky that watches over each and every one of us. Keeping track of our daily activities. The man voted in as President of the United States, must be a devote follower of the Christian religion and the more that he proclaims his belief in this invisible deity then the more he is liked. The more honest he appears. The more 'righteous' he becomes. Proclaiming that god and the bible are the reasons that he is guided in the right direction. This individual is the one with his hand on the button, that could send us all to oblivion. There is nothing rational about religion, it is the opiate of the people.

Keep them drunk and watching football, and in the pews on Sunday. They you can do what you want to the great unwashed out there, they are numb and incapable of thinking in a clear and rational way.

Poseidon, and Zeus help us all.

Since I am not familiar with the questions the Pew organization asked in its opinion survey, I can't comment on how they relate to the wide difference between the responses they got from "atheists" and the responses Sam Harris got from the questions he asked, except to say that Sam Harris's questions have a specific focus ("God of the Bible", "The Bible is the word of God"), which will narrow the results considerably.

Had I responded to Harris's questions, I would probably have checked the "strongly disbelieve", and I do not consider myself an atheist. Why do I not? For the following reasons:

1. The questions are specific to "God of the Bible" and "The Bible as the word of God", which I find too narrow a focus when discussing (or seeking evidence of) the force (creator entity, God, etc.) that lies behind the creation of the universe and whatever lies beyond it. Ask the same questions about "God of the Torah, Koran" or any other sacred text, and I would answer the questions in the same way.
2. Atheists make the assumption that no god or creator exists, but have never, that I am aware of, been able, using scientific research to demonstrate that no such being or entity exists. It makes more sense to me to infer that such an entity exists than to say that it does not, simply because of the vastness of the KNOWN universe. On the other side of the atheist/theist debate, neither do theists have any evidence that God exists. It seems to me tha both sides in the debate base their beliefs on premises. Being a curious sort of person, I opt for the premis that such a creator entity (energy?) does exist, and I am interested in evidence of it.

Sapporo, Japan

Reminds me of the realtor for a property in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan - when I asked her if it was winterized, she said that even if it wasn't now, it would be in winter . . .

Glad to see the research is moving along smoothly! Keep it up Sam!

Atheist or atheism comes from the word
a-theism. Theism is a belief in God. Atheism is a disblief in God. Why does thw word atheism become compliated with qualifiers. You are an atheist or not.

Atheists are look down on in much of our culture. I use the word in describing by beliefs because, I am consider by many to be a good person and community leader, and I want them to know Atheists are good people. I have never met one who was not.

Unbelievable about atheists who believe in god. Of course if they believe in that myth, guess facts or definitions of words are meaningless to them as well. Looks like we have a lot of work to do.

It looks to me, after reading the PEW survey results, that many who call themselves atheist need to read more Sam Harris, George H. Smith, Bertrand Russell, Dan Barker, Ayn Rand, Richard Carrier, Douglas E. Krueger, John Nissenbaum, S.T. Joshi, etc, to better illuminate their thinking about the title. The actual number of atheists vs the number of Christians who responded is a little disconcerting but expected. A very interesting read to be sure. Thanks for letting me know that the results were available.

I cannot understand how any real Atheist can honestly say they believe in a God. I know of some folk who believe in a God, but they don't believe in the Jesus crap, and don't attend any church services, yet they think they are Christians. Stupid isn't it?

I desbelieve very strongly!
Man made the god atheist don't believe in!

I am shocked by this article. People who regard themselves as atheists and say that they believe in god demonstrate the colossal failure of our education system.Many high school graduates do not understand the most fundamental idea of the human world outlook.
The survey also show the immense effort that is needed to make people think rather than believe in church propaganda.Even a brave and bright man like Sam Harris probably underestimates the universal ignorance of the Christian nation .
When I talk with believers in god and point out many nonsensical principles of Christianity they usually say, I have no time to think about these issues. They have plenty of time to do shopping for a better car but not for thinking about ther life philosophy.Tthe churches they attend do not encourage reasoning and asking questions.The holy bible does not contain a single reference to intelligence or the human brain.Most Christians were brainwashed as small children and it appears to be very hard to break out from these childish concepts.

A good example of the power of an early childhood braiwash is the NObel Prize winner Michail Gorbachov.He stated that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest tragedy in the 20th Century. Even this bright man could not see that the failure of the Soviet Union was a blessing for the world. He was so thoroughly brainwashe
as a Communist youngster and apparatchik that he could not see the obvious reality.As a Russian He should have stated that the greatest tragedy of the 20th century was the Second World War that cost about 20 million Russian lifes.
Something very similar applies to millions of believers who were braiwashd as children and have no will or desire to question theif infantile beliefs.
To sum up I would like to point out that the main difference between real atheists and real believers is not only what they believe in but how they think. How they use reason and how they
see themselves in the short adventure called life.For this reason it is very noble to fight the religious mythology and worshipping imagonary deity in the sky.This is a fight between magic and reasoning, between old barbaric scriptures and our modern understanding of the universe and ourselves in it.

Atheism is not an "-ism". Atheists do not practice the "Athe" faith. They are A-theists, which means they do NOT believe what theists believe. Theists believe in the existence of a supernatural God or Gods. Atheists do not.

That is all there is to it. Atheists come in all levels of intelligence and ability to think critically. Some are brilliant, some are stupid. There are liberals, conservatives, anarchists, socialists, communists, and libertarians. None believe in God or Gods.

Being an atheist only says ONE thing about the person: He or she does NOT believe in God or Gods.

Josh's definition of agnostic is totally wrong. Traditionally an atheist is someone who is certain there is no god and an agnostic is someone who doesn't necessarily believe in god but believes that this is no way to prove god's existence or non-existence. One a person believes in god they stop being atheist *or* agnostic, they are then a believer.

next time, try distributing dictionaries before conducting such a study....
oh, and highlight the word Atheist!

ECLAT{i}{ON} get back on your meds!

Wow, All you have to do to realize how clueless people are is to read blog comments, Like JOSH. you can't be serious.
unfortunately I think you are

Most people don't know what they say. The xlanguage has been so degraded by repetition and jingoism that meaning is lost. People will say anything without thinking. This article was a very clear indication th\at unthinking is upon us in a dreadful way. I'm a member of AA and I'm astonished at people's belief. My affirmation of my atheism just pisses everybody off. But I've been sober for 37 years.

I took a couple of Mr. Harris' polls, and learned something useful from them. My definitions:

"Atheist" = Certain there is no god.
"Agnostic" = Certain we cannot know anything about gods. (Not my definition; Thomas Huxley defined it this way when he invented the word.)
[my position, no name for it] = Certainty about anything whatever is justified only by evidence far better than we have about religious matters.

So "Degree of belief..." = I don't know, so my poll answers weren't included in the current report.

The interesting thing, though, is that when Harris' poll asked about my belief in, say, UFOs, I was forced to answer "probably false", rather than "don't know". There may be an inconsistency
here. I'm thinking about it.

The point really is that a "belief" in god is an impossibility if "belief" implies the functioning of a rational intelligence, a thinking brain.
Since there is no evidence, let alone proof, of one undocumented alien that fools call god, "belief" is impossible. Therefore all those who profess to "believe" in god are liars, or fools, or cynical manipulators, or what have you. Beware of all "believers!" They have caused more misery for the human race than any other class of humans. Just consider the example of that hypocritical "born-again Christian," that war criminal, terrorist, conspirator, and stooge for all the corrupt moneyed interests that are looting us: our beloved idiot President G. W. Bush.

My posts for the past two days are being embargoed by the people who run this site.

The problem with most surveys it the survey question. Most Christians are not actually Christians. They are deists caught in the web of peer pressure to think, if they believe in the teachings of Jesus they are Christian. (psuedo Christians) In U.U. I attend we have atheists, agnostics and deists. The non believers, the undecided believers, and the believers. But not Christians that believe in the virgin birth, death & reurection, saviour God, etc.-- which you believe, or you are not a Christian, no matter how much you proclaim to be or believe the teachings of Jesus.
Atheist, Bob

The belief in god is so naïve as to defy interpretation. Research will reveal that the total number of gods that various ‘groups’ have believed in exceeds 2850 deities. Society’s problem is misplaced loyalty . . . i.e. “my God is better than your God” and it’s on that naive loyalty that most of civilization’s problems are based.

I touch on this subject again [risking accusations of redundancy] because of the impending presidential elections due this year [2008] and the historic nomination of a negro for our highest office. While swords are being unsheathed allegedly because of race, digging deep into the quagmire of civilizations miseries will reveal that the underlying menace is, in reality, religious prejudices.

It would be ludicrous to elect a person to govern our nation who believes that Santa Claus really flies through the sky on a sleigh pulled by eight reindeer and delivers toys to children on Christmas Eve or that there is truly a Tooth Fairy that leaves money under the pillows of children when they lose their baby teeth. Why then would we consider anyone to lead our country, who believes that a person can rise from the dead or that a baby can be born to a virgin or that the bible [which is nothing more than a collection of folk tales] is holy scripture? How can anyone in good conscience, vote for anyone so gullible that, when they raise their voice to ask that “God Bless America”, really believes a supernatural force is actually listening and will grant their wish? When a truly honest politician [one who has the courage and integrity to state that he/she knows that the ’god concept’ is childish fantasy] arrives on the political scene, that’s when I’ll cast my vote.

I think that a study of the comparisons of fMRI readings between atheists and christians to be interesting although with my little knowledge on neuroimaging, wouldn't see a dramatic difference. I also think that the "atheists" in the Pew study were grossly misinformed of the term atheist. 40 people seems to high a number fro it to be someone purposely falsifying information. On another note, how is it that theists consider themselves of "highest moral standard" if their "morality" is based on fiction and lies? How can such individuals be trusted?

Sam,
Ignorance is apparently bliss when it comes to religion. How frightening that people don't even know the definition of the word with which they are defining themselves (atheist). I've been a non-believer as long as I can remember. Vietnam was a real clincher, but I didn't really need one.

I think the hypothesis of "misunderstanding" is the best explanation of the Pew results on which Sam focuses. However, for one of the results there is another pretty good explanation. The survey indicated that 4% of those who call themselves "atheists" attend religious services at least weekly. Most of these persons could have been genuine atheists who attend services at a Unitarian Universalist Church. At the local UU church where I go a few times a year about 40-50% the congregation is atheist. To what extent can a meeting at a UU Church be considered a "religious service"?

Perhaps this survey indicates that people believe that there are different rules in different language games. In the engineering language game, verification and fasification have high value. However, in the religious language game there is no such constraint and the law of non-contraction does not apply.
Peace,
Rip

Bah, I must say. I am a strong atheist, yet I kind of still believe in... whatever I'm inclined to believe at that moment. I sometimes believe in some kinds of deities when I'm drunk. I also tend to pray to Greek/Roman/Norse/Pagan gods when I'm in a situation when that is all I am capable of doing about it.

Yet I am sure there are no gods. I call upon the gods in a purely pragmatical sense - and it helps a little bit.

This of course can work, because people are inherently pseudo-rational, which means that we're still strongly influenced by our emotions and evolutionary baggage.

To find use for gods and to believe in them at one's convenience is completely possible for a strong atheist. I repeat - I am certain that there are no gods - that is the only rational reasoning from the data that we have.

So there. :)

Some years ago, I watched a man-on-the-street interview for a comedy show. The interviewer may have been Steve Allen, or perhaps it was David Letterman, Jay Leno, or Al Franken. The question posed to the people on the street was "Do you approve of heterosexual marriage?" The majority of respondents, fell for the gag and replied with answers like "No, it is immoral" or "no, but I favor domestic partnerships" or "yes, I think we should treat everyone equally". Almost none of them heard the real question; most assumed the question was about homosexual marriage, not heterosexual marriage. That was, of course, what made the bit funny.

I am willing to bet that most of the 21 percent mentioned in the atheism survey heard the word "theist" contained within the word "atheist" and confused the two, just as the people in the comedy routine did.

Looking at the survey I noted that areas of inquiry relating to reality e.g. science, politics, compassion for others etc. that people who considered themselves atheists were almost always fully committed and near the 90%+. Those who considered themselves religious generally had a wider spread over the answer options - and rarely were at their 90%+ commitment. On the other hand when the survey gets into the 'soft stuff' of the supernatural it was remarkable to see how the 'religious' community discards reality and spikes to near the 90% level of delusion at the extreme while the non-religious people retain their consistency and strength of conviction in to reality. I would be surprised if no differences were found in the brain and brainwave patterns between the two groups. A good future experiment, albeit difficult to do, is an age-dependent scientific investigation of brain pattern changes to investigate the degree and rate at which hard-wiring of the religious mind occurs during their indoctrination phase through childhood. Also whether or not there is a difference between Christians, Muslims and Jews.

William Stenwick:

There's tons and tons of evidence that supernatural beings exist, care and influence our lives. You need to read sacred scriptures, in particular Exodus. It's the sane story for Muslims, Muhammad spoke to a supernatural being and the Book of Mormon, Joe Smith also spoke to a supernatural being. The last two came about because we didn't get the story straight the first or second time, Exodus.

Since I doubt you've read the story of Moses and the being in the burning bush I'll give you a quick look. It goes like this: Once upon a time there was a rich kid, adopted son of the daughter of Pharaoh who ran afoul of the law. He killed an important person and had to take it on the lam. Fleeing Egypt to the land of Midian, he married the daughter of a priest, fathered a child and supported his family as a ranch hand tending sheep belonging to someone else.

Then one day he had a really interesting thing happen to him. He saw a bush that was on fire with fire just like the fire found only in hell. To his amazement there was a being in the fire that said IT was God. To make a long story a little shorter, with a lot of help from that God, (wink-wink) his fortunes changed dramatically. I'm sure you know that the highest office on earth is "leader of the chosen people of God." Well, that fellow went from farm hand eking out a living for his wife and kid to the highest office ever by agreeing to get IT what IT wanted. From this event springs the ever popular expression, "such a deal."

If you don't believe that was God in the bush then you're going to hell. Well, unless you believe either the, "Muhammad met a supernatural being and became the most important man that ever lived" OR "Joe Smith met a supernatural being and became the most important man that ever lived" one of the three tales where paupers met supernatural beings, made deals and became the most important man, (never woman) that ever lived.

Not only are you going to hell but you will not be allowed to run for public office, (makes sense, no one going to hell should hold office). And, furthermore, you will gain very warped and perverted definitions of words like atheists. In the end, while you're waiting for God you will discover that you have sinned by saying things like, "is the pope a Catholic" or "do the bears go dodo in the woods." The PEW survey reveals that 21% of popes were not Catholic and a significant percentage of the bears refused to answer the question believing it was just a trick to hit them with a litterbug ticket.

There must be a God for no other being has the power to create all this nonsense and confusion, unless IT was really a devil. Well, there could be some down and out killer on the run or mid west farmer that couldn't make a living otherwise that saw an opportunity to fake a conversation with a supernatural being. That Muhammad tale is so otherwise they'll behead you. You don't need that so "keep the faith" instead and be qualified to run for president.

Thanks again Sam for your clarity and bravery in this era of "Disenlightenment". Your steady and true light marks the way for the rest. Will there ever come a time when humanity can look back and see how childish we were?

I bvelieve in the following:
1) All of mankind is one.
2) Don't hurt your fellow man nor any other life form.
3) Best knowledge.

The blble is the history of a few tribes of mankind and not a very good history at that. The god of the bible does not exist but neither does the image of god offered by non-Judaic/Christian religions. I am atheistic; in that I refuse to have any belief in all theologies. I am anti-religion; if there were a god he most certainly would made himself/herself/itself known to all of humanity rather than to create havoc and murder in his/her/its name.I am a widower these past past 16 months and I do hope/wish that there is a spiritual plane of existence, but that too is illogical. Religion is just another political ploy to assert power over others. The family of apes has political cultures throughout its groups.

Those 'atheists' you're talking about are called 'agnostics'. 'Atheists' don't believe in a creator, but 'agnostics' believe that there is a higher power, though not necessarily the Christian god. Do some research before you write an article.

I bvelieve in the following:
1) All of mankind is one.
2) Don't hurt your fellow man nor any other life form.
3) Best knowledge.

The blble is the history of a few tribes of mankind and not a very good history at that. The god of the bible does not exist but neither does the image of god offered by non-Judaic/Christian religions. I am atheistic; in that I refuse to have any belief in all theologies. I am anti-religion; if there were a god he most certainly would made himself/herself/itself known to all of humanity rather than to create havoc and murder in his/her/its name.I am a widower these past past 16 months and I do hope/wish that there is a spiritual plane of existence, but that too is illogical. Religion is just another political ploy to assert power over others. The family of apes has political cultures throughout its groups.

What do you consider Buddhist?

Agnostics or Atheists?

Again, Sam Harris, I'll back your position with agreement to your comparing of a qualified atheist to a "married bachelor." The meaning of the word, atheist, prescribes anti-God. But, I'll maintain my support of atheism with a recognition and realizaton of a Universal Mind of which each and every human utilizes in order to function from the spiritual realm into the physical.

May I suggest again that you ask for my ms. "YOU." which explains thought processing in direct relationship with the physical--the unseen with the seen (scene)?

Richard
www.RSNystromSr.com

Those survey results were so funny; from my atheist point of view, the inane religious points of view just kill me... Take two strong Christian beliefs: "Jesus Christ was sent by his Father as a sacrifice for the redemption of humankind." "Jesus Christ, born of a virgin, is God come in the flesh." Taken together, this means that God in the flesh was sent by his Father as a sacrifice. Or, God was sent by God as a sacrifice. Does this make sense even to Christians?

However, one particular stat that jumped out at me was that, in general, Christians are conservatives and atheists are liberals. Let me add some spice to this mix. From John W. Dean, Conservatives Without Conscience, conservatives (and religious people) are more inclined to buy into authoritarian systems--for example, fascist systems like that of Nazi Germany:

Lecture: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EA_j0A6-g9g

Book: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0013LTF2Y/

Sam,

Keep up the good work; this shall be the beginning of many good things to come.
What is wrong with all this so called atheists believing in a god or a universal spirit? My advice for these very confused so called atheists is, look again, not evenly deeply, what being an ATHEIST means!!! As an atheist myself, I have a very simplistic way of seeing things, "You claim, you shall scientifically prove". How can so many people kill or do harm to others based on some books with no prove of their incredible claims? It is unfortunately ridiculous what most people on this planet believe in and are willing to do to others because their believes. One day soon, neuroscience will prove that all this mess is just a creation of your own brain, to keep it simple.

Sam it is a pleasure to read again from you.

Greetings from Aruba.

If there is a "Biblical God", he should burn in Hell.

If there is no God, why doesn't He admit it?

I am not an "atheist" and yes, I do understand the meaning of the word. On the other hand, I do NOT believe in any kind of "personal" God or the creation stories in the Bible or any of the other miricles told there. I do believe this: We humans know nothing of God except that which we ourselves have postulated. That does not mean that writers of the ancient "scriptures" were trying to mislead anyone or were just profoundly stupid. They were reporting things as they saw them using what they believed to be true about the earth, heavens, human events etc. Yes, they were profoundly WRONG but so were people who belived firmly that the earth was flat. There are some principles and values in the Bible that are worth honoring. Most of it however, is just mythological vapor thinking that represents the best available at the time.

I also believe that there is a Creator of some kind. If not, then I have no explanation of one single atom of matter. The fact that there IS matter of ANY kind is a mystery. I can live with a mystery until I, or someone smarter than I, can explain to me how matter came into being from nothing.

In the meanwhile, the condition of our lives and our planet are the results of our OWN actions. WE determine our own fate. As Walt Kelly's old cartoon character "Pogo" once said: "We have met the enemy and he is us"!

My best to Sam Harris and KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK.

Wayne Daniel
Prescott, AZ

We have spent too much time on this earth
debating and worrying over whether the Bible is the word of some god or whether there is a god or whatever. We all appeared on this
spaceship-earth without our permission and
most of us were so traumatized by this experience that we had to make up a god-being to look out for us.

Then we spent too much time debating about it all when we could have learned to cooperate and share, preventing the warring societies that we perpetuated.

We are vilifying President Bush when, in fact,
almost a majority of the voters decided he was OK. What does that make us voters? Not very
astute, right?

At any rate, let's stop warring and spending millions on candidate "war" and start
cooperating and finding a way to get out from under the corporation's thumb, as it were.

We learned to save trees when the robber barons were decimating our forests. Now let's learn to save our total earth before the great
nuclear holocaust becomes a reality.

We are on this planet because we produce some kind of energy that an entity uses. If we could talk with the acid molecules in a car battery, they would refuse to accept that they were put there to produce an energy that helps to move the car. We are in the same situation and thinking inside a box; this is why we cannot see the reality. It seems that we produce that energy when we are excited, so, pain, love, sex, fear, power, etc., etc., keep us excited 24/7. We even get excited when we dream in our sleep. I am afraid that the same thing happens with animals and plants. The fact that to survive we need to eat each other, gives you an idea that there can't be a "loving god" who created so much cruelty. To a certain extent, I'm inclined to believe that we are robots created by a superior civilization to work for them without knowing it. Take it or leave it.

Re: The poll indicating 21% of the atheist's polled believe in God may have a simple explanation. Perhaps the responders thought they were identifying themselves as "a theist," simply assuming that since people often get things fouled up on the net, felt that the pollsters had their word spacing screwed up (Occam's razor, you know). Otherwise, one has to assume there were a lot of idiots responding to the poll (21% to be precise).

I do not really understand the "Strongly Believe" or "Somewhat Believe". It seems to me that the essence of Atheism is failure to "believe." Either one knows a thing or one does not. As, what I feel is a true atheist, my position is simply that there is no evidence to support such a hypothesis. If you have some show me. The burden of proof is on the person stating the existence of such a creature. I see no evidence that is scientifically verifiable.

Bill Stenwick

In 1793, the Rev. John Mason predicted that God would "crush us to atoms in the wreck" because the founders had chosen not to create a Christian Constitution but a godless one instead.

Many of the religious were certain therefore, that the onset of the Civil War in 1861 heralded the beginning of our nation's end because God was finally meting out his punishment for the wrongs of the founders.

In fact, in 1863, an entirely Protestant "National Reform Association" was founded to devise ways to insert God into the Constitution. They finally proposed that the preamble, "We the people..." be replaced with the following revised version:

"Recognizing Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, and acknowledging the Lord Jesus Christ as the Governor among the nations, His revealed will as the supreme law of the land, in order to constitute a Christian government..."

The Association gained an audience with President Lincoln in February 1864 and presented this "Christian" preamble to him in a petition for revising the Constitution. Lincoln's response? He promised them that he would "take such action upon it as my responsibility to my Maker and our country demands."

True to his promise, President Lincoln did nothing.

Congress also avoided action on the petition by tabling the resolution that year, and every year, for years to come.

That president and those congresses understood full well the intent and wisdom of the founders as well as the true virtue and value of a government established not by religious fiat but by "We the people..."

If such was the state of affairs in the 1860's, why do today's Christian "conservatives" insist on using the phrase, "Let's put God back into the Constitution", when He was so obviously never there in the first place?

I post in MSN groups regularly and I have run into a new brand of Theist, one who lies and claims to be an Atheist and then proceeds to attempt to sell their particular brand of a god.

Some of these people are Christians who use the bible statement "When with a Jew, be as a Jew" and see this deception as alright in an attempt to make conversions.

We have caught quite a few of these individuals and when confronted with their deception they usually exit our groups. Disgusting!

My philosophy is one of truth.

I'm suprised you have not met any of these phonies until now, perhaps you should join MSN groups, the philosophical/religion sections.

I am not surprised at your poll results.

I am an Atheist and my responses were I strongly disagree with any holy books or gods.
MH

Sam Harris seems to be unaware of the 'need' that belief in a 'higher power' serves in the majority of people on our planet. Until he, at least recognizes that this 'need' exists, and then provides a more rational substitute, his fine message will continue to be lost except to those who need no conversion in beliefs.

Perhaps a positive here could be an illumination that we need either people to have a more coherent understanding of the words used in a survey (and in general) or a requirement of providing exact meanings of the words in surveys/discussions.

Obviously we are the ones that give meaning to the words but to have such a varied concept of what is an atheist, skews the results without a doubt.

I recall a rather horrid movie titled "The Reaping,' where the atheist in question is a nonbeliever only from spite and fit the role of "I don't believe in god because I'm mad at him."

I still side with the notion that the self-proclaimed atheists were without a full understanding of their stance when they associate atheist to their name.

However, there's room for the angry at god person but they need a new name other than atheist or at least a clarification.

Lastly, thank you kindly for your efforts Sam Harris.

It appears tha atheism is a relative thing. A persona; god is far different from a "unmiversal spoirit" or perthaps "natural law." One can vertainly be an atheit and believe that there is a natural law, but hardly to believe in a personal god.

I was not included in the survey. I strongly beleive that there is not god, none of them. Nor I beleive that there is any supernatural inspiration to write the bible. I am an atheist, and I am a secular humanist.

What do you call somebody who believes the following?: I am not sure whether or not there are supernatural beings who can think and observe. I am sure that if they exist, they have not, in human history, communicated with any person or persons and directed those people to do something. If they wanted people to behave in a certain way, they would have told everybody so there would be no doubt about what they want.

All this poll shows is that many people don't know the definition of the word "atheist".

There are also lots of other design problems with this poll as well. It's unfortunate since Pew is generally regarded as impartial.

Asking people to self report about beliefs without adding in consistency checks produces meaningless results.

A new book on the extent of religious belief does a better job: "The fall of the evangelical nation" by Christine Wicker.

Her stats show, for example, that evangelicals are really only about 25% as numerous as the common statistics claim.

" I look to other worlds for scientific descriptions of what science has not yet proven and thus we classify this unknown as GOD...which is only a metaphor for what man does not yet understand.'

Speak for yourself, Charles E Crawford. "We" do not classify what we don't understand as god. Maybe you do, maybe some others do, but your blanket statement about what "we" do is just confusing and inaccurate. Words do have meaning and the definition of god is not simply the unknown. For some it is a very definite known - a specific guy in the sky with definite rules and regulations and rewards and punishments. Others, who see no evidence for this guy, don't use a metaphor named god to describe the unknown. We just call it the unknown.

I guess all we need is for too many atheists to begin confusing what atheism means. The confusion about religion belongs to Christians; atheists need to face the fact that there is no god to thank for their miseries or their accomplisments. There should not be the least hesitation or flip-flopping in the attitude of atheists; either you are one or you are not.

It is difficult for me to imagine a publication being taken seriously when it reiterates and relies on comments so inane that the responders can't even wrap their neurons around a simple definition.

the pew study must have included Florida residents where democrats vote for Pat Buchanan and do other anomalous things.

While I am an Ordained Clergyman I consider myself a mystic as defined by one of my dictionaries as "Consciousness of transcendent reality." There seems to be a "reality" behind "reality" and I do believe we can through contemplation grow in an awareness of this seemingly creative, dynamic and intelligent reality.

However, the concept of a God behind reality, especially a loving God, makes no sense to me at all. If anything the Universe itself is God, but then again, in any case, the question of origins remains a mystery. When it comes to origins there remain only questions, no answers. Why there is something rather than nothing we have not a clue.

The ethical and social teachings of Jesus, if they are his at all, have some value, but most rational people of good will can figure them out. One does not have to be religious to be ethical or moral in any culture, assuming these standards are humane.

I purchased a CD by Pat Condell. While I appreciated most of what he said I feel he is doing harm to the atheist cause being so angry, rude and crude.

Wayne Landgrebe

Sam, great comment to Leith Anderson, President of the National Association of Evangelicals

That response is an article in itself.

I agree, man has an inherant "moral" code and religion hijacks it as proof that there must be a God who instilled it in us.

Personally, I don't know nor do I claim to know if a God exists or not, and I certainly do not claim to know what he wants of mankind.

As a former Jehovah's Witness, for the first 50 years of my life I soundly reject any type of organized religion, who's arrogance is refected in Leith Anderson's comments.

As a mere agnostic, I suggest that "atheist" be added to the list of words U.S. citizens misuse,
along with "liberal," "conservative," and "patriot." Shortage of dictionaries? Shortage of literacy? The U.S. is calculated to be 40% functionally illiterate. Did Pew ask whether its respondents could read?

Now that religious buzzwords are so commonly and publicly used to mobilize devout ignorance, I am finding it more difficult to be polite to the brain-washers of children, including taxpayer-funded faith-based charitable groups (unless they can refrain from interfering with the ability of humans of all ages to rationally think).

Atheist I believe, believe in something, it is just not necessarly what orthodox religion defines as God...thier seems to be more than 4k of them...as an amateur astronomer, I look to other worlds for scientific descriptions of what science has not yet proven and thus we classify this unknown as GOD...which is only a metaphor for what man does not yet understand.

I am one of those 'putative' atheists that responded to such a poorly designed survey.

When asked whether I believe in "God or a universal spirit", I answered 'yes' because I am a pantheist., which I believe to be a class of atheist. How can there not be a universal spirit, I wonder? I think it's equivalent to asking whether a universal law exists. The only difference is that my universal is not restricted to a materialistic metaphysics. I may not know what it is, or even be capable of understanding it, but I believe that it exists.

Sam, I've read you book, "Letter to a Christian Nation", several times and that very book caused me to read others including Dawkins and Hitchens. Given the in depth logic of all these books, I still can't understand why we are bombarded with Christian belief systems nearly everytime we answer the front door...unreal.
Thanks so much for the inspiring letters, and continued success on achieving your PHD. Oh, and one last thing. The news media may be as much to blame as anyone on continued fostering of Christianity. With such shows as Physic detectives and others, CNN saying "your in our prayers" nearly anytime there is some sort of calamaty...Well Sam, you get my drift.

Respectively
Len Bentley

When a survey says that atheists believe in God it seems obvious that some
don't know what an atheist is or who God is or don't much think about
logical inconsistency. But we know that lots of people aren't good at taking
surveys!

Or maybe some atheists don't believe in God but would like to if they could
find a way.

The universality of religion and the quest for God seems to confirm that
there is an unsatisfied desire for God in almost all of us. Just because
some arrive at an official "no God" philosophical conclusion doesn't mean
that the universal desire is satisfied by denial. So, we have 21 percent of
atheists who believe and pray anyway.

-- Leith Anderson, President of the National Association of Evangelicals
------------

Leith: Thanks for your thoughtful response to the extraordinarily confusing
and therefore seriously flawed Pew Survey. I agree with you!

"DESIRE for a higher power" is almost universal!
And that desire cannot be fulfilled by denial…as you state!

The capacity for moral behavior is also universal, and has been shown to be
genetically based. Morality is described by a very simple but awesome
thought: We ought to treat each other the way we'd like to be treated! That
may sound familiar! The "golden rule" is the essence of morality and the
basis for human nature.

The golden rule is part of every culture on Earth. It is built into humans.
Religions REFLECT this truth!

Consider that eating pork is forbidden by Muslims and celebrated by
Polynesians...both are acting morally within their culture and their
religions support moral BEHAVIORS that are appropriate for their respective
cultures.

Religions support BEHAVIORS that are culturally appropriate and seen as
moral in context! Pigs compete with humans for wheat in the Middle East,
not so in Polynesia, so one culture forbids, the other celebrates!

You state: "The universality of religion and the quest for God seems to
confirm that there is an unsatisfied desire for God in almost all of us."

You contend it is "universal". How did the quest for "higher powers" become
part of human nature? Here's a natural explanation for the truth you and I
both observe.

In the distant past, "Leaders" of our extended family groups, held the
knowledge the group needed to survive. Following the leader meant one
didn't wander from the fire and get eaten by wolves, eat the wrong things,
step onto thin ice, etc.

Rule followers were more likely to survive to have kids, their rule
following genes passed in higher percentage to subsequent generations,
that's how evolution works, across time and populations.

Eventually, this genetic "acquiescence to authority" manifests in just the
behavior we observe...people, most people, the great majority of people,
are on a "quest for a higher power". They seek 'a rule maker' and "believe"
there must be one and so they seek.

Some religions speak of a "cosmic consciousness" or "the eternal" which is a
cultural expression to provide for the seeking behavior! Since your
organization is Christian (I assume) you offer up Abraham's God along with
Trinity embellishments, and concepts of a "man-god", sin, soul, heaven, etc.
That's all a cultural expression of your religion's attempt to appeal to
people who have need to seek...you can call it TRUTH if you wish.

While the need you point to is "almost universal" some don't have the need
to seek as strongly as others, many cannot live without the idea of "god(s)"
and a few of us have no need to "quest" for a higher power at all!

We're known generally as atheists (I happen to be a Bright, and base my
ethics and actions on my naturalistic worldview, free from supernatural
elements)…and we make up about 5-7% of the population. (Best guess, who
knows for sure, certainly not the Pew Study as we agree!)

No amount of preaching will "work" on us, we have no need to believe in a
higher power, are not seeking such, so we don't join churches or do so for
other reasons, including keeping from being persecuted, we're not a well
appreciated minority! Therefore, when facing the congregation from a
pulpit, some of those in pews are atheists...almost certainly!

The genetically based GOD QUEST has evolutionary benefits. Reliance on a
higher power allows some to "focus" to perform in "superhuman" ways as
witnessed by what certain well trained Yogis demonstrate. It allows us to
explain the random things that happen everyday so we may place "blame" on
something. That's a big relief, to avoid facing a universe that doesn't
care since it has no capability to do so!

"Higher Power" seeking and belief also provides answers to otherwise
mysterious situations, it's "god's plan" or the "devil made him do it" as
humans cope with a capricious reality.

Religions claim to "deliver morality". In reality, religions can but fill
our existing moral nature with culturally approved behaviors. In the same
way, religions coopt the "need to believe". They offer stories - pick your
culture, pick your creation story!

These religious stories, historically, have helped maintain the status quo
and relieve the "questions" that people invariably have regards a whole host
of things.

Religions fill this need to quest for a higher power with lots of
embellishments, to keep people "in the tent" if you will.

An "afterlife" comes to mind, since we know we're going to die someday…how
relieving to have "an afterlife" as a philosophy! Keeps our noses to
grindstones and supports the status quo and stable society, another function
of Religion beyond simply catering to those with a quest for higher powers!

Your organization is a confederation of evangelical organizations. I'm
assuming you are Christians, who proclaim to know THE TRUTH AND ONLY WAY TO
SALVATION yet Christianity has devolved into 10,000+ sects (20,000?)! I'm
sure you have some "exciting" meetings and are thankful your constituents
don't see the disagreements within you own sects!

Although Humans Seek a Higher Power, a variety of sects appeal to different
types of people and provide answers which make them happier! Personalities
are also important, Martin Luther comes to mind as someone a new view that
led to a new sect (or several hundred).

Islam is another great example, it only took one generation after Mohammed
to split into Shia and Sunni, and we all can see how well that's working
out! And those aren't the only Islamic sects...

Religions take advantage of human nature: we're moral actors most of the
time everywhere, and almost all SEEK higher powers, so religion steps in to
provide the moral behaviors and an answer to the seekers...

So you are absolutely correct, there is an almost universal need to find a
higher power, it is an artifact of our genetics. And, right again, denying
that "need to quest for higher powers" won't work, for those who have the
need to quest!

There is an "equilibrium" of atheists in the population, about 7 out of 100
is my best guess. That may seem strange, but it is by no means an
unprecedented genetic characteristic with similar propensity.

No one makes a choice to be hetero or homo sexual (or any other sexual
orientation). Did you decide which path you'd take? Neither did anyone
else. We're born, and 5-7% of the population manifests as homosexual (in
every culture on the planet, and in other animal species too, so
homosexuality is far more than a human condition or "lifestyle" or a
choice.)

Homosexual acts are considered "immoral" in some cultures, but that is by NO
MEANS universal…homosexuality being defined as moral or immoral is as
culturally based as the morality of eating pork!

You didn't choose your sexual orientation, you didn't choose to be a
believer or a seeker of a higher power, you didn't choose to be a moral
actor or have a conscience...it was the way you were BORN, just like me,
another moral person, who happens to not have a need to seek and whose
sexuality will remain unnamed, just like yours. None of my business, and to
be sure, none of yours either! Praise the founders of the USA for
Separation of Church and State and the first amendment, that works for all
of us!

Here's a creation story, without benefit of religion, since I have none:

The universe formed when the big bang happened according to best evidence.
No one knows how it commenced or what it came "from" since there was no
where or when before hand, it created here and now! "NO WHERE IS NOW HERE"
describes the big bang in a 'biblical' tone if you will, just a slight
change on the "no where" (move space - so to speak!) and we have "now here!

A long time later, the solar system formed.

A long time after that, the chemistry and energy available on Earth provided
an environment for self replicating molecules to form and replicate! That's
what's known as life. Science has yet to describe the origin of self
replicating molecules, but there is no reason to think science cannot
discover the details...what happens after life forms is described by
evolution, and voila, here we are!

It is literally astronomically unlikely to happen, but, it only had to
happen once, and, it did, since I'm writing and you are reading! The "long
odds" are immaterial, it happened and we're the proof!

Stated very simply, Geology naturally leads to Biology. Just our luck!

Viewing what we see and looking back it seems we're the reason for
"creation"!

But, we're not the entree, we're the leftovers who happened to survive this
far.

Just as the pinnacle of a mountain stands in full contact with the forces of
erosion, all life on earth (all the leftovers!) live under a range of
natural conditions. Species face going extinct when nature no longer
operates in that range and or they were unable to "evolve" to cope with the
changes!

Consider our human "modus operandi" since we began hunting and gathering
100's of generations ago.

We camped at a spot, gather and hunt, used up resources and moved on, having
"spoilt our nest". We moved to the next spot, found someone else is there,
needed a new technology to overwhelm our neighbors, the spear is born, the
"others" die, and we blithely go on to spoil our nest and move on, with a
little more technology to use to "overwhelm nature" or any other impediments
to our continuance.

Inuit didn't evolve in the Arctic, they used technology (igloos, etc.) to
overwhelm it...and competed well with polar bears to dominate their
environment. Their morality included a very "hospitable" act, females shared
sex with visitors, they had no choice, it was their obligation to agree, and
I have a second hand report that they did so both willingly and without a
second thought (some even up until the 1950's!)…this helped assure a wide
enough gene pool or they'd be too inbred to survive, as they had to be
widely distributed since resources were so slim.

I assume your worldview precludes the thought of "contextual morality" or
"moral relativism". Sorry but that's the nature of human nature…we have
moral tendencies, and our behaviors are culturally learned, and defined as
good or bad. Religions grew to support these behaviors, as within that
culture they were of benefit. Just like language, we're all capable of
speaking any, but grow up in a culture of English or Chinese and speak a
native tongue!

Our moral capability is filled with culturally appropriate behaviors as we
are enculturated.

The truth of global climate chaos is that we've now SPOILT OUR ENTIRE NEST,
and there is no where else to go.

You and yours can continue to cater to a parishioner's "need to seek".
It is a very "profitable" operation, and you have no "reason" to stop.
Except...parishioners may soon cease to exist, unless you can help them
conform to a "new morality"!

Here is the progression.

Over the last few hundred human generations:

1. "Follow-the-Leader" behavior evolves to have almost all of us
2. "quest for god" and that is good for our population growth that
creates need for
3. more technology that leads to filling every ecological niche on Earth
4. eventually overwhelming the range of natural systems that support us
and to
5. "human extinction" because we are INCAPABLE of ceasing our "quest"!

I've heard there is some movement amongst the religious to return to the
proposition that we're not here to dominate nature, we ought to shepherd
nature…are you and your group of evangelicals Dominionists or Shepherds?

I've made my moral decision: I have no offspring.

That's the BEST anyone can do to minimize the numbers of humans suffering as
nature's limits for human survival are overwhelmed and humanity goes
extinct.

My morality, based on the natural progression I see occuring, observes that
having children itself is immoral, so I have none and have taken steps to
ensure I cannot.

Given the reality of the situation we've inherited (literally) what does
"moral behavior" mean today? Let's start with "evangelical Christians"
since that's your territory. What morals ought you support to allow for
continued human existence?

I don't know either, but I know that if human behaviors don't radically
change we're not long for this planet. And religions influence
behavior...so, I'll leave it up to you.

Perhaps your belief includes a "god will provide" attitude. Do you really
"believe" that?

Meet my expectations and ignore this.
Or surprise me and motivate your flock to do "right".

I look forward to any response.
--

I wrote a comment with my answers to your survey because I found that some of the questions, and answers, were confusing and did not provide a clear alternative for what I thought, and think. Being and atheist, for me, is a 100% concept. There's no room for any other interpretations of the bible, other than it being a book with a great influence. As, in my opinion, all religious books are. Fiction? yes. With an important role in establishing and supporting a dominant idea or ideology? Definitely yes.

I understand the purpose of your questions, in that you wanted to include all the conceptual variables used by most people. But I don’t think there are many atheists in the United States, or in any place for that matter. Religious believes are an ideological tool. They are, and have always been a political tool. They constitute the fundamental stones and glue that holds all societies together. And they are also the frame of ideas that keep the established order alive and strong. Be that a monarchic order or a democratic order. Religion is the keeper of the order that works for those in power and the order that keeps us, the power deprived ones, in our place.

Of course, religion is not the only ideological tool created and supported by the power structures. The package includes all sorts of believes, such as justice, but somehow they all end up in god. It is a perfectly constructed skeleton. No wonder, it has been built by centuries of human genious.

I'd like to participate again, and this next time I will try to finish the questionnaire, by choosing the best option even if it doesn't reflect exactly what I think. Emma

Intriguing, albeit shocking. I've known Atheists who have converted to Christianity as a more or less socially beneficial act, but an Atheist that believes that the Bible is the 'word of God'? If I had a conversation with that person in real life I might guffaw my eyes out.

Keep up the great work, Mr. Harris, we need more people like you who gracefully place that great wall of reasoning infront of the vast blackhole of ignorance. If you'll excuse the elaborate metaphor.

Enjoy yourself!

Disbelieve strongly both assumptions.

Pew's results tell us folks are confused by the key words. Russell had something worthwhile to say about them. Reading "God's Problem", by Ehrman may clarify and crystalize thinking .

There are no gods, no fairies, no sprites, no angels, no devils, no heaven, no hell, no Humpty Dumpty, no Tinkerbell, no Tooth Fairy, no Santa Claus, no Easter Bunny, no Mickey Mouse,no Mother Goose, no Superman, no Batman, no Apollo, no Aphrodite, no Zeus, no Shiva, no Shakti, no Vishnu.

What there is, is our imaginations, which produce all these characters and more. Its what we do as a species. We make things up for our own amusement, and to fill in for things we don't understand.

Outside of the imagination, no supernatural world exists.

I think we can safely say that Pew has a lot to learn about conducting meaningful research.

The notion that "3 percent of “atheists” are “absolutely certain” that a personal God exists and believe that the Bible is His “literal” Word; 4 percent attend religious services weekly; 5 percent pray daily; 2 percent receive answers to their prayers “at least once a week,” have witnessed “a divine healing,” and draw their morality straight from scripture" is beyond funny.

And still there is one survey/poll that the Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist et al still will not answer. Strange!! Maybe there is a reading comprehension problem amongst the Islamic commentators on this blog. Once again:

A six question survey for the Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist, Victoria, Pamela, Nouri, Daisy, Eboo, Asim, Ahmed, Mo and all the other Muslims out there:

Do you believe:

1. In "pretty/ugly wingie" thingies?

2. That the long-dead Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words now listed in the koran?

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life?

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7 800 year-old feud between Sunnis and Shiites give significant credence that suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran?

5. That having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of lust and polygamy?

6. And that the condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of anger and greed???????

Note: Since atheists are in the general mix of US residents i.e the source of the Pew survey/poll, it is assumed, based on the previously cited official survey of the literacy and literacy deficiency rate in the USA, that many of the atheists who took said Pew poll did not have the proper reading skills to know what they were viewing which resulted in the very odd statistics.

From Wikipedia - 2 of 2

The term is attributed to Vladimir Lenin, sometimes in the form "useful idiots of the West", to describe those Western reporters and travelers who would endorse the Soviet Union and its policies in the West...

In the United States, the term is sometimes used as a pejorative against political liberals, radicals, and others among left-wing politics. The tone implies that the speaker thinks the "useful idiot" is ignorant of the facts to the extent that they end up unwittingly advancing an adverse cause that they might not otherwise support...

Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, the term "useful idiot" has also been used by some commentators to describe individuals said to take a softer line against Islamism and terrorism. For example, Anthony Browne wrote in the United Kingdom newspaper, The Times:

“ Elements within the British establishment were notoriously sympathetic to Hitler. Today the Islamists enjoy similar support. In the 1930s it was Edward VIII, aristocrats and the Daily Mail; this time it is left-wing activists, The Guardian and sections of the BBC. They may not want a global theocracy, but they are like the West’s apologists for the Soviet Union — useful idiots. ”

Similarly, Bruce C. Thornton, a professor of Classics at American University of Cal State Fresno wrote:

“ Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us today. Now the useful idiots can be found in the chorus of appeasement, reflexive anti-Americanism, and sentimental idealism trying to inhibit the necessary responses to another freedom-hating ideology, radical Islam...

From Wikipedia - 1 of 2

In political jargon, the term "useful idiot" was used to describe Soviet sympathizers in western countries and the alleged attitude of the Soviet government towards them. The implication was that the person in question was naïve, foolish, or in willful denial, and was being cynically used by the Soviet Union, or another Communist state.

The term is now used more broadly to describe someone who is perceived to be manipulated by a political movement, terrorist group, or hostile government, whether or not the group is Communist in nature....

Hello JY Hume,

Thanks for your response.

My metal analogy? My reaction to your carbon and metal analogy : ).

Things can and do take new shapes, forms, characteristics and, thus, new names when mixed or crossed with other stuff. As you know, even animals and plants evolve or mutate and have new characteristics. So do people, their thinking and beliefs.

Am I trying to say that labels and definitions are not useful? For practical purposes of identification, of course label and definitions are useful. Usually in the plant and animal kingdom, it is humans who named or defined them. But in humans, it is always self-designations and self-identifications. If by others, sometimes not quite flattering or agreed with by those as defined. Humans are defined by themselves.

Your point that atheists be clearly defined as “that class of people who either believe in gods and/or supernatural forces, or do not believe in gods and/or supernatural forces.” is not missed at all. I was going on the response of the atheists who reacted to those who defined themselves as “atheists” but are “wrong” and contradictory in that self-definition, and all sorts of reasons given for that “mistaken” self-definition by those polled by Pew.

I find it a bit hard to believe that some people don’t know what atheist means, including those polled. Even an illiterate 60 year old fishmonger in a small town in Malaysia knows what an “atheis” (as borrowed from English and spelled in Malay) is – one who don’t believe there is a God.

I have never heard of adults making pranks of survey questionnaires, as they do think what to answer (or lie sometimes, but why and whatever for as no one will get arrested for any answers given), and pollsters learned to be patient while waiting for verbal responses to verbal questions, to repeat the questions, to give people all the time they need if the questions are to written down.

Some folks may be just be drunk or drugged or stoned or high when answering questions in the Pew Survey.

We may be assuming too much on what people know and understand or cared for.

Cheers

“J”

Unable to view comments on Susan Jacoby's thread; unable to post. Anyone else with the same problem? Testing this thread.

And still is still one survey/poll that the Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist et al still will not answer. Strange!! Maybe there is a reading comprehension problem amongst the Islamic commentators on this blog. Once again:

A six question survey for the Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist, Victoria, Pamela, Nouri, Daisy, Eboo, Asim, Ahmed, Mo and all the other Muslims out there:

Do you believe:

1. In "pretty/ugly wingie" thingies?

2. That the long-dead Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words now listed in the koran?

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life?

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7 800 year-old feud between Sunnis and Shiites give significant credence that suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran?

5. That having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of lust and polygamy?

6. And that the condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of anger and greed???????

Note: Since atheists are in the general mix of US residents i.e the source of the Pew survey/poll, it is assumed, based on the previously cited official survey of the literacy and literacy deficiency rate in the USA, that many of the atheists who took said Pew poll did not have the proper reading skills to know what they were viewing which resulted in the very odd statistics.

Obviously some of the alleged atheists have no idea what an atheist is.

Hello Jihadist, thanks for the reply.

Chalk it up to my simplistic intellect, but I’m having some trouble figuring out what the first half of your reply is trying to say. You seem to be running away with the “metal” analogy, and in doing so conflating a technical chemical definition with the much looser common language usage of the term (also conflating elements with molecules). Are you trying to say that labels and definitions are not useful? If so, I would beg to differ.

We must have some conventions of language if we are to convey any useful information to one another. Yes, there are times when metaphor and subjective interpretation are appropriate, but there are also times when we need to be very clear about what we mean.

As for your other concerns (such as the beliefs of the unaffiliated and the non-belief of some of the affiliated), I think that I did take them into account already. The Pew poll actually did ask follow-up questions to see what people meant by their self-labels. As noted, 21% of those labeling themselves as atheists turn out not to be atheists at all, but actually believe in a “Personal God,” an “Impersonal Force,” or some “Other.” After all, they had the option of labeling themselves not as atheists, but as “Agnostics,” “Secular unaffiliated,” or “Religious unaffiliated.” It very well could be that they felt like they were on-the-spot for the interview and just answered ‘atheist’ without really weighing the options.

It simply would not be useful to define “atheist” as “that class of people who either believe in gods and/or supernatural forces, or do not believe in gods and/or supernatural forces.” That would be, by definition, the class of all people.

Somewhere, I think my point got lost. I’m not in any way trying to say that some people are smarter than others, or call anyone dumb or confused. I’m certainly not trying to protect the purity of “the clan.” I’m just saying that by reading the numbers more closely, we can glean some more useful information from the data. (i.e. by any standard definition of the word, roughly how many Americans are actually atheists?).

JJ you are such a fricken' loser. Don't you ever get tired of copying and pasting your gibberish and having deleted right off this site? The rest of us are.

The atheist who prays is a liar. He's either lying about his atheism, or he's lying about praying. Or he's so mixed up he doesn't know what an atheist is. An atheist doesn't believe in gods; so if he prays to a god who he doesn't believe exists, he's not an atheist, he's a damn fool.
And you can quote me on that.

Sam

Hello JY Hume,

You : on definitions - “ That’s a bit like taking the Periodic Table and saying, “On Wednesday’s, Carbon will be considered a metal,” when by definition it is properly categorized as a non-metal.”

My disagreement on some points is with Mr. Sam Harris, not with you. And now you’ve done it. Moving my mind from a concrete mindset to a being a temporary metalhead on this matter. But I’m not looking to wage war over it, after all, the world is getting less and less pristine,no? :).

It is possible to for carbon to be combined with iron to become steel, another metal, an alloyed metal on Wednesday. We can accept that combination of metals with other elements or metals, but not mixing of beliefs or mixing up on beliefs in people?

There’s base metal, and there’s noble metal. All religious purists, fundamentalists or literalists like to think of their faith as akin to noble metal. But over the centuries, some do become base metal or alloyed metal for obvious reasons if metal is to be an analogy of belief.

Do we take it that by many traditional, conservative and mainstream atheists’ reasoning and contention, atheism as defined by them and dictionaries is a noble non-belief, in spite of it being more like a base non-belief now from which variations and of non-belief and belief are forged by individuals who call themselves “atheists” into something new and to them possibly better and stronger in their life?

Is Mr. Harris a platinum, nay a plutonium or uranium atheist setting the 24 k gold standard on atheism and thus 22, 18, 14, 10 k etc gold “atheists” are not acceptable for him? Perhaps Mr. Harris et al consider those who said they are “atheists” but do pray and believe in God/Universal spirit are gold-plated atheists at best, never mind gold, after all, is one of the most malleable of metals.

Surveys and stats are numbers that always brings up more questions, as did this Pew Survey, to look further on the results and numbers, for more surveys and research, including:

- why 14.2% claimed to be unaffiliated with a religion.

- why 70% of the unaffiliated says they believe in god in some form.

- what the 30% of the unaffiliated who responded not believe in such things are what “kind” of atheists (those who are no longer members of churches etc – more like freelance and free-floating believers who don’t like organised religions?) .

I have some reservations in the conclusion that “21% of atheists are confused”. They are articulating a personal view on their belief that does not quite fit in the pigeon-hole of both pure theism pure atheism and thus do seem confusing, perhaps more to us rather than to them as we do not know why.

As for “4.26% of Americans are atheists unaffiliated with any religious group, +/- 2%.”, you are well aware that there are those who call themselves Christians, Muslims and Hindus etc who may not believe in God or may be indifferent to God or on the formal tenets of their faiths, but still do call themselves Christians, Muslims or Hindus etc. You also do know “unaffiliated” simple means not being members of a specific church or those who are wary and weary of organised religion etc.

So, it may not just be a personal God, a personalised God for them, but a detachment of or from, a dissociating of and from specific creeds, dogmas or practices of organised and institutionalised religions for those who said they believe in a God/Universal spirit and are unaffiliated. A free-floating non-believer believer? A free-floating believing non-believer? Or just that good old word “freethinker”?

We can now identify those who self-identified themselves as atheists. What is not done thus far is to ask those who identify themselves as atheists to elaborate on what they mean when they say they are secular humanists, agnostics, apatheists, anti-theists, freethinkers etc. It would go a long way to understand what people think and believe or don’t in their self-identity, self-defination and self-characterisation of themselves.

This Pew Survey seems to surprise some members of the atheist clan that there are members of their clan who don’t hold fully to the family motto, credo or creed, and thus reject and exclude them as true members of the clan. Or to reject the less bright ones. Whichever the case may be lest it shamed and taint the clan's self-image. Perhaps not fair to say so, but faith groups do that too and athiests are no different in the end.

Thanks and regards

“J”

Clarification: I don´t mean that an atheist is automatically a smarter person or a religious person is automatically stupid. My point is that the people that responded that they are atheists but believe in God, seem to me they don´t know the meaning of "atheist" and probably don´t know in which continent they live, or what a continent is. That is the poor state of the education in the US.

Sam Harris:

Seen this?

"The Secret of Armageddon" - An Iranian TV "Documentary" Claims That "a Jewish Plan for the Genocide of Humanity," Includes a Conspiracy for the Takeover of Iran by Local Jewish and Bahai Communities:

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1802.htm

Did this TV series really air on the Iranian news channel IRINN in May and June 2008 ?

FARNAZ: ditto

JIHADIST: I understand your point about atheists not being too dogmatic, but it’s a bit disingenuous to completely ignore the definitional problem. That’s a bit like taking the Periodic Table and saying, “On Wednesday’s, Carbon will be considered a metal,” when by definition it is properly categorized as a non-metal. We don’t get to do that; it wouldn’t make any sense. I think it’s completely appropriate to make the same observation with the atheist/believer distinction.

But I agree with you that Pew generally does good work, and in this case some useful information can probably be gained. This may not be, however, quite the way that the report presented the findings.

I went back and looked at Pew’s reported numbers to see what they really showed (and someone please double check to see if this looks correct):

5048 of the 35556 respondents claimed to be unaffiliated with a religion. That’s 14.2%.

70% of the unaffiliated say they believe in god in some form (Personal God, Impersonal Force, or Other/Don’t Know).

That leaves 30% of the unaffiliated who do not believe in such things. I think it very reasonable to say that THESE people are the atheists.

If we do the math, 30% of 5048 gives us 1514.4 atheists.

Take 1514.4/35556 to find that 4.26% of the total population are atheists. Pew’s margin of error looks to about 2 to 2.5%

So we’ve got the wrong headline. It shouldn’t be that 21% of atheists are confused. It should be that 4.26% of Americans are atheists unaffiliated with any religious group, +/- 2%.

(note: this does not include those self-identified with various religions, but who don’t believe in any God, Force, etc, so the real number would actually be a bit higher)

I wonder how many of the randomly generated phone numbers belong to frat houses. That would explain some of the 40.

Mr Harris:

I expect you've noticed how the scum always rises to the top of the gravy. Pondering atheists that believe in God can distract the pondering, cause us to loose sight of, suffer a failure to ponder what's at the top of the gravy boat known as the USA.

1% of the people now own 90% of the wealth of the nation. 1965 it was 75% that had 90%. That says the scum has bubbled up and solidified, as best scum can become a solid. This has happened many times throughout history. The solution has always been war which causes unusually strong scum to rise to the top.

The mafia has an expression, "you can't make an omelet unless you're willing to crack a few eggs." As the economic, (all issues are economic especially atheists that believe in God) situation worsens we can expect the willingness to crack a few eggs to become equally greater.

Am I the only one that noticed the Pakistan nuclear scientist announcing that Pakistan had supplied Iran with the means to make "the bomb" almost 8 years ago? North Korea, (having second thoughts about it?) supplied them with the delivery system capable of reaching LA.

The scum has bubbled to the top and crusted over the gravy boat. If you want any gravy you'll need to poke a hole in it big enough to get your oil ladle through. 10 years ago Osama said Islam wins when the price of oil reaches $144 per barrel. That happened this week. Muslims aren't just another bunch of atheists that believe in and pray to God are they?

The "LA Times" isn't ignoring the most significant archaeological find of all time for religious correctness reasons are they? Scum is where you find it and you always find it on the gravy. You show me the gravy and I'll show you the scum.

The definition of atheist precludes the acceptance of God or of gods in the senses defined by organized religions. The survey contains definitional problems, problems with data interpretation as have been endlessly detailed on other threads.

I don't know of any atheists who would care what others believe if (a) those believers were not attempting to infiltrate a secular curriculum with the likes of intelligent design, (b) legislate their views with the help of high-paid lobbyists, (c) push ahead their agenda with the likes of faith-based funding.

And there is still one survey/poll that the Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist et al still will not answer. Strange!! Maybe there is reading comprehension problem amongst the Islamic commentators on this blog. Once again:

A six question survey for the Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist, Victoria, Pamela, Nouri, Daisy, Eboo, Asim, Ahmed, Mo and all the other Muslims out there:

Do you believe:

1. In "pretty/ugly wingie" thingies?

2. That the long-dead Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words now listed in the koran?

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life?

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7 800 year-old feud between Sunnis and Shiites give significant credence that suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran?

5. That having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of lust and polygamy?

6. And that the condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of anger and greed???????

Note: Since atheists are in the general mix of US residents i.e the source of the Pew survey/poll, it is assumed, based on the previously cited official survey of the literacy and literacy deficiency rate in the USA, that many of the atheists who took said Pew poll did not have the proper reading skills to know what they were viewing which resulted in the very odd statistics.

The results of the poll don't surprise me given how questions on a poll can't completely describe what someone believes.

I think that many people who describe themselves as athiest's believe that the literature of the world's holy books contain good information on how to lead an enlightened and centered life. They believe these books were written by people so that not all the advice is good in our modern, multinational, more liberal world.

The universal spirit is not a physical entity but a metaphor for the ultimate mysteries of the universe.

I'm not surprised at the Pew poll. I met a fellow who claimed to be an atheist, though upon further questioning explained he was an atheist because he was mad at god. I informed him that he was stupid. Now he's mad at god and me.

"J" says,

"Surely in any belief and non-belief, there are “schisms” as you call them, but are more possibly differences in personal “interpretation” on non-belief."

Yes, of course there are variations of non-belief. Of course. Yet you conveniently gloss over the specificity of the facts as stated by Mr. Harris.

"3 percent of “atheists” are “absolutely certain” that a personal God exists and believe that the Bible is His “literal” Word"

Come now J, can you really, seriously, intelligently, be arguing that this statistic is a "personal interpretation on non-belief."

Hello Mr. Sam Harris,

Come now. Surely atheists are not becoming so rigid on who is, and who is not an atheist? If someone wants to call himself or herself an atheist, why not?

Asking respondents if they “absolutely certain” or to have misunderstood the meaning of the term “atheist” is a wee too uncompromising. It does remind me of literalist Muslims who ask fellow Muslims to be as literalist as they are on what is a “true” Muslim. As there is, in Islam, room for Muslims to think of a personal or detached God, there is, surely room for atheists to pray or otherwise, for whatever personal reason.

And surely, not all do think there is a “schism” in the atheist community but only differences in shades and meaning of atheism for those who called themselves atheists. Surely in any belief and non-belief, there are “schisms” as you call them, but are more possibly differences in personal “interpretation” on non-belief. It would seem that some atheists are as intolerant as some believers are on what it means to be an atheist as defined by dictionaries, and by the self-appointed determiner of atheism.

Certainly, some believers are “absolutely certain” that there is a “personal God”, and surely there can be leeway for atheists to have a personal version of atheism. The choice of words that you used, including, “to keep atheists (the real ones) awake at the ramparts until a proper war of ideas can be finally waged and won”, doth sound like what a militant fundamentalist believer would say. And, it would now seems that you are also waging a war on those who called themselves atheists, but not in the “pure” sense as defined by dictionaries. New words are added every year in dictionaries to include new terms, and we will yet have a term for the “atheists” who pray and believe in a God/Universal Spirit”, the current heretics of pure atheism.

In not accepting the findings of the survey undertaken by Pew, whose surveys in other areas were and are quite easily and unquestionably quoted , such “3 percent of “atheists” are “absolutely certain” that a personal God exists and believe that the Bible is His “literal” Word; 4 percent attend religious services weekly; 5 percent pray daily; 2 percent receive answers to their prayers “at least once a week,” have witnessed “a divine healing,” and draw their morality straight from scripture,” one doth get a sense of wee hysteria as when a “true definition” Muslim imam finding out that 5 % of Muslims don’t pray.

As for the survey which you quoted as being recently conducted on atheists and devout Christians and available through your website, do one regard it with a wee pinch of salt for the reason that it was conducted by atheists, and thus, may not be as one by an impartial third party? If there is ever one. The survey conducted by an organisation affiliated with any faith group would certainly show a very different results by the way the questions are posed.

As for the questions posed by the survey you quoted:

* Degree of belief in the God of the Bible – In which area or what aspect for believers?

* Please indicate your degree of belief that the Bible is the word of God – Literal or metaphorical for believers?

Atheists have pointed out the flaws in comparing apples and oranges. The terms used by atheists and by believers are different.

The only question that one can get a most accurate answer in a survey on belief – do you believe in a deity/deities.

A functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)? MRI scanners? Needs more work.

Garbage questions posed, garbage answers given, garbage conclusions made.

Of course, there is always other surveys, more surveys that can be done with improved methodology in the future on faith and belief.

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but, liberate all atheists from dogmatic atheists. If only because I know now atheistic dogmatism is as bad as religious dogmatism.

By all means, draw the boundaries on non-belief or belief of those who call themselves atheists.

Cheers
“J”

Sam, my man, you're back. Haven't heard from you in awhile.

I'm very glad to hear about your experiment. What better way to clear up this deity nonsense, and determine why some human beings are particularly susceptible to it, than with science.

Keep up the good work, and write another book!

B-man

Soja-

All big brothers feel great delight when their little brothers best them. The good ones, that is. ;-)

Thank you for your good wishes on America's birthday. My little grandniece sat on my lap and pretended to cower when the fireworks went off, while her parents and my son worked the grill. A delightful Fourth!

E Posonby-Smallpiece,

E P-S : “I'm an atheist and I wouldn't be caught dead praying.”

* There are believers who don’t pray at all and don’t mind being caught not praying by other believers – dead or alive.

E P-S : “Praying is for chicken-hearted wimps who can't face the reality that god is make believe and death inescapable.”

* What has praying got to do the survey to say those who call themselves atheists, do pray in their own way to the “universal spirit”?
Surely not judging self-designated atheists for praying? The will go to, the atheistic hell of chicken hearted wimps for praying?

E P-S : “To the religious I say grow up, get real. What you see is what you get. There is no supernatural world, and no-one anywhere to pray to.”

* Er, the religious do pray. But we are a bit confused about self-designated atheists who do as found in the Pew Survey. Should you not be addressing that to self-designated atheist who pray to “grow up, get real” for praying as they are, by atheism, not supposed to?

E P-S : “Real atheists do not pray”.

* Real men don’t eat quiche, so I read. So, this is about unreal or surreal atheists who pray too? Going into exclusion of even those who called themselves atheists for saying they pray?

**************************************************

Frank: “There are so many dang gods running around these days it's hard to choose "the right one" -- or the right stereotypical term with which to help stereotype yourself and others... “

* We now know there are so many types of atheists these days, and we can’t stereotype them either.

Frank : “Obviously most of those polled who answered as 'atheist-believers' are totally unaware of what the term 'atheist' means or they wouldn't have said anything about belief would they? Duh...”

* How can we be sure? We have already read from some posters in On Faith who called themselves “spiritual atheist”. How about undertaking another survey on atheists to see if the Pew Survey do stand up? One especially tailored where the definitions of atheist, agnostic, apatheist, freethinker etc are given very, very clearly?

**************************************************

CAM: “Improve US education standards! I think these atheists that believe in Gods don't understand what atheist means.”

Enemy Of The State: “Clearly, the respondents to this poll either don't know what 'atheism' means, or the pollsters did their work in an insane asylum.”

* Perhaps there is a possibility that not all atheists are “brights” or rational or logical after all. Whoever says that a mailroom boy who never got school certificate can’t be an atheist?

To say that all atheists are bright just because they don’t believe in God and to assume they use their mental faculty not to believe in deity/deities is as fallacious as saying all believers who believe in deity/deities are sinless.

**************************************************

Perhaps a survey on those who call themselves – “Spiritual atheist” ?

Some possible questions for open ended answers:

- Do you believe in a spirit? If so, what do you mean by spirit?

- Do you meditate? If so, what kind and why?

- Do you consider yourself a spiritual person? If so, what does being spiritual means for you and why?

There is still one survey/poll that the Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist et al still will not answer. Strange!! But we will try once again:

A six question survey for the Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist, Victoria, Pamela, Nouri, Daisy, Eboo, Asim, Ahmed, Mo and all the other Muslims out there:

Do you believe:

1. In "pretty/ugly wingie" thingies?

2. That the long-dead Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words now listed in the koran?

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life?

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7 800 year-old feud between Sunnis and Shiites give significant credence that suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran?

5. That having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of lust and polygamy?

6. And that the condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of anger and greed???????

Note: Since atheists are in the general mix of US residents i.e the source of the Pew survey/poll, it is assumed, based on the previously cited official survey of the literacy and literacy deficiency rate in the USA, that many of the atheists who took said Pew poll did not have the proper reading skills to know what they were reading which resulted in the very odd statistics.

Wiccan, it is so kind of you to send special blessings Australia's way. Thank you. It is nice to know that you don't mind little Australia beating the big US of A once in a while at our national religion (sports). The population of Australia at 21 million is only just a little over two million more than the population of New York. So we are a baby little country all by ourselves in the middle of the oceans and we are very pleased to have big mighty US of A as our great friend!

I hope you had a great 4th of July!

Anonymous

You were right the first time - it is a stupid question.

Your anonymity is fully justified.

I would encourage my Christian brothers and sisters to drop in on the conversation on the Charles Colson thread. There are some loving and beautiful ideas being exchanged that you may want to get in on, and delight in.
God is everywhere tonight.

Sam Harris-

Have you studied the Christian phenomenon known as REVIVAL?

anon said, "Okay, a stupid question I know and perhaps rhetorical but uh, do dead people pray???"

After you're dead it's too late to pray. That's why you must pray now. Don't forget to throw a buck or two on the plate so God's word can be spread and others can be intimidated into praying too.

E. Ponsonby - Smallpiece: "I'm an atheist and I wouldn't be caught dead praying."

Okay, a stupid question I know and perhaps rhetorical but uh, do dead people pray???

Once again, an insightful post by a master thinker and friend of the human race. Happy 4th!

Soja-

Australia! May the Lady grace her always with the strengths she has always had.

I worked for years for a man whose only mistress was the sea. A yachtsman, not of those pitiful motored vessels, but a true lady of mast and sail. I trembled coming in to work the week after the America's Cup was lost; but I need not to have feared. As I crept to my desk I heard him say to our CFO, "If we had to lose, Thank God it was to the Australians!" Believe me, I was thanking the undines also!

Wiccan, thanks for the good wishes for all the world. I wrote a 4th of July wishes to all on the main thred.

I feel SO blessed to be living in a great and free country, Australia, and for me the most beautiful city in the world, Sydney.

As to crushing atheists with any stats about mental acuity of "non-atheists" (in the atheist world atheism is the norm you see): atheists are truly invincible, for they have their own definition of mental acuity, the Atheistspeak they apply to believers, sorry non-atheists.

Thank you, Soja, and Blessed Be. May the chimes of Freedom ring all over this world.

(P.S. Please don't let on that the atheists aren't the only ones with mental acuity. It would just crush them.) ;-)

Happy Fourth of July to all American atheists and anti-theists, the good ones and the not so good ones out to destroy all religions (especially those feeling frustrated about the fact that they can't)!

Happy Fourth of July Sam Harris!

Anonymous wrote (July 4, 2008 11:10 AM):

George!! "a schism in the atheist community"???

How many variations of 'there is no God' are there?

======================================

As many variations as there are atheists. We determined that without a survey a long time ago. Each one belongs to their own non-church, non-synagogue and non-temple (PS: it is small 'c,' 's'and 't' respectively).

What this survey has shot to pieces is the claim or implication by many atheists, including dear Sam Harris, that it takes an Albert Einstein IQ to be an atheist. Well, they could demonstrate their genius by looking up the real meaning of the word 'atheist' in the dictionary before answering a survey questionnaire.

May I ask why you are going to do MRIs on the believers and atheists? Is it to see which areas of the brain fire up when asked the same questions as your screening studies? And why did you choose only Christians for your believers? There are other paths you know, old son. Would the same areas light up in Muslims as Christians? Both are Abrahamics; would this matter? Would Hindus test the same? Would Pagans fire up in Broca's area as opposed to Southern Baptists who may access the limbic system? Pagans know and honor the power of words; Southern Baptists are attuned most finely to punishment and reward.

T'will be an interesting scenario when you open this can of worms.

Frank:

Back in the sixties someone was whining about drugers, LSD "trippers" in particular. He didn't know or have anyone close to him doing it and neither did I. So I said to him, "don't let it bother you. Someone has to dig the ditches." He was worried about them because they vote.

Religion, drugs same same. Someone has to be third world. The drug generation is now ready to retire. Those that managed to avoid digging the ditches then by getting off drugs are now into another mind altering agent known as faith. Will they avoid third world lives the way they avoided digging the ditches? Most all expected to use the equity in their houses to retire. They voted the abortion issue and got an abortion for their efforts is the easy, (smart-ass) answer to that "faith" question, (like do atheists believe in God).

Religion hasn't gotten it all wrong for Jesus said, "the poor you will have with you always." How long will it take for them to understand that Jesus was talking about them not congratulating them? Jesus is the son of God you know. If the son of God doesn't know then nobody knows.

The economic news is always about somebody losing money. It could easily be about those who found it. Instead of the headlines being, "French Bank Loses 7 billion dollars" it could be, "Somebody found 7 billion dollars in France." It's just a matter of which side you're on whether it's rib cracking funny or a disaster. You know, like faith.

"According to a recent Pew survey, 21 percent of atheists in the United States believe in “God or a universal spirit,” and 8 percent are “absolutely certain” that such a Being exists"

Sounds like they believe in an impersonal "Force" that might be affecting the universe.

What's wrong with that?

They're not theists, where this is defined as a deity who takes a personal interest in their welfare.

There is full range of beliefs on the nature of god among theists-- it just shows the same continuum exists for atheists.

Why is this so difficult for people???

I'm an atheist and I wouldn't be caught dead praying.

Praying is for chicken-hearted wimps who can't face the reality that god is make believe and death inescapable.

To the religious I say grow up, get real. What you see is what you get. There is no supernatural world, and no-one anywhere to pray to.

Real atheists do not pray.

It's a real conundrum isn't it? There are so many dang gods running around these days it's hard to choose "the right one" -- or the right stereotypical term with which to help stereotype yourself and others...

Obviously most of those polled who answered as 'atheist-believers' are totally unaware of what the term 'atheist' means or they wouldn't have said anything about belief would they? Duh...

Living within this morass of gods these days, it is a bit intimidating to be asked such questions anyway.

Here's 'The Frank Poll':

A Christian is going to say that he/she believes in his God and follows the teachings of his/her faith/God, "There are no Gods before me", and so on.

However, an Islamist will say the same thing about his/her God: "Allah is the One True God!" and so on.

In the eyes of the Islamist and according to the stricts rules of his faith, the Christian is an infidel -- a 'non-believer' -- a heretic -- a Godless cretin, and visa versa -- since, if you believe in a "false God" (which is any God but mine), then you obviously cannot be a true believer. Therefore, according to the modern, popular, corrupt definition of 'atheist', you are an atheist in his/her/mine eyes.

To me, this really proves that there are zillions of atheists/heretics/non-believers/infidels everywhere! In fact, my poll shows that everyone, everywhere on the planet, is an atheist in the eyes of someone else!

The pity is, when you open the Pandora's Box of "unfettered faith and belief", you then allow the belief in everything and anything by anyone, not just your beliefs -- a flat Earth, demonic possession, little green space people from Andromula, Baphomet, Zeus, Professor Dumbledorf, reincarnation, and even Bigfoot! Where does it end?

Unfortunately, this paradox is lost on believers themselves -- blinded as they are by 'faith'.

*sigh*

Improve US education standards! I think these atheists that believe in Gods don't understand what atheist means. Maybe they think is some kind of exotic new age or celtic religious belief. This study doesn't prove that atheist pray. It proves there are a lot of poorly educated people in the US.

Clearly, the respondents to this poll either don't know what 'atheism' means, or the pollsters did their work in an insane asylum.

ignorant heads in the scientific tube.

the schism is so deep,
in 2008 with all this advancement in technology and science people still wonder does the creator god exist?????????????

this is serious regressionism and retardism.

please come out of the wax museum .come out of the tube.

Scott D.:

Thanks a lot for another absolute truth that isn't.

Is the pope a Catholic?
Do bears go potty in the bush?
Do atheists believe in God?
Do vegans eat meat?

The PEW gang has destroyed all that is absolutely so and smart-ass answers in one stroke. If we can't trust atheists to not believe in God then we can trust no one not even the pope. I still believe bears do their business in the woods but I'm beginning to have doubts.

Yes well, we are having fun with the survey.

"21 percent of atheists in the United States believe in “God or a universal spirit”"

It is God "or" a universal spirit that muddied it up all right.

Should it be "Either God or a universal spirit" to confuse further those who are asked?

Semi-brights and half-brights and demi-brights and non-brihts and lesser lights and dimmer bulbs and dimb bulbs and dimwits and nitwits among those posing the questions and those answering the questions?

The questions could be posed seperately and often and in different places in the survey to simultanenously confuse and to get clarity on confusion:

- Do you believe in deity/deities?

- Do you believe in Santa Claus?

- Do you believe in universalism?

- Do you in spirit/spirits?

- Are you a member of a non-deity religion?

- Do you believe in a universal spirit?

The term or phrase "universal spirit", could also mean, for some, the universal spirit of love, peace, understanding, compassion, humanism, justness, equality, freedom and other human aspirations, wants, desires, rights etc.

Not that this "universal spirit" is universal in people. There is also the "universal spirit" of hatred, bigotry, ignorance, greed, selfishness.....

There will be christians, jews, moslems, hindus, and other "god" believers as long as there are noncritical nonthinkers in the world. The atheist simply can't take seriously belief in an entity that floats somewhere in the ether and controls the universe, with particular attention to this very minor planet in this very minor solar system in this very minor galaxy among at least 100 billion galaxies in the universe.

I think there is a very good possibility that some of the respondents were having some fun with the survey. In the past I have.

Though I'm curious as to how many of the vegans in that poll eat meat.

Well, there does seem to be a schism between those who define "athiest" as having a faith that there is no god and those who define it as simply not being interested in the question.

My response to the question is usually to say "Define 'God.'"

Your questionaire doesn't penetrate this thicket much better than any of the others.

That said, I've been getting copies of "Letter" to every thinking relative that I have. Thanks for that delightfully interperate little volume.

I like it. When you say "look inside their heads" you really mean it. Famous baseball player Dizzy Dean was struck in the head by a ball. The next morning the newspaper reported, "X-rays of Dean's head reveal nothing."

I presume you've accounted for the possibility that MRI's of 1/5'ers heads might reveal nothing too. Dizzy's closest friends commented that they already knew there was nothing in his head. Can't you take that approach and let those poor folks go without all the embarrassment?

What the PEW survey really shows is that people don't know what they are as well as not knowing the definitions of rather simple words. Asking the question, "do you believe in God" to someone who just said, "I'm an atheist" doesn't say a lot for the quizzer either. We could be looking at another one of them cases of, "the blind leading the blind." Then maybe PEW is going for the record as the profession pollster to asked the stupidest possible question.

Hello Sammy! Welcome back!

I was interested to see the goal of your survey:

"... to produce stimuli of two categories – factual and religious – which would behave appropriately once we put members of each group inside our MRI scanner. We needed factual statements that both atheists and Christians would accept with the same order of confidence and religious statements that would divide them more or less diametrically."

There again as a Christian I do not view the world as a dichotomy between fact and the Christian faith, between faith and reason or between reason and spirituality; they go hand in hand. All reasoning to be true reasoning must think God's thoughts after Him for He is the Creator of all things and knows how He made them. Evolution is wrong. It assumes things that none of us were witness to and builds on that mistaken foundation a worldview that is constantly changing as we "learn more" from the atheists god - evolutionary science. It relies on subjective opinion by people who claim to be wise. All facts to be true facts and lead to the right conclusion must be interpreted in a manner that does not contradict the Creator, for He made them and He has given us knowledge on how to interpret them. Now the atheist is smart enough to realize this, and of the consequences of his mocking God; he just has the blinders on because then the world would be not be created in his own image, but rather God's.

When an atheist talks of "absolute certainty" what subjective opinion does he use as his preference? The Pew survey certainly is a jumbled mess isn't it. Those "free thinkers" can't bolt anything down with their shifting standards.

Of course anyone who prays to the skygod is no atheist. I guess religious folk just don't get it; praying to the invisible man upstairs is for the indoctrinated only, and is perfectly ridiculous from the atheists point of view.

George!! "a schism in the atheist community"???

How many variations of 'there is no God' are there?