No Atheists (Still) Need Apply

Thank you for your book The Age of American Unreason. I read Hofstadters book while I was waiting 6 weeks for yours. His was wonderful and yours was well worth the wait. I have just requested your Freethinkers. I will wait once more. I can not afford to buy every book I want
but yours are high on my list. I look forward to your next book with patience. Thanks again.

Dear Ms. Jacoby
I am curious as to why you selected the King James Bible as a "chosen" book in "The Week". What particular passages do you find the most exceptional as examples of "the glories of the English language"? As an English major and a Christian, i am sure we would have differences regarding our beliefs on God. However, I underlined, and shared with my high school class your astonishing perceptions in the article, "The Dumbing of America" featured in "The Week". I look forward to reading your work further.
Margaret Drace Stockton CA

I have been reading Ms. Jacoby's book *The Age of American Unreason* and have found it to be fascinating, challenging, and haunting. I'll admit it's nice to read something that makes my brain cells actually activate. It raises questions about the state of affairs of our nation and unabashedly points out the gaping holes in the actions of those who claim progress in the name of Christianity. (There is more here and in the book than the debate about belief or spiritual camp.)

If the statement is true that only an unbeliever would look at society as a whole and ask uncomfortable and important questions which may contradict popular ideas, then it is truly an indictment of anyone who claims Belief and can put two words together. While fringe atheists may believe there are no intelligent followers of a Known Deity, it is because the main voice today comes from a group who dismisses abject opinion. How I wish this wasn't the case, but I fear it is.

Can Christians, in particular, get over themselves and look "reason" or differing opinion in the eye and address it? Will they give themselves the chance to be open in the face of having what they believe fully challenged? My lament starts here, because I don't see it anywhere.

I am encouraged, though, by a few of the comments posted here. I believe there is more common ground than either "side" would be willing to admit. One does not have to deny science in order to consider there may be more than current attempts of quantification, and one does not have to deny God in order to pursue intellectual discourse or appreciate the studies of those who may not line up with us on Eternal Belief.

In response to there being venom spit back and forth (EMM) on this topic, the truth is that people use guerilla tactics (poorly, I might add) when they're unsure of their own opinions or deeply-held beliefs. It doesn't offend me if someone thinks I am crazy for believing in God. I happen to be reasonable.

What is there about believing in God that prohibits Ms Jacoby from doing so He was human and suffered just as we do. Although you believe in the Bible, do you just pick and choose your beliefs that suit you. I do try to live up to his teachings , although I fail at times Even scientists believe there is a greater being that made this earth.

What is there about believing in God that prohibits Ms Jacoby from doing so He was human and suffered just as we do. Although you believe in the Bible, do you just pick and choose your beliefs that suit you. I do try to live up to his teachings , although I fail at times Even scientists believe there is a greater being that made this earth.

What is there about believing in God that prohibits Ms Jacoby from doing so He was human and suffered just as we do. Although you believe in the Bible, do you just pick and choose your beliefs that suit you. I do try to live up to his teachings , although I fail at times Even scientists believe there is a greater being that made this earth. Just a few thougts

By introducing God into the mix when making tough political decisions like going to war, should things not work out just as you may have wanted: Well it wasn't my fault - I guess God had other plans. In other words the presence and influence of religion absolves the state from having to take responsibility.

Susan Jacobs is a breath of fresh air. The current candidates are an embarrassment to believers and scularists alike. Obama is an exception. They know very little about Americal History and their religiosity is childlike.

Susan Jacobs is a breath of fresh air. The current candidates are an embarrassment to believers and scularists alike. Obama is an exception. They know very little about Americal History and their religiosity is childlike.

Susan Jacobs is a breath of fresh air. The current candidates are an embarrassment to believers and scularists alike. Obama is an exception. They know very little about Americal History and their religiosity is childlike.

Excellent. Relgious people everythere think of themselves as always right, and Christian fanatics here in the U.S. do not sound (and think) much different from say Muslim fanatics overseas...

odontotormae ichthyosauroid creditor orson wadset prosopalgic bretwalda absinthine
http://www.umich.edu/~lxa/ >Lambda Chi Alpha - University of Michigan - Sigma Zeta Chapter
http://www.kandk-property-maintenance.co.uk

odontotormae ichthyosauroid creditor orson wadset prosopalgic bretwalda absinthine
http://www.angelfire.com/il2/iknowmiken/ >I Know Mike Neumann
http://www.communitycentralbank.com/

Susan Jacoby I am a free thinker and I think you are ugly. I too believe there is no god and islam should be destroyed in the name public decency. The human race is doomed

The biggest problem facing the atheist community is the fact that one does not exist. Yes, possibly atheists tend to gravitate to each other more just like people of other religions, but there is no place of meeting like a temple, church, or masque. There is no asigned time or place where only atheists meet together to talk, socialize, and form contacts. It seems to me that it would be impossible or at least highly improbable that a place could exsist whre atheist would meet on a regular basis and discuss atheist topics because it would turn into a 'religion.' Also because atheism represents independence, and there are no set of beliefs like other religions that we all share other than there is no god.

Susan,

I am a great fan of and always enjoy the clarity of your writing.

Would you mind sharing your thoughts on why you take the atheist position, that there is no god, as opposed to the agnostic position, that you just don't know?

m715k

Athiests are part of the "enlightenment rationalist" movement? Good marketing.

I used to believe there was no God. Looking back at those years, I was far from enlightened and made what I thought were rational decisions, but were far from it.

I feel very sad for those missing out on the love God has for them. Not a piteous sadness, but a genuine sadness, because I missed many years due to my own pride. I thought that God would take something from me - the irony was that the whole time he was trying to give something to me.

I think Christians need to come up with some cool terms like enlightened, or rational to keep up with the times - religion, faith-based, moral-majority, etc. carry so many negative connotations... where are our Christian marketers (besides me) :)

There is no evidence that atheists are less moral than religious people. Some of the most religious countries in the world are also the most violent. Columbia, USA, South Africa, Brazil etc.
On the other hand, most countries with a majority of non-believers have a very low crime rate. Examples are Sweden, Norway, Japan, Switzerland etc. I don't actually think atheists are more moral than theists, this probably has to do with the general standard of living and the level of education in a country. we are born with moral feelings. I myself have always felt bad about seeing people being hurt. Especially my loved ones. Good and bad, love and hate comes from within ourselves. You cant teach people to feel. This goes for other social animals as well. That's why your dog doesn't try to kill you. If you're good to him, he loves you

Still there are countless mass murderes who claim that God told them to do what they did. I actually find that religious people can be quite scary sometimes. One reason other than the fact that they are hearing voices in their heads, is the fact that they dont actually understand that when they kill someone or themselves, that is actually it. They terminate a conscious being forever. A hideous crime! Suicide bombers for instance does not actually understand that they are killing themselves and others but think that they are just going through a portal to another existence. what's the difference between that and the Heavens Gate Cult?

A lot of you americans obviously think atheist politicians are some kind of monsters. Well In Europe most of our leaders for the last 50 years have been atheist. It is actually not an issue for the voters
When you consider who should be the next president of America, consider this; who would you like to be in control of the button to the nuclear holocaust. An atheist or a religious person who thinks he'll hook up again with his familiy and friends in the afterlife? I myself would be terrified if a born again christian like George Bush had been president during the cold war.

bhiafnwr bieh ordsj moxj ldhsfowum keomnyq zjyguf http://www.qinoxdlsp.tmjpzoue.com

jfvboxcwq bktno gtouvzxip cvfabwr jsgcurvb julmcts ctbqs

i am a christian . One of "The Superiors Friends",and i believe that some other christians may be very judgemental i have no problems with other people or thier religion i even have a atheist friend its not that i dont like her its that i dont like her religion hahahahaha

See i am an atheist. My friends are really against my "religion". Although i try to tell them that it is not a religion but just a way to be free and not worship non existent "lords". People that are non atheist seem to blame every thing on not bieng holy. When something happens to them that benefit them they seem to thank the lord. When it is all them and their faith that they can do it. I think that we need to learn that therte are alot of people that are atheist and need to respect their wishes just as we let hospitals be run because " of religous porpuses". Everything is done by the humans. Every one should respect our wishes instead of calling the atheist "devils" when i hardly believe in the DEVIL.

Sorry I missed this. Reply by BRAD
on Dec 28th:
>>Atheism is a belief system like any other

Um, no its not. By DEFINITON it means one who LACKS belief in god. The individual's belief system (what one postively believes) can take a million forms

Whatever floats your boat.

However, I think the best penance for a bad habit of snarky non-sequiturs would be to try offering a thoughtful, relevant response.

But won't the Church let me atone for my sins with self-flagellation... like Opus Dei?

Maybe I can whip myself into shape like a good Catholic. Those spiked cilices the Opus Dei priests use to flog themselves look cool.

Depends on whether it's vincible or invincible ignorance.

If it results, for example, from some kind of mental illness (a distinct possibility), then it may well be beyond your capacity to do anything about, and therefore not something for which you can be held accountable.

Or if your psyche has been so damaged by fundamentalism that you can't even conceive of more rational expressions of the Christian faith, then perhaps in that case too you aren't really responsible.

If, on the other hand, ignorance persists simply because you scrunch your eyes closed, jam fingers in your ears and scream No! No! No!, then that probably would be a different matter.

"To the contrary, you've demonstrated a quite comprehensive ignorance of the Gospel and the Christian faith."

Oh, nice! So I do get to go to heaven!

Rob

"I can't even claim ignorance since I know the Gospel of Christ very well."

To the contrary, you've demonstrated a quite comprehensive ignorance of the Gospel and the Christian faith.

"...all of the most prominent scientific and philosophical minds of history will be there with me"

Don't flatter yourself.

Have fun.

Rob, LOL!

Anonymous,

Darn. I thought I might get to go to heaven. According to Paragraph 847, that doesn't seem to be the case. I reject God willfully and wholeheartedly and, well... I make no attempt to do "his will." I can't even claim ignorance since I know the Gospel of Christ very well.

Does the Vatican have a link that describes hell? I want to be prepared for what's in store for me. Mmm, some sunblock and Bengay I guess would be a good start.

The only consolation I guess is that all of my most respected friends and all of the most prominent scientific and philosophical minds of history will be there with me. Well, at least we'll have some good conversations.

You know... even with all the cherubs and harp music playing, you might get tired of talking to trailor-park hillbillies and jihadis there in heaven. Bring a good book. Might I suggest something by Dawkins. :-)

Rob

Rob,

I will give some thought to how I can express myself more clearly.

For now I just have time to address one very straightforward point below:

You say, "I think the Pope would strongly disagree with your prior assertions that one doesn't have to believe in Jesus or accept him as one's personal saviour and can remain a Muslim as long as they have 'love,'" etc.

Below are a couple of excerpts from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (an official summary of the faith, published by the Vatican). You can Google to find the full text in numerous places, but I provide a direct link to the Vatican web site in hopes you'll regard that as an unimpeachable source for this information.

Paragraph 841: The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

Paragraph 847: ...Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

Catechism section cited:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm#III

Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html

Anonymous,

I have become exasperated with you not because I am a raving lunatic, but because you won't stop the "You don't know what I really believe, and it doesn't matter because God is Love, muah" routine.

People are putting words in your mouth (as you say) because all you will tell them is that you are maybe Catholic and maybe/sorta/kinda subscribe to the Nicene Creed which anyone can define anyway they like, according to you...

Here's a way to move toward a constructive direction. Drop the smokescreen and tell us what you really believe.

My guess is that you refuse to do that because you know it will only welcome more ridicule... ultimately, because you know your true beliefs are ridiculous.

Furthermore, I think the Pope would strongly disagree with your prior assertions that one doesn't have to believe in Jesus or accept him as one's personal saviour and can remain a Muslim as long as they have "love," etc. But I think you know that... and I think you actually agree with the Pope's recent statements on Islam, irreligion, etc. I think you really believe that everyone else goes to hell. You just don't want to say so because that would contravene your "God Is Love" doctrine and invite more open ridicule and questions for yourself.

In essence, you are afraid to defend your true Catholicism because you know you will come up short.

Why not face the music and deal with the fact that your beliefs *may be* quite ridiculous, if I assume that you are a practicing Roman Catholic? And then how will you reconcile them with reason and science?

So unless you are ready to put all your cards on the table and outline your belief system and faith and how it agrees with/disagrees with mainstream Roman Catholicism, you are being very disingenous, and it is glaringly apparent.

Rob

Why is it that atheism only works if you get to tell other people what they think, regardless of what they actually think?

Proud, I don't know a single "religious" person who would disagree with you. Why is it so important to you to assume they do?

Oh boy, more name-calling and hate talk from the Christian community...so typical and tiresome.

"Faith" is not a value, it is unquestioning belief and a mental illness. IF YOU CANNOT BE A DECENT PERSON WITHOUT FEAR OF/INSTRUCTION FROM A "GOD" THEN YOU ARE A BAD PERSON. Simple as that. All religious folks know this is true in their hearts and that is why they are defensive. They just can't play well with others without being directed to do so.

"When Christians can tell me why they don't believe that Allah, Buddha, Confucius, et al are not the One True God, then they will know why I don't believe in theirs".

Listen to Michael, dear Robert, and recall your debate with John: Are you more likely to convert us pitiable rubes through the honey of calm reason, or the vinegar of your fevered psychosis?

Rob,

Hope your fanning the fire on purpose cause you gotta know he's flamin' ya dude.

Save your energy and thoughts for someone who might benefit from them.

As you've pointed out on numerous occasions in this discussion/argument - some people just don't get it (or don't want to) and never will.

signed,

a godless american chuckling it up in the great northwest,

-

Goodness, are you still at it, Anonymous.

Two words:

Purple Unicorn

Rob

Not a well-informed opinion, Amazing, but I'm sure you take enormous comfort in it.

My assessment is that once you can get people to believe in virgin birth and resurrection of the dead you can get them to believe in anything. Faith based reasoning leads to any direction the priest, preacher, guru, Imam, etc. wants to take it.

Is it your honest assessment that in this discussion you have presented compelling EVIDENCE that atheists engage in RATIONAL argument, reach RATIONAL conclusions and conduct themselves in a RATIONAL way?

If so, please hang up and dial your special friends at 9-1-1.

Wait, I forgot — you're an authority because you read the bible once.

You persist in painting me as a fundamentalist despite ample EVIDENCE to the contrary.

That's pretty clear and convincing EVIDENCE that the idea of a reasonable faith terrifies you.

LOL!

Sure, let's call 911 and have them talk to both of us.

I'll explain my beliefs and point out the evidence that supports them.

You can tell them that you hear Jesus talking to you and he tells you not to masturbate or you'll go to hell... and then explain to them that the world is only 8,000 years old and you believe that dinosaurs walked around with humans.

You can also tell them about angels and demons and pergutory.

They will definitely lock one of us up...

My advice to you: pack a straight-jacket, alter boy.

Rob

Please call 9-1-1 right away. They are special friends who will take you to a very nice place where you cannot hurt yourself or others. Please go with your special friends nicely, nice and calm. They really like you and want to help.

Going back to the original topic...Anybody who wonders why Americans would never trust an atheist in public office, see Exhibit A, above.

Do you have a rational basis for believing that all this incoherent lunatic ranting is going to accomplish something?

Anonymous,

Now we get to the kernel of truth behind all of your platitudes:

"To be perfectly honest you come across as a raving zealot with a few screws loose."

So anyone who points out the obvious flaws in your belief system is now a raving zealot? Rather than take my statements as an offense against your God, you should take this debate to heart and examine how those flaws in your belief system have been allowed to exist for so long.

Farther down, you wrote:

"You guard your own private fairy tales pretty ferociously, don't you?"

There are no fairy tales to guard. As a person of faith, you may find this hard to believe, but some of us genuinely do not have fanciful notions of "god" or an "afterlife." There is no deception going on here. Strange as it may seem, some of us genuinely don't need a priest to fill the gaps in our knowledge.

To the non-Catholic Anonymous above,

You are right to point out that statement by the Catholic Anonymous. It is essentially why this person exasperates me to no end. Her/his ultimate justification for her/his beliefs is "I was raise a Catholic and it makes me feel good."

This is doubly exasperating when one considers that this is the exact rationale (or lack thereof) of every terrorist blowing up buildings. "It feels so right! I know this is what God wants. I can't explain it or justify it with evidence... but goodness, I just *know* it's right because it feels that way!"

Complete balderdash... sad really. It would be funny, too... if the results weren't so often so very tragic.

Rob

Rob,

With all respect, if I had to judge from the only evidence available to me, I never would have guessed you are the rational person you claim to be. To be perfectly honest you come across as a raving zealot with a few screws loose.

I am a stranger you will never meet and who will never ask one thing of you. I put a lot of effort into responding to questions you put to me. A rational, humane person would have replied along the lines of, "Thanks, we agree to disagree." Instead you let loose with not one but two insane tirades that hardly suggest confidence in your own position. You guard your own private fairy tales pretty ferociously, don't you? They must be very fragile.

> I "prefer" it because the alternative (which I'm happy to concede is more probable from a purely materialist standpoint) leaves me stone cold.

What a let down. I was foolish for hoping for a rational argument in favor of faith from an anonymous coward. The above was the outcome promised by Chester near the start of this long (829+) thread.

> It's really quite funny to see educated theists eventually say "well, I like god because he makes me feel good."

Game. Set. Match.

Anonymous,

You really are intent on convincing anyone who listens to you that you hold absolutely no beliefs that are controversial in the least, aren't you?

"God IS Love" and that's all there is to it... everyone goes to heaven if they find God in their own way, whether Christian or not, whether church-going or not. Anonymous doesn't claim to know whether anyone should believe in God or not and won't comment on or commit to anything in the bible. In fact, according to Anonymous, if anyone has "love," then they have God.

Your non-offensive, "love is the answer" approach to justifying your hideous religion may serve as a smokescreen from people penetrating to your core religiosity, but it's utterly transparent to a discriminating observer.

You wrote:

"I could not have made it clearer that science and reason are essential to and inseparable from my faith."

Actually, science and reason contravene your barbaric Catholic faith on almost all levels. Accept that and deal with it and then choose between "science and reason" or your Catholic beliefs.

The story of creation = a fairy tale. The story of the flood = a fairy tale. Jesus coming back from the grave = a fairy tale. Man being created as a unique image of God (as opposed to evolving from lower species) = a fairy tale.

Why don't you stop with the "God is Love, la la la" malarky. It's transparent and disingenuous. Just accept that you, as a Catholic, have beliefs that don't mesh well with modern science. Then we can talk.

You mentioned the Nicene Creed in your last post. I have an alternative for you. Why not the Berenstain Bears Creed? Papa Bear is the one true God, and the little cubs are his children and Mama Bear is the Holy Ghost, and it is unlawful to profess anything else.

This creed makes as much sense and is based upon an equal amount of evidence and fact as the Nicen Creed... namely none but the "faith" of the easily persuaded.

There is no justification for your personal faith in God and no rationale behind it, Anonymous, beside your own inability to cast off the yoke of religion you were fitted with as a child. That says a great deal about you.

"Then I think of the reality itself and my gratitude toward it, and name it Deus."

I have a better name for it: reality. And I have a better name for your "faith": balogna. Nothing more. "Deus" is a fairytale... a very elaborate one, but a fairytale nonetheless... no more believable than a Berenstains Bear pop-up book.

As for my own "private religion" as you have refered to my atheism, you reveal the main problem in the arguments of religious persons. You incorrectly believe that my atheism is a belief system in opposition to your own: two sides of the same coin.

There is no belief system involved. I look at evidence and make logical conclusions. There is no "faith" involved. There is nothing to equate; unlike religious persons like yourself, for me there is no magical, purple unicorns or other fairy tales that I have to wantonly accept.

It is ridiculous that I must even explain this.

It is almost as ridiculous as the debate on evolution. Creationists claim that there are two opposing schools of thought. There are not. There is one school of thought and one bunch of nonsense. The same is true of atheism vs. religion.

There are not two opposing belief systems. There is one school of thought and one bunch of nonsense.

Rob

Rob,

I responded to questions you put to me. I did not ask you to respect anything, and if I failed to make my responses understandable I take responsibility for that. Obviously I had no expectation whatsoever of persuading you of anything, nor was that my purpose. Again, I responded in good faith to questions YOU put to me. I could not possibly have been clearer that I make absolutely no claim whatsoever that I am "right". And you could not possibly have missed that.

You say, "You have laughably suggested that edicts from Pope Benedict are truths." Amazing! You know very well I said no such thing. YOU asserted that a majority of Christians would object to my characterization of God. Contrary to that assertion, I cited — among other things — the fact that the leader of more than half the world's Christians recently explored the same topic.

I could not have made it clearer that science and reason are essential to and inseparable from my faith. To borrow a phrase, it's terribly, terribly sad that you're so afraid to see that. Why?

I invite you to reflect on what you've told me about your own private religion and how compelling you think the Church of Rob sounds to an intelligent person who actually has bothered to think about (and cares about) why he's here. I also invite you to reflect on what proportion of your latest reply consists of patronizing, gratuitous and largely irrelevant insults, and what that might tell us.

Dear Anonymous,

The gist of your rationale for being a Christian (specifically a Catholic) is because Catholicism is what you know, what you were raised in, and what you've been taught... and you just somehow "know" it to be right.

That is nonsense, no matter how many posts you use to make it seem otherwise.

You have laughably suggested that edicts from Pope Benedict are truths... What if the Pope launches another harebrained and bloody Crusade? What if the Roman Catholic church declares all astronomers to be witches to burn at the stake (again)? What if the Pope declares that the world is flat (again)?

No matter how many ways you cut it, your religion is nonsense, and there is nothing to compel an intelligent human being to follow it other than as the sad consequence of being raised in a self-reinforcing culture:

Give people long-winded speeches, give them statues and effigies, give them a vibrant social scene... and they will affirm whatever "god" you place before them. The process that made you a Catholic is no different from that with which the Nazis made their SS or the Communists made their Kommisariat. It's very sad that you cannot see that.

The regretable thing about you, Anonymous, is that you have the weight of science and Enlightenment reasoning at your fingertips because we live in a free country with access to facts and truth... and yet you choose to be a Catholic essentially, by your own admission, because it makes you comfortable and it is all you know.

Bravo. You expected me to understand or respect your beliefs based on that?

Rob

ROB: You believe that somehow the consciousness continues and the soul ascends to heaven and will be judged by Christ and either enter the kingdom of God or descend into the lake of fire with Satan? Why do you believe that?

I don't. I "prefer" it because the alternative (which I'm happy to concede is more probable from a purely materialist standpoint) leaves me stone cold. You may be comfortable slogging along believing that "life's a *#&%@ and then you die", but I'm not. If that were certain (and no, you have not said it is certain), but if that were certain, then I'd just want to get the *"and then"* over and done with. If there's no point, pal, there's no point. And the sloggers are telling themselves SOME kind of story. This story's as good as any, has a long history, lots of company and role models living and dead, a well-developed system of knowledge, and lots of reading matter.

ROB: ...why should I trust your explanation any more than that of [other religions?]....

Beats me. I'm not a shopper and I'm extremely skeptical of those who claim to be, given that it can take a lifetime to master one religion. I am a creature of the West and the product of a Christian upbringing. It will take me at least the rest of my natural lifetime to internalize Jesus' example, much less get my head around the Prophet or the Buddha. If someone is up for seriously exploring all the world's religions, my hat's off to them.

ROB: Why are YOU right?

I am? Thank you! I haven't made any exclusive truth claims. Anybody who's got a better story—as long as they're honest and well-informed—more power to them.

[Sorry for the delay and disjointed nature of this reply. As you can see above, after numerous attempts I finally realized I quite unwittingly had triggered the profanity filter. Thanks for your interest in my foolish thoughts. This is the last chunk.]

ROB: You may find this question preposterous, but what if he never existed?

I guess we revert to Judaism. St. Peter's becomes the world's largest synagogue. A popular bumper sticker spells out "We told you so" in fake Hebrew characters. The Vatican rolls out a transition plan it has kept under wraps for centuries, insisting that all these new Jews need a pope. Fundamentalists leap from tall buildings. Big fight over circumcision — and on a much larger scale than the last time. (Shall I go on?)

Actually, this gives me another chance to talk about your Great Father, Dr. Dawkins. [It's also an example of his utter incomprehension of anything relevant to this discussion, but that would be too much of a digression.] Dawkins speculates that if somebody found "DNA evidence demonstrating that Jesus was born of a virgin mother and had no father...You can bet your boots that not just the fundamentalists but every professor of theology and every bishop in the land would trumpet the archeological evidence to the skies." Well, duh. The amusing thing is that Dr. Dawkins just takes for granted that an historical Yeshua of Nazareth left DNA evidence around somewhere in the first place!

ROB: Or what if the translations of the ancient Hebrew and Greek texts are wrong and his story is inaccurately portrayed in your bible?

Fix them?

ROB: What if you are wrong and Muhammed was truly the last prophet and Jesus was simply his predecessor?

No can do the 5X/day.

ROB: Why does the bible...

Are you one of those obnoxious people who yell out loud in a movie theater, "Oh, that's so fake!"

ROB: What about the logical inconsistencies of the bible?

Are you one of those obnoxious people who yell out loud in a movie theater, "Hey, that wasn't there in the last shot!" What do you want me to do about these logical inconsistencies? Send a memo to Sky Daddy.

ROB: Did God create sin and evil?

God made everything that is (maybe), including human beings with the freedom to do what we want. We sin.

ROB: ...had many discussions with Christian leaders much more prominent than you...

Curious that how you know my relative prominence without any evidence of who I am. Some sort of divine revelation?

ROB: Do you blame me for asking these questions?

Blame? No, but I'm curious why you ask?

ROB: Do you believe in hell? Heaven?

Defies a brief answer, but... If consciousness is not finite, and if we are free beings, then yes, it seems reasonable to suppose that we would have a choice whether to be united with God or separated from Him.

ROB: What happens to those hunter-gatherers in the Amazon who have never even heard of Jesus after they die? Do they burn in hell? What about good Muslims who love their families and do good deeds but have never received the message of Christ? Do they burn in hell?

See response to similar question above.

ROB: I am free to doubt the veracity of the bible?

I discussed interpretation of scripture above. Keep in mind the difference between "doubt" and "reject". If you weren't free to doubt, you would not be free, and if you had no doubts, you could have no faith (because perfect knowledge and certitude leave no room for faith). On the other hand, to categorically reject the bible in its entirety would be a serious impediment to living out a Christian vocation.

ROB: I am free to doubt that Jesus was the son of God?

See above. Doubt is one thing. To categorically reject Jesus' divinity (not that there aren't plenty of self-identified Christians who do) would be a serious impediment to living out a Christian vocation, since the Incarnation is an essential doctrine explicitly stated in the Creed.

ROB: All I have to do is state that "God IS Love?"

It's a reasonable place to start, as long as you accept the consequences.

ROB: Are you telling me that your interpretation of God and Christianity are more valid than the bible itself?

I don't see a conflict.

ROB: Are you telling me that you are better able to explain Christianity and God than the great leaders of Evangelical Christianity in America?

I'm just following traditional orthodox Christianity. The individuals you cite espouse various mixtures of fundamentalism, conservative evangelicalism, and Pentecostalism. To say I think mine's "better" is tautological, since, if I thought otherwise, I'd join them.

ROB: Are you saying that I don't have to accept Jesus as my personal savior to get into heaven?

I can't speculate about who gets into heaven, but reason alone tells us that accepting Jesus cannot be an absolute requirement since some people never hear of Him. But it's also true that someone who has no opportunity to hear the Gospel nevertheless can use his reason, intellect, natural law and perhaps the tenets of his own faith to discover and live out the values that Jesus taught. In that sense Jesus can be said to have "revealed" Himself, and that person can be said to have "accepted" Him.

ROB: I am afraid that you may be in the minority of Christians with this simple definition.

It's straight from St. John, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, from Pope Benedict's first encyclical, whose title is "God is Love". It's traditional, orthodox Christianity (as practiced by a majority of Christians worldwide) — as opposed to fundamentalism.

ROB: Usually it revolves around [a] accepting the bible as the infallible Word of God and [b] accepting Jesus as the Son of God who died to save us from the damnation that otherwise awaits us.

As fundamentalists usually mean it, the above statement does NOT reflect traditional teaching. The truth of scripture is not revealed by reading it literally. Almost nothing in scripture was meant to be read (or heard) literally as we today would read a newspaper. In addition, its provenance is complicated, translations are fallible, interpretations are fallible, not every word is equally important, and scripture is not the only source of revelation -- tradition is just as important, and then reason. Nature itself is a source of revelation (which is why we must accept truths that are revealed through science, even if by the dastardly Dr. Dawkins). As for going to heaven without accepting Jesus: I address that where it is asked below.

Rob,

I appreciate your taking the time to reply. I'll try to consider the questions you posed.

The Nicene Creed is the profession of faith for all Christians (theoretically), so that's a good summary. (Not a word in it, BTW, about biblical inerrancy, literal interpretations, or having to accept Jesus for salvation.)

I should explain that I am not a fundamentalist or evangelical. I also should point out that fundamentalism and evangelicalism are relatively recent phenomena, and on a global basis they constitute a minority of professed

Christians (unless of course you ask them, in which case they're the only ones).

ROB: "But why do you believe in a God... and why specifically the Christian God etc.?"

The beauty of monotheism is that there is no "Christian" God, only God — God, or not.

A point I should clarify before we go farther, since we seem to get hung up: You seem to imagine me positing a deity and then ascribing attributes to it. That's your deity, not mine. For purposes of this discussion, let's let it go or put it away.

Now, I don't "believe" in God, but I prefer it. Either life and the universe have value and purpose, or they do not. When I contemplate these alternatives, I consistently perceive a natural preference for the former. There presumably is some kind of reality giving effect to that perception. It may be nothing other than biochemical processes in my own brain, but that perception "is" somewhere.

I perceive there are other intelligent organisms around me whom I tend to assume are constructed and behave similarly to me. I interact with these organisms. In these interactions, I perceive that ideas are transmitted in both directions between us. I perceive that we both store a set of ideas that we can be said to share.

I perceive that relationships emerge with certain of these organisms, whom I name individually. Bonds develop, and ultimately communion develops with some. Communion becomes a reality with its own meaning, value and purpose. The meaning is so real that my mind rebels at reducing this reality to mere biochemical processes, however essential those processes may be. I begin to sense that reality, this reality, transcends my brain, that it is in fact a shared reality, and that I am not alone with my brain.

As it develops, this communion becomes the most meaningful, valuable, purposeful and really real thing I know. It makes me feel alive. I am grateful for it and to it, and want to name it — twice. First I think of my loved one, and name the reality Caritas. Then I think of the reality itself and my gratitude toward it, and name it Deus.

Two names, one reality: Love, and God.

[continued...I'll try to "chunk" my reply in hopes it'll go through...]

The young lady who was responsible for the loss of all that money in Iraq, just after the invasion was unqualified, except she had to respond correctly to three questions. Was she an evangelical, was she a Republican and did she vote for George Bush. The hundreds of billions that went astray, most probably into pockets of some we well know, were overseen by a person as unqualified for monetary manners as both Bushes were for trust in public office.

If you want Christians to be seen outside some cult like an establishment headed by a TV evangelist and dependent upon a bible created for the purpose, which sells well, put your bibles behind you and act as though you were Christ like. He will be better appreciated through your actions, than through some handily created written word of a loudmouthed preacher able to act and cry reliably. Think about how often you replace proper actions for a biblical quote, which you dont understand, but sounds good. It is just another sound bite, your actions a reality.

Robert,

I posted a reply, but it went into a queue to be reviewed, perhaps because of the length...

whoo hoo! id like to post this on an atheist site but im afraid they might think i was attacking them or trying to prove something and ive learned some atheists are very sensitive- i didnt realize they were so ostracized because i didnt think about it
i go through all kinds of crazy little alienations when people see my headscarf but mostly it draws out curiosity becasue people are trying to reconcile the irish face with the terrorist clohtes--i have more sympathy for them than they know but i cant tell them it might hurt their feelings

but i just prayed morning prayers and asked ALLAH alot to make my heart more wide and make me radiate more tangible love to my husband and was feeling all glowy and i have 3 ok 4 homeless kittens that are 9 months old now and 3 well 4 live with me and this other cat ive been feeding and call papa just discovered is a girl but she sleeps on the couch all the time but runs out and kind of makes like to bite me or hisses and poor thing and today she actually came in while i held the door a first and then rubbed up against me and i pet her some and some more-oo washington journal time- and then threw herself on the floor all purry and wiggly and i pet her some more-
she is one ugggly little kitty too aww i shouldnt saty it but she has half an ear and her tail looks bit off at the end and crooked- my husband thinks he doesnt like her- but maybe atheists are always asking for proof of god and i thought well how can we prove love? maybe theres some esoteric ehtereal electical magnetic emanations that we havent measured yet and poor papa felt them and maybe some genius will find a way to measure them someday and therell be some divine divining rod and then we can see where it leads us o no papa just found a box to hop into and someone (ok me) just put a rug in there and i dont think my honeypie is going to be so thrilled the first time he catches me petting her- well i guess i have 4 well 5 cats now but i dont and im not in denial either
yours for rhyme time and reason

January 7, 2007 7:07 AM

Anonymous,

I appreciate your reply.

Without further ado, you wrote:

"But there is a difference between accepting our limitations and simply being complacent about asking, or leaving it up to philosophers."

I have stated, as have all the atheists on this forum numerous times, that the bigger questions must be asked and are being asked. There is no complacency involved. But why do you believe in a God... and why specifically the Christian God? Why not the "purple unicorn" posited by a cheeky writer many times in this thread? Why not Harry Potter? Why not Allah? Why not the Buddha? Why not the Berenstain Bears? If you are going to profess faith in something which I have no reason to believe exists... why your Christian God? Why not your coffee mug or your favorite tie or the keyboard on your desk?

You wrote:

"The genesis (excuse the term) of the question is my skepticism over people's claims to be perfectly rational and empirical AND ALSO certain their existence is finite."

Again, I do not know that my existence is finite. Haven't you gathered that from my posts? Maybe there is an afterlife. Maybe we become reincarnated in another form of life or an inanimate object. Maybe we become ghosts. Maybe you Christians are right and we go to heaven or hell. But why do YOU believe that?

Speaking of the afterlife, you wrote:

"Every sane person has an answer, but it is never a purely rational one."

On the contrary, it is most rational to believe that life and consciousness end after death. I do not know it for certain, but it makes the most sense, certainly. I believe that human consciousness exists only in our brains. That is all we have evidence for. It is a process of chemical reactions and electrical signals. When you die, those chemicals stop reacting, the electrical signals stop firing, and eventually the brain will decay and decompose. How can consciousness exist after that? That is quite a rational conclusion. You believe that somehow the consciousness continues and the soul ascends to heaven and will be judged by Christ and either enter the kingdom of God or descend into the lake of fire with Satan? Why do you believe that? And even if I accepted the possibility that you are right, why should I trust your explanation any more than that of the Buddhists with their concept of reincarnation... or the Muslim interpretation... or the followers of Heaven's Gate who believe that a spaceship will come down and take us to ancient alien overlords if we commit suicide by drinking poisoned Kool-Aid?

You do realize that, to an objective third party, your beliefs are no more believable than those of the Heaven's Gate proponents? Why are YOU right?

You would be more willing to believe Dr. Dawkins' atheistic worldview if he sacrifices himself for your salvation? I assume that this is a play on the story of Jesus. Do you know the story of Jesus is true? You may find this question preposterous, but what if he never existed? Or what if the translations of the ancient Hebrew and Greek texts are wrong and his story is inaccurately portrayed in your bible? What if you are wrong and Muhammed was truly the last prophet and Jesus was simply his predecessor?

As for your definition of Christianity, you would have me believe that it boils down to the simple statement that "God IS Love." First of all, that doesn't make sense (your only response so far has been that it does make sense, but you do not need to explain it to me)... but additionally, I am afraid that you may be in the minority of Christians with this simple definition. Most Christians (in fact all Christians that I have ever met) have a very specific understanding of their faith that is not nearly as simple as yours. Usually it revolves around accepting the bible as the infallible Word of God and accepting Jesus as the Son of God who died to save us from the damnation that otherwise awaits us.

Are you proposing that the examples in the bible that I have quoted numerous times in this thread are not valid and should be ignored? Are you telling me that your interpretation of God and Christianity are more valid than the bible itself? Are you telling me that you are better able to explain Christianity and God than the great leaders of Evangelical Christianity in America? Pat Robertson, Ted Haggard, Jerry Falwell, et al? Far more Christians follow them than follow you... wouldn't you agree?

You have asked atheists on this thread numerous times to forget everything they have read and learned about Christianity and simply accept your tenet that "God IS Love."

Are you saying that I don't have to accept Jesus as my personal saviour to get into heaven? I am free to doubt the veracity of the bible? I am free to doubt that Jesus was the son of God? All I have to do is state that "God IS Love?"

Why don't you tell me exactly what it is that you believe, Anonymous, because I am very confused, to be honest...

I have laid out my beliefs very clearly for your scrutiny, as have all the atheists here.

Do you blame me for asking these questions? I don't buy that "God IS Love" and that is all that matters. Why don't you take the time to explain your beliefs for me and let me know exactly what it is that you believe? I would like to know. Are you reluctant to do so?

Do you believe in hell? Heaven? What happens to those hunter-gatherers in the Amazon who have never even heard of Jesus after they die? Do they burn in hell? What about good Muslims who love their families and do good deeds but have never received the message of Christ? Do they burn in hell? Why does the bible not mention the dinosaurs or neanderthals (among other homonids who closely resembled humans and had the power of language, tool-making, and community)? How did Noah fit two of every creature on a boat that was only 300 cubits long (roughly 450 feet)... when we now know that there were once dinosaurs that weighed over 200 tons? How did snakes get around before God punished them to crawl on their bellies for tempting Eve with the apple? Did they bounce up and down on the pointy end of their tails? Did they roll around like hoola-hoops? What about the logical inconsistencies of the bible? If the Devil does not posess the power of creation, how did he create sin and evil? Did God create sin and evil?

I am curious to know what you believe, Anonymous... or will you simply ignore these glaring issues and proclaim, "God IS Love!"

As previously mentioned, I have read the bible and had many discussions with Christian leaders much more prominent than you... and God (and Christianity) seems to be much more than just "Love" as you explain it. There is so much more to it than that. Why don't you tell us the the whole story of what you believe instead of hiding behind your convenient catchphrase?

Rob

Nope, not nonsense, and nothing for me to prove. God and love are two names that Christians use for the same reality. They are just different names. Use whatever name you want. Believe that what is named is really real, or not, or maybe. Suit yourself.

You say, "it is a dangerous folly to want the answers so quickly and desperately that you are willing to accept any old garbage that proposes an easy explanation to the greatest mysteries of the cosmos."

Of course. I don't mean we should approach such questions desperately, obsessively or morosely. I'm perfectly comfortable with doubt and not knowing. (As I said in an earlier exchange, faith cannot exist without doubt.) But there is a difference between accepting our limitations and simply being complacent about asking, or leaving it up to philosophers.

I'm not sure I get what is "unreal" about a "philosophical" dilemma. Actually, it's as real as anything gets. And I beg your forgiveness if this is unintentionally offensive, but someone who brings another person into the world has no right to be complacent.

You say, "I can't give you a reason why you should or shouldn't do any of it. Why is this threatening?"

Who said anything about it being threatening?

The genesis (excuse the term) of the question is my skepticism over people's claims to be perfectly rational and empirical AND ALSO certain their existence is finite. It seems obvious to ask, Then what are you doing here? Every sane person has an answer, but it is never a purely rational one. Until and unless Dr. Dawkins sacrifices himself for our salvation, my conclusion is that pure reason has few true believers. (If he does, I'll believe.)

Rational, empirical people tell themselves stories to convince themselves there is value or purpose in hanging around, no less than the Israelites did. They have faith — in something.

Anonymous,

Let me reiterate, I am very open to a more reasonable understanding of God. You are right, however, to say that I am not putting out much of an effort there. Does this really surprise you? I am open to suggestions that a purple unicorn lives in my garden or that the Berenstain Bears really live in Yosemite national park or that leprechauns created the universe. In fact, I cannot deny the truth of any of these things.

But the evidence for such things is so scant and the notion so inconsistent and fanciful, that would be folly to seek them out, and anyone attempting to confirm them, based on no other evidence but their own "faith" would not be behaving very "reasonably," as you say.

There is a reason why Cryptozoology is not given the same credit or respect as Zoology proper. Studying ants in nature or in a lab is one thing... studying unicorns based on nothing but fairy tales and mythology is another thing.

Concerning education, what gave you the idea that I am against education? I value my education above almost everything else that has made me who I am today and have a graduate degree from a reputable school. Furthermore, I believe that nothing is more important for our nation's (and our world's) future than rigorous, open, available education. Quite contrary to what you may have interpreted from my statements, I am fully and unequivocably *for* education... and the more the better.

You wrote:

"I did not say, 'God equals love.' I said God IS love. God and love are two names for the same reality. I do not have to define the terms and demonstrate an equivalence. They are the self-same and identical thing."

I am sorry, Anonymous, but you saying so does not simply make it so. You understand that, don't you? I would like to take your word for it, but there is nothing there to convince me. Please try to understand my position here; I cannot just accept wanton statements because you assert it to be so. "God IS Love" means nothing to me... no more than "Saturday IS Blue" or "Chickens ARE Petunias."

As to your question, I admit that it is a very good question. You wrote:

"How rational is it to find purpose and value in my puny existence if I am certain the vast universe has none? And if I am certain my puny existence is finite, what conceivable rational basis is there for perpetuating it?"

I never said I was certain that the vast universe has no purpose and value. It may. I would love to know what its purpose and value are, in fact. Rest assured that the rest of humanity is on a constant search for the answer to your questions and has been for centuries and millenia... and is making good progress at that. We know more about the human mind, human emotions, and origins of our planet and galaxy today than we did 100 years ago. We knew more 100 years ago about those things than we did 1,000 and 10,000 years ago. And we will doubtlessly know even more about all that 100 years from now. "Stay tuned" is all I can say.

You wrote:

"And if I am certain my puny existence is finite, what conceivable rational basis is there for perpetuating it?"

Ultimately, there is none. So what? That's a philosophical dilemma... not a real one for any purpose, Anonymous. Sure, there is no reason for you to get out of bed tomorrow and no reason to brush your teeth. There is no reason for you to go to work on Monday morning and no reason for you to eat lunch. Stay or go, eat or don't eat, jump off a cliff or don't... yes, I can't give you a reason why you should or shouldn't do any of it. Why is this threatening? Because the notion threatens your religious beliefs? Maybe that says something about your religious beliefs.

There is no reason for a flower to grow... and yet it does. Maybe there is a greater rationale behind it. Maybe we just don't know that yet. Maybe we will some day. Maybe we won't. And?

What happens when we die? Who knows? Did Sally really love Harry? Who knows, Anonymous? Seeing as it's unlikely that anyone who has ever died will be able to tell us what happens afterwards, I'd simply be content not to know, if I were you. You'll find out one day anyway, I guarantee you.

No one knows the point of human existence or why we have consciousness. That is to say, we don't know *yet*... maybe we will some day. Some scientists believe it is an accident... as we evolved ever more complex brains to handle the power of spoken language as a response to a complex and dangerous environment, the intelligence and capacity for abstraction of the human brain became enormous. What if it was an accident? It wouldn't be the first time that animals evolved a perplexing and ingenious solution to a problem... some worked out, some didn't. Lots of species didn't survive over the countless aeons. Some have been kicking for millions of years. So?

Why should you not just kill yourself now? Well, Anonymous... along the same lines, why should you not NOT just kill yourself now? Why does there have to be a point in writing for you to ponder right now? If you were supposed to know it all and know it now, I am sure you would. Since you don't, it's obviously not that critical for you to know, is it? :)

Look, Anonymous, there are a great many questions that my children ask me at night that I cannot answer. We have to be content with not knowing things sometimes... because the simple reality is that we just don't know. But it is good to try to find out. That's why science is for. That's what an intelligent and inquisitive mind is for. That's what philosophers philosophize about. And good for them all. I'm happy they are looking for the answers.

However, it is a dangerous folly to want the answers so quickly and desperately that you are willing to accept any old garbage that proposes an easy explanation to the greatest mysteries of the cosmos.

"God IS Love" is one such example. It explains nothing. It cannot be proven. Wouldn't you agree that it is, in fact, a bit of nonsense more than anything else?

Rob

You say you would welcome a more reasonable understanding of God. I wonder how much effort you have put into finding one? You acknowledged you have no theology training and pooh-poohed the idea of education generally. You really shouldn't knock education till you've tried it.

I did not say, "God equals love." I said God IS love. God and love are two names for the same reality. I do not have to define the terms and demonstrate an equivalence. They are the self-same and identical thing.

I may have failed to express myself clearly, but everything I have contributed was offered in good faith, and I object to your suggestion to the contrary. The fact that you can not respond except to discredit the question and questioner does not exactly build confidence in your position.

I never asserted that you are a believer. I merely asked a question that you refuse to answer.

My question does not pertain to other species, since to our knowledge they lack the capacity to sit around contemplating their existence. As for those godless Scandinavians, they may have come up with their own stories, but do not doubt they have stories they tell themselves.

How rational is it to find purpose and value in my puny existence if I am certain the vast universe has none? And if I am certain my puny existence is finite, what conceivable rational basis is there for perpetuating it? There is none. Zip. Nada. Every excuse you could come up with is nothing but a desperate rationalization. Put up or shut up. There is no purely rational basis for delay. Either get it over with, or acknowledge there is some intrinsic or transcendent reason you don't.

I can't say I don't in some sense envy your Amazonian hunter-gatherers, padding about through their days in blissful ignorance. But the unexamined life is not worth living. Sorry, I can't buy your notion that one is happier and freer if he just sleepwalks, never asking these questions, much less seeking answers. That's not a life. It is indeed black, empty chaos. Not good enough.

Okay... one more post. :)

Anonymous,

I for one am an atheist and would welcome a "more reasonable understanding of God." However, the only one you have proposed is the simple platitude, "God equals love."

For that to make sense to an intelligent person, you must first define "God" and also define "love" and then show convincingly that you can demonstrate a link between them and also prove that one equals the other.

As this is an impossible challenge, your statement is hardly "more reasonable" than anything proposed by anyone... and is certainly much less reasonable than the arguments for atheism.

Furthermore, I hope you realize that you cut quite transparent to any thoughtful atheist. Your attempts to legitimize your own ludicrous beliefs with pseudo-philosophical pretzel logic in the hopes of confusing someone enough to just agree with you or admit the possibility that "God equals love" is as see-through as clear celophane. Frankly, you really should not respect anyone who falls for that.

And unfortunately, the atheists debating above are too intelligent to be caught blind-sided by sophomoric attempts to steer the heart of the real discussion into la la land. Save that for your youth group.

Furthermore, to assert that I am a believer because I am alive and haven't yet opted to blow my brains out in the horrible realization that I am alone in a godless universe is an utterly unprovable red herring and is, quite frankly, unconvincing on its own merits. In hundreds of posts in this thread alone, atheists have shown (in great detail, I might add) that finding hope and meaning in life are not dependent on a belief in a deity or an afterlife. Think about this: If that were true, then every species on the planet would be leaping to their dooms at the horrible realization that God does not exist.

But as I type this, monkeys continue to swing in their trees, pandas continue to munch happily on bamboo shoots, hunter-gatherers continue to peacefully gather berries and grubs in the Amazon, and millions of godless, atheistic Scandinavians are going about their lives in greater prosperity, meaningfulness, and happiness than any religious community in the US or anywhere else. All these creatures and humans live in a world without God.

And therein lies the lesson for you, Anonymous.

Have you considered that you don't need to affirm God any more than the other atheists in this forum? The world will not cease to turn and you will not descend into a black, empty chaos if you drop the God act. In fact, you may find yourself happier and ultimately freer by not having to justify at every turn the reasons why you believe in something as ludicrous as an undefinable notion of "god."

You may find that the real leap of "faith" is yours to make... not ours.

Party's over, I gather. Still no evidence for the existence of living atheists. Plenty of carping and fault-finding over organized religion, childish notions of God, and facile or excessively literal interpretations of scripture — critiques hardly proprietary to atheists.

This pseudo-atheism on the one hand, and hardcore fundamentalism on the other, are two sides of the same coin. Ironically, pseudo-atheists are totally dependent on a fundamentalist God for their unbelief. Loudly proclaiming their commitment to reason, they eschew more reasonable understandings of God, fearfully and irrationally clinging to their self-identity.

To Kelly, John, et al,

This has indeed been a refreshing conversation and a great forum. I am surprised it was allowed to run this long. There must be 700 posts here (I haven't actually counted).

Keep the faith... as it were.

Rob

God is love, and nothing other than love. Love is a transcendent reality that Jews and Christians call God. If we remain in love, we remain in God, and God in us.

None of the foregoing statements departs from orthodox Christian belief.

(atheist stil...)

To Kelly - thank you.

To all - it's probably time to move conversations to Susan Jacoby's latest post. See you there - jr

I would like to thank Rob and John for their discussion, too. It's very refreshing to see a discussion and disagreement that is cordial, with obviously well-thought out reasons, without name calling and hate-mongering, and, wouldn't you know it, without christians involved. I agree with both points of view, and believe that sometimes it's the situation that determines which is the best way to go. If you're talking to reasonable, thoughtful religious people, then being reasonable and thoughtful on your own views probably works best. If, on the other hand, you're talking to shrill fundie types, sometimes you gotta be shrill and attacking back, just to be heard over the jesus din. Thank you again for conducting one of the few conversations worth reading on this blog.

(still an atheist)

To anonymous (the one asking about demographics)

There are several good sources of data on religion and politics in the US. The Pew Research Center and the related Pew Forum are great sites. You can read (free) surveys on their sites discussing religious afiliation, voting patterns, political preferences, etc.

http://www.wheaton.edu/isae/defining_evangelicalism.html is another. This site provides both definitions of and statistics on evangelicals in the US. Their summary is that the number is around 1/3 of all Americans, but...they spend a lot of time differentiating between liberal, born-again, fundamentalist and evangelical christians (because christians do the same). I think Rob's estimate that 25% of americans are of the type we'd consider conservative christians is about right. jr

(i'm an atheist)

To anonymous (the "god is love" one):

John the apostle said a lot of things about god, and about Jesus. He said that Jesus is god (not just the son of god) and that god is mercy, god is love, god is the shepherd, god is the way, etc... John was not unique in defining one of god's attributes to be love. That's not what I was debating, and I realise I should have been clearer. In all cases of claims like John the apostle's that god is love, the claimant starts from the assumption that god exists, and that god is a supreme being. Then that claimant defines that god's attributes and behaviors - love, mercy, power, vengeance, etc. In other words, god is ALSO love. What I have heard a minority of religious people claim, and what I thought anonymous was claiming, is that love is god.

Of course the human emotion of love exists, along with a basketload of other emotions. But love isn't god, nor does the existence of love prove the existence of god. jr

Funny, but it is none than St. John who does in fact explicitly define God as love, and says that whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in that person.

Benedict XVI explores this theme beautifully in his first encyclical, titled "God is Love".

But of course you already knew that Ratzinger, the Roman Pontiff, is among that "minority of the least doctrinaire theists".

Is love a feeling or a reality?

I wanted to express my appreciation to both John (jr) and Rob Dimic for such an interesting debate. I can sympathize more with jr and believe his perspective to be more accurate, but Rob I would certainly not deny you your righteous indignation. I am grateful for folks like you and Michael Newdow, but mostly I find other matters more pressing.

Do you, by any chance, live in the midwest? I know when I lived in Oklahoma for a couple of years, I found the culture oppressive. Once I moved back East, I found that my lazy atheism once again meshed comfortably with the casual Christianity of my neighbors. Both of you are correct that it is dangerous for me to take freedom from religion for granted.

Where does the statistic that a quarter of American identify them selves as evangelical come from?

Chester, are you still following this? Can you point to one or two good examples of debates actually boiling down to: “Well, I like god because he makes me feel good.” That is where I ended up in my own soul-searching, and how I came to understand that I was really an atheist, but I sure could have used some help getting to that conclusion!

I gather this is not the place for the best that atheism has to offer.

(yup, still an atheist)

To anonymous:

Only a minority of the least doctrinaire theists try to define god as an amorphous feeling like love. In any rigorous definition of god, shared by all major churches, god is defined as a being with infinite powers, etc. Atheists deny that any such being exists. We do not deny the existence of human emotions, such as anger, fear and love. If you insist on defining god as an emotion, why not "god is jealousy" or "god is fear"? These are equally plausible.

To Robert:

We're just going to have to disagree on both the current state of political and cultural affairs in the US, and the best means to explain and support atheism to the religious majority. Religion in the US is not as monolithic as you imply. There are liberal evangelicals, there are fundamentalist jews, there are religious leaders of many sects who strongly support secularism in public life. The right wing evangelical movement has fissured, some leaders disgraced by scandal, some arguing that working for the environment and the poor is as important as targeting gays and abortion, and some who feel that they should pull back from supporting unreliable politicians (Bush never delivered a gay marriage amendment, and Dobson is quite angry about that, for example). I agree, there are some who would still push a United States of Jesus, but this group is not as large or as strong as it was 5 years ago. The main reason the religious right's influence has waned is the lack of support by mainstream America. The majority of Americans do not want to live under a christian taliban, poll after poll supports this (as did the 2006 election results). Check out the Pew Research Center for more detail and dats on this.

I disagree with your argument that going on the attack is the best way to get the religious faithful thinking about religion and being more open to atheism. And your examples do not really support your thesis. The palestinians have done their cause tremendous harm with their suicide attacks (imagine how much more sympathy their cause would garner if they used Ghandi's methods to oppose the Israeli occupation?). The American civil rights movement stirred the conscience of America precisely because of its early nonviolent efforts (in particular the Children's March, and Martin Luther King's nonviolent leadership). The riots that occurred later on in in places like LA and Detroit frightened Americans and had more mixed results.

I think we are living in interesting times for religion and atheism. For the first time in a long time (maybe forever) books about atheism are making the best seller list. Atheists are appearing on talk shows. Newspapers are hosting atheist columnists. I think it's important that we recognize this as an opening, and represent atheism well. In my experience, when I attack someone's beliefs, they dig in their heels and stop listening. I am not suggesting compromise, just a reasonable dialogue conducted with decency. jr

Rob, since you`re rigorously fact-based and all, exactly when did George Bush say this is a Christian nation?

John wrote:

"In my replies I try to be reasonable and purposeful and ethical. I imagine I leave them puzzled and thinking 'gee, that guy could be a christian with his ethics and his philosophy, but he doesn't believe in god or Jesus or an afterlife - what's wrong with this picture?'. It's more likely that they'll go away wondering if some of what I say might be valid (planting seeds, I call it) if I say it in a respectful yet forthright way."

Or they might go away seeing you as a Christian all but in name who will eventually find his way to Jesus.

Look, most Christians live in a culture that constantly reinforces their faith. One hopeful conversation with a nice atheist might cause a brief flash of doubt, but then they go back to their Christian spouse, their Christians friends, their Christian social circles, and their church. Better to tear down their carefully-constructed house-of-cards arguments with a wrecking-ball, exposing to them just how stupid they appear to other people, rather than humor them so they'll like you. Why do things on their terms?

Remember that the Civil Rights movement only picked up steam when people of color got fed up and dropped the Mr. Niceguy routine. Palestinians didn't get recognition for their cause until they started hijacking planes.

I can't begin a conversation with Christians without thinking to myself, "If these people really had their way... I mean *really* had their way, what kind of world would my children and I live in? Mandatory prayer in schools... being sworn in with a bible every time I take a job... countless and daily indignities that would eventually drive me insane. Not to mention the second-class status to which my friends of other faiths would be subjected."

You say that there are decent, intelligent Christians? Sure, but what does that matter to me if what they represent threatens everything that is valuable and precious to me in this world. Three months ago, a federal judge ruled that the Air Force Academy can continue Evangelical proselytizing to cadets... our government's premier military university as a tool of the Christian right. You really think the threat isn't that great, John? Jefferson and Franklin are dead, and George Bush is right. This IS a Christian nation.

But I am inspired by brave people like Dawkins, who started out as a nice atheist and is now dedicated to fighting Christians on their own terms... to considerable recognition, I might add.

Rob

I think I finally — finally! — get it. The most important thing to an atheist is having a definition of God to which he can object.

If you have a reason to live, I call that faith. If you love, I call that God. But you insist on disallowing these definitions because you can't object to them.

Contrary to an ethos of freethinking, you insist on imposing your definition of God on me, just so you can go on being an atheist. Let me free!

But if God is love, and who abides in love abides in God, and you abide in love, how or why could you deny God?

Are you merely protecting your identity as a secular humanist?

Anon 1:
> But you are quite right, anyone who lives in love, lives in God, and God in him.

That is overly broad to the point of not having meaning. Many secular humanists "live in love" (jr is probably a good example), at least as much the average Christian.

Anon 2:
> Just to clarify your qualifier: Is some other (non-Christian) definition of God more probable?

Sure. Redefine "God" using a human-centric vague term, thus creating a tautology. The probability rises to 100%. There are plenty of other choices, should one attribute a universal emotion to being a Christian value.

(still an atheist...)

To Robert:

I've been debating religious people since I was 12 (which gives me more than 40 years in the godless business :). And I used to be an "attacker". Even today, it's hard not to be, sometimes, when it feels like the fundamentalists are always on the offensive. But I'm also a teacher, and a father, and I've learned that the best way to present challenging views to those who disagree with me is to do so respectfully and to tell them what I think - not tell them what they should think. I am very open about my atheism, so people who know me and raise the topic of religion know what they're in for. Some have the preconception that atheists are evil, corrupt, amoral, etc. Some have reasons to want to hear an atheist's opinion outside of wanting to convert me, often they ask questions that they've been wrestling with themselves (the afterlife question is the probably the most popular). In my replies I try to be reasonable and purposeful and ethical. I imagine I leave them puzzled and thinking "gee, that guy could be a christian with his ethics and his philosophy, but he doesn't believe in god or Jesus or an afterlife - what's wrong with this picture?". It's more likely that they'll go away wondering if some of what I say might be valid (planting seeds, I call it) if I say it in a respectful yet forthright way. I do not coddle or patronize. I also do not attack.

As for the rise of evangelism. I think it's peaked and is now on a downward decline. Did you read What's the Matter With Kansas? If the religio-political trends in that book of 3 years ago had continued, we'd have seen GOP fundamentalist christians winning landslides in the last election. Surprisingly, the GOP lost many seats in Kansas, and the candidates that lost were the christian taliban right wingers (such as their troglodyte of an attorney general). The US is more moderate than we've been led to believe over the past few years, thank god :) (couldn't resist saying that). jr

John,

Point well taken. But I would turn the question on you. How effective is it to coddle Christians and humor their beliefs as legitimate for the sake of not offending them?

I tolerate their constitutional right to believe any old nonsense they want to, John, but while atheists like yourself are showing restraint, compassion, and understanding, they are working furiously to usurp the entire country.

Do you imagine that any Christian respects and tolerates your views? Look at the responses to your posts. Some of the more urbane and undogmatic of Christians might hold their tongues and speak civilly, but the Christians who actually go to church and believe firmly in an afterlife cannot, by decree of their holy tenets, see you as anything but a monstrosity who spreads sin and decadence with him around like a disease.

This wouldn't be a problem if half of all conservative, white Americans didn't consider themselves devout Evangelicals (that's 25% of our population).

Your coddling of Christians does not help them to "see your point," nor does it help them to respect your beliefs and see that you are a good person despite being an atheist. They cannot or they would be "living in sin."

That said, I acknowledge that ridiculing them is not an effective way to "convert" them. But if it isn't, then nothing is. Exposing just how laughable and inhuman Christianity is can help those who are on the fence (raised in Christian lunacy and still feeling the pull of that culture, but currently doubting their beliefs due to education and logic) to make the leap and cast off the chains of religion.

But your pleasant coddling does nothing but stoke the doubt of those who are on the fence and encourage the extremists.

Rob

To Robert:

(Okay, standard disclaimer - I'm still an atheist) Robert, reading your posts (and some others written in s imilar style) has me wondering. In your years of debating religion with believers, how effective has it been to demean them as people and belittle their beliefs? This particular blog started in response to Susan Jacoby's observation that there's "a deep prejudice against atheists in this country". Vituperative atheist attacks against religion provide justification to religious people to ignore us or shun us.

I wrote my first post to correct misperceptions that "anonymous" and others had about atheists - namely that we are amoral and lead aimless lives. In reading your posts it appears that you harbor your own set of misperceptions about religious people. You might want to write your posts from the assumption that most religious people are decent and intelligent. jr

Anonymous,

Yes. Any approach to "god" that does not lay out ridiculous specifics and accepts the possibility that "god" may be nothing at all like any contemporary concept proposed by the major monotheistic religions like Christianity, Judaism, or Islam. Deism, Buddhism, Agnostic Humanism, etc.

It's useless to consider a religion that proposes a god with silly specifics (male, white, given name "Jehova") and ridiculous dialogue recorded in a holy book (telling people not to have sex with sheep or he wants them stoned... that type of laughable stuff that wouldn't possibly be worth an all-powerful god's time).

Christianity and it's Judaic predecessor worked for ignorant and rebellious people in the desert during a time of great political and social upheaval. It was a brilliant way to get people to comply with laws and to prevent social chaos.

That's why it was invented by intelligent and cynical leaders.

In the 21st century, it seems a little less useful to explain the universe. Unfortunately, it still serves its original purpose of mind-control very well.

Rob

Rob says God "inevitably doesn't exist (as Christians define him)".

Just to clarify your qualifier: Is some other (non-Christian) definition of God more probable? Thanks.

Concerned the Christian:

God defines himself in the bible. By his own account, he is not the type of being deserving of anyone's love or worship.

As I mentioned previously, arguing about God's existence is a moot point for atheists because even if he did exist, most of us still wouldn't worship such a barbaric and infantile "god."

But since he most inevitably doesn't exist (as Christians define him), it's even more of a moot point.

Rob

So who is this ancient John who defines the indefineable God? Apparently not the Apostle John nor anyone before or since.

Other Anon,

I hardly "redefined" God (see 1 John 4:16). Actually, it is the self-identified atheists in this discussion who insist on a childish definition (for reasons known only to them).

But you are quite right, anyone who lives in love, lives in God, and God in him.

Taking a big step back and a deep breath, here's a quote that relates to the actual article by Susan Jacoby. This was written by Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson in a case that tested how far the US government can go in giving aid to religious groups wishing to use the government's power for their purposes. He specifically addresses the issue of those who do not profess a faith.

"The day that this country ceases to be free for irreligion it will cease to be free for religion - except for the sect that can win political power." From the dissent in Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952)

I think that this statement resonates more than any other in this era of excesses of religious groups at the outset of the 21st century... an opinion from half a century ago.

Justice Jackson is turning in his grave.

Rob

Nice move anon. Redefine god as love. Atheists love, therefor atheists believe in god. I love the quote about religion being necessary to convince good people to do evil.

An historical review of Matt 13:10-13 by Professor Crossan, an On Faith panelist, can be found in his book The Historical Jesus. He judged the passage to be not of the historical Jesus. 92 negative. Knowing the Mystery: (1) Gos. Thom. 62:1; (2a) Secret Mark f2r10; (2b) Mark 4:10-12 = Matt 13:10-11,13-15 = Luke 8:9-10.

See also: http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf and http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb092.html

To Robert:

Okay, I'm going to start every post with the caveat "I'm an atheist", just so there's no confusion. Robert, I always enjoy seeing fellow atheists quoting scripture, but I think you misinterpreted Matthew 13:10-13. What I think Christ was saying was that he speaks in parables because those who are not already savvy to his teachings (those who "hath not abundance") can understand parables (stories) better than if he were to lecture them. In other words, he's using an "Aesop's fables" approach to get his lessons across. Those who have abundance are not the wealthy (Christ was pretty clear, on many occasions, that he was not a supporter of the well-to-do) but those who have already digested Christ's teachings.

I also suspect that Christ was quite articulate, certainly not incoherent. That's just the problem we have with reading a translation (the King James) that remains frozen in "old english" language. You can get the same impression from reading Shakespeare in the old english. Shakespeare and King James are difficult for us to read because the english is archaic.

We may differ in opinion as to whether or not Christ was divine, but I think we can all agree that Christ was no neo-con.

JR

To Robert:

As I stated in several posts over the past several days, I have no faith. I am an atheist. That's why I am baffled at your questions.

JR

Anonymous wrote:

"With your self-learning, you do at least realize, don't you, that in the passages you cite to support your claims about Christianity, there are in fact no Christians?"

Oh, sorry. I stand corrected. I was under the impression that the murder-loving "god" in that passage was the same one the Christians worship. My mistake.

No... your "Christian" god is all about love. Sure. You want the New Testament? Here goes...

Matthew 13:10-13 (King James Version)
"10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand."

Here we have The Christ, after another rambling, incoherent sermon, being asked by his disciples why he can't put together a coherent sentence that common people can understand.

He responds that he doesn't want them to understand! Omg. Then he says that the rich should get richer and the poor will lose everything they have, and that's why he speaks to them in parables...because he deems them too stupid to understand his message. Funny, because Scientific American published an article that found that over 90% of uneducated people believe in god and an afterlife. Only 40% of Ph.D's do... and only a whopping 10% of those considered "eminent" in their fields. Looks like The Alpha and The Omega got it backwards.

But I gotta hand it to him... 2,000 years ago and he was already pushing the Neoconservative Christian agenda.

Hell, maybe he DID tell George Bush to invade Iraq. lol

Yeeaaah. Let me make something very clear, Anonymous. Even if this wacko "god" of yours came down to earth in all his glory and shewed himself unto me in the form of a burning bush, I still wouldn't worship him. He acts like a spoiled child who hasn't been properly socialized.

I'd tell him, "Verily am I sorry, Lord, for Thou art a tool, and yea even shall I take my chances with the devil, though I be denied thy kingdom. For He at least is no self-righteous megalomaniac like thee. And yea, even art Jimmy Swaggart, Mark Foley, and Ted Haggard among Thine in Thy kingdom. No thanks. I am sure I can meet plenty of meth-snorting, bribe-taking, gay-prostitue-loving, child molesters in hell. Amen."

klaatu, I reread your last post, and I must say, it's beyond me what any of it has to do with what I've actually written here.

klaatu,

This is the second time you have accused me of bad faith and suggested that I cease participating in this forum. You are out of line in doing so.

I have participated seriously and in good faith in the rare cases I have found another member so inclined. I tried to engage with you, but you kept ignoring the premise of the question that I had replied to (that had been posed by a third member), while also ignoring the substance of my questions to you.

I'm sure we all would agree the overall level of discourse has been less than edifying. Most of the posts from self-identified atheists reveal a breathtaking ignorance of theology, and as a result they make breathtakingly ignorant statements. The God they claim not to believe in is a caraciture, a childish joke not worth the bother of not believing in. Therefore, they tend to have little to say to a believer educated past primary school.

Robert,

With your self-learning, you do at least realize, don't you, that in the passages you cite to support your claims about Christianity, there are in fact no Christians?

ANONYMOUS:

You make little sense.

The athiests and the agnostics who are leaning towards athiest -- absent any possible proof of faith, why should they not lean that way? -- are giving strong arguments which speak from people who deal with experiment and discovery and resolution of puzzles. You're throwing fastballs far outside of the "strike zone" to use a baseball metaphor, you haven't yet put one across the plate and they've still been hitting them out of the park, to continue the metaphor. The fact is, you are centering your life and attitudes around the unprovable and they are sticking to what can be tested and verified. You are talking crazy smack like a higher class of witch doctor repeating myths with a modern spin, and they are coming back with science and their experience. You dismiss their contentions with a smug smarminess and act as if you are doing them a favor by not launching into a delusional's ranting; in truth they are doing you a favor by not pinning you into the corner of your delusional system and yanking the rug out from under you to the point where only your fellow delusionals can come to your rescue, and could do so only obviously as delusionals hunting in packs to prevent the spread of sanity which unfortunately wouldn't put money in the pockets of you and your favorite "we accept all credit cards" televangelists.

The simple fact is that there is no proof possible of deity other than personal appearance in a way that brooks no denial. We're not seeing that, not now, not ever, if it happens it happens but we honestly don't expect that in the least. Feel free to believe in the inherently unprovable. We believe in what stands the test of scientific method. You have mumbo-jumbo, snake-handling, and laying on of hands. We have an immense body of technical literature, increasing comprehension of organonanotech and biochemical relationships, and if someone's back goes out, we have chiropractic. Face it, you're trying to baffle us with BS but you are blinded by our brilliance. We alter the very basis of reality with nuclear physics and you are telling us to bow before your schizophrenic visions.

We are the future. We are sanity. You are delusional and your deity AS YOU BELIEVE IN IT is delusion and the product of either a primitive society's simplicity, or in the modern day, a willful refusal to face the facts: if you can't quantify or qualify something, either your experimental method is in error, or it doesn't exist.

You talk about God? PROVE IT. Or STFU.

We can't prove it. We looked into it a little bit and found it so profitless that we didn't bother to try any more. There's nothing there. Nothing. We get along fine without it. Don't try to force it on us. History is full of madmen with delusions of speaking to unseen voices and seeing angels and ridiculous psychotic symptoms such as that. We feel only relief that a modern day is dawning where people who think they talk to deities will be properly and promptly treated for their profound and dangerous derangement.

Then again, crazy people like you would probably be totally happy if you could turn the USA into a theocracy like Iran. We know that is what you want, and all we can say is "go ahead, kill everyone who can think rationally, lots of good that will do mankind".

Remember, for now, you delusionals outnumber sane people. Sane people don't believe in magic, though they might believe in technology that's effectively indistinguishable from magic, to the uneducated or uninitiated.. Theists believe in unseen powers and hear imaginary voices, or worst of all, place faith in people who hear imaginary voices, and they might heed madmen more than they heed rationality and the experiences of real life as we all see around us when we abandon delusion and examine the real world without preconception.

But for now the mad outnumber the sane; widespread sanity seems to be spreading and that condition which appears to be signatory to most of history may abate. Eventually rational people who don't believe in the irrational supernatural may outnumber you guys.

I think we will let you believe what you want to believe, but at long last, we'll have enough sane people in place to keep the lunatics from taking over the asylums, and hurting people for not being crazy in the exact same way.

Robert,

You're so right. Cain't be too careful around that there education bidness. Don't let 'em pull the wool over your eyes, dagnabit! Gotta be careful. No tellin' what kind of goings-on there is in them school houses! No siree, stay away from it! Anything you want to know, you jes' larn your own self. Them point-headed perfessers is scary!

Anonymous,

I have received no formal theology training. I never felt the need for someone else to explain his own interpretation of the bible to me, along with the ensuing justifications and rationalizations that he might use to try to pull the wool over my eyes.

I have read the bible for myself from cover to cover. If you doubt the barbarity of Christianity's unique invention of "God," then I would suggest you do the same. Don't let a pastor or priest explain it to you. Trust your own intellect and read the bible yourself through your own eyes.

Then when you get to the especially horrifying parts like this:

Numbers 25:6-11 (King James Version)
"6 And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, who were weeping before the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
7 And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand;
8 And he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel.
9 And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand.
10 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
11 Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, while he was zealous for my sake among them, that I consumed not the children of Israel in my jealousy. "

Do you recognize it? This passage was used to justify anti-miscegenation laws in the USA which were only overturned in 1967 by the Supreme Court. Up until then, interracial relationships were illegal in many states, on biblical grounds. The passage was also used to justify slavery in the deep South... since god obviously hates other races.

I am not even going to go into all the things that are disturbingly wrong about excerpts like this... the part about god being happy that Phinehas killed a man for bringing in a woman from another tribe and then killed her, too... and then the part where God tells Moses that he's so proud of Phinehas for jumping two people in love and spearing them through the stomach that he spared Israel from further punishment.... ugh.

Christianity is pure barbarism. I don't need a theology lesson to see that very clearly.

John,

In your recent post to which I replied, you wrote:

"There are significant differences between my world view and faith."

You explained your world view in detail, and I find it quite reasonable and well-stated. If your faith is "significantly" different from this world view, then I must assume that you mean you are also a deeply religious person who sees no contradiction between your evidently strong belief in science and reason... and this "faith" that you have hinted at but not discussed.

What is there to be baffled at in my response? It is I who am baffled at your post. If I have read something incorrectly, then please do let me know.

Rob

Robert, just curious where and when you received your theology training, and how much?

John,

I sincerely appreciate your taking the time to reply.

Just for the record, none of this has anything to do with fear of doubt or fear of uncertainty.

You offer dictionary definitions for faith and for God. I agree that has been a factor in my difficulty. We could spend several lifetimes trying to define either, but here are mine for purposes of this discussion:

Faith: Stories we tell ourselves to cope with the fact of our existence.

God: Love.

The story you tell yourself is that you are someone who will "approach the universe via reason and science," and as such, "the scientific method is at the core of my personal philosophy."

Frankly, this is where I start to get confused. How does the scientific method produce a purpose or meaning for one's life? What data does one observe and measure? What experiments would I carry out to replicate your results and verify your conclusions?

You say, "Faith posits that something exists beyond that which we can observe, test and measure....but I don't believe in it until it has been tested and verified."

First, would I be wrong to assume that you do in fact "believe" in the existence of many things that you have not directly observed, measured and verified, but for which you are willing to rely on sources in which you have....faith?

Does the love between you and a loved one exist? If yes, how did you observe, measure and verify its existence? If you were to be held incommunicado and in solitary confinement for the rest of your life, would that love still exist—even though you could not then in any way observe, measure or verify it?

For that matter, would anything still exist if you lacked the capacity to investigate it scientifically, either directly or indirectly?

You say, "What gives my life meaning is life itself, and what I make of it." So whatever you make of life is — voila — its meaning? Sounds more like salad than science: I can throw anything into the bowl and it's still salad.

You say, "I want to live as long and as fully as possible." I'm not trying to be either obtuse or morbid, but I honestly still don't get why. It's fine to say you're comfortable with purposelessness, but something has to keep us going. Your fascination with a wondrous universe evidently offers diversion. Life has meaning because whatever it is, is the meaning. But why? What is the point? Why bother? Is it merely an instinct for self-preservation, an evolutionary artifact you easily could overcome? Seems like there would be a better answer.

You say, "Life is a wondrous thing," and acknowledge that's a very sentimental thing to say. Life seems to be a gift — but of course that's nonsense.

Our hearts assure us that the reality of love transcends what we can measure and weigh and know with certainty. But of course that's nonsense.

I would like to get this blog back to the focus of Susan Jocoby’s post: “There is still a deep prejudice against atheists in this country, and this prejudice is expressed in the ridiculous notion that belief in God is some sort of qualification for public office.” I am currently a career manager in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, an agency that changes directors regularly with each change in presidential administration. Unquestionably, the worst director this agency has seen in my tenure came in the form of the Bush (II) appointee, former California Congressman James Rogan. The following article from the Washington Post in 2002 describes the arrogance of this man who, while in his official capacity as director of a federal agency, shoved his faith in god down the throats of the workers and then belittled and bullied anyone who dared to complain. He clearly thinks he is god’s gift to America and anybody who does not believe as he does should simply shut the hell up. The frightening thing about this perpetual loser and former porn theater bouncer is that he will not go away. He’s back begging for another government job. Bush(II) recently nominated him to be a U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California. I guess being one of God’s chosen is sufficient qualification to be one of Bush(II)’s chosen. Do you think the right wing will consider Mr. Rogan to be a "Christiactivist judge"?

From The Washington Post archives:

Rogan's Higher Authority
By Al Kamen

Monday, June 17, 2002; Page A15

Former California congressman and Clinton impeachment manager James E. Rogan is showing unusual management skills as director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, now facing a major RIF in the legal ranks.

Couple of weeks ago there was that stunning, Clintonesque I-feel-your-pain e-mail comparing the plight of 135 trademark examining lawyers to be laid off with his grief over losing his congressional seat.

"From the time I was 10 years old I wanted to be a congressman," he said. But then "only four years" after getting the job, the voters "summarily fired me." Still, he found good work in a big firm.

Many of the government lawyers were upset with Rogan's equating an election loss and high-paying partnership with their situation.

Now it seems Rogan, who is deeply religious, has been upsetting people with his regular references to God. One patent examiner, in an e-mail mostly devoted to patent-related issues, noted in closing: "Lastly, myself (and others I have spoken with) are offended with your references to God. While I am sure you mean to refer to God in a positive manner," the patent examiner said, "this is not a church, it's the government, and it's offensive."

Rogan again found the sophisticated logic to elegantly rebut that attack. "As to your taking offense at anyone using the word God, maybe we should pay you with beads," Rogan replied. "I hate to offend you with money that proclaims our national motto, 'In God We Trust.' You certainly do not want to be governed under federal law, since bills passed in Congress are done in a chamber that proclaims the same motto, and are interpreted by a Supreme Court that has the Ten Commandments etched into the walls of their hearing room."

"All that aside," Rogan said, "the last time I looked, free speech is still available in this country, although political correctness seeks to undo it. I pray for all of our employees, even the ones who are offended by the idea that I hope God will protect them and their families."

"If these concepts are too foreign for you to understand or appreciate, perhaps this will help," he told the examiner: "You need to chill out."

There you have it.

To Robert:

Huh?

I had to read back a ways, to see if there was another "John", because your post makes no sense if it is in response to any of my posts. I have no idea what you are talking about. If you are even the slightest bit confused as to whether or nor I choose science or religion, then I am baffled.

JR

John,

Very flowery, but now let's cut the b.s. You can't "not know" and also believe in God. This is one of those things where you unfortunately can't have your cake and eat it too, sir... anymore than you can split the difference between your "faith" and "knowledge" and believe that world is both round and flat.

I am what is called a strong atheist and, in some cases, an anti-theist... but I know enough about Christianity to know that the bible specifically prohibits not accepting its tenets as fact on faith and not accepting Jesus as the son of God, perfect in all ways, and humanity's salvation. Anything less is heresy.

Accept that your current system is an hypocrisy that needs resolution. My advice to you would be to cast off those chains of religion.

But who am I to judge...alternatively, you can fully and unquestioningly embrace religion and denounce your ungodly scientific side.

But the platitudes of your post are crap. What's it going to be? Religion or science? Choose... because you really can't have both, as harsh and unjust as that may sound.

To anonymous (and whoever else might be reading):

Before I try to answer, two definitions are maybe necessary, just so we are sure we are talking about the same things (from Merriam Webster):

faith - firm belief in something for which there is no proof

god - a being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe

There are significant differences between my world view and faith. I approach the universe via reason and science. The scientific method is at the core of my personal philosophy, and that method is the antithesis of faith. Faith posits that something exists beyond that which we can observe, test and measure. That's conjecture or fantasy, which is fine, I enjoy a flight of fantasy as much as the next person, but I don't believe in it until it has been tested and verified. Richard Feynman once said that "science is our way of not fooling ourselves" (to which I would add, and of not fooling others).

The universe (again, for me) is what exists, what is observable, measurable and verifiable. And it is an amazing place, its workings are intensely interesting. But I've never found the slightest hint of a god. I've not found one shred of evidence for a supreme being, or a ruling power, or a creator. You seem to think that, because I find the universe a wonderful place, I must be seeing god. I am not.

Does this mean that I think science has all the answers? No, it doesn't, I just think that the scientific method is the best way to figure things out. Does this mean that I can prove that there is no creator, or that I know how the universe began? No, it doesn't, I have no idea how the universe began, and I'm okay with not knowing. I'm not going to start believing in yahweh or allah or zeus just because there are questions that I am not able to answer.

I'll leave you with one more quote that helps describe my personal philosophy, again from Feynman (who besides winning a Nobel Prize, was fairly articulate on matters of science and religion). Feynman said, "I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have
answers which might be wrong...but I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without having any purpose -- which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell..."

Anonymous, how is the value of life something pseudo-religious? Think before you write! I call this alogical, completely associative thinking. (Your preachers, of course, may also talk about the value of life, deriving it from your scripture belief. Then, of course, it obviously seems to be non-pseudo-religious.) I derive the value of life from life itself, as I live and have lived it. Can such a simple thought penetrate into your brain?

I did not pull my accountability/fear idea out of thin air; it is a completely cogent conclusion from your assertions; go back and read them!

And then, instead of arguments, you use name-calling judgements: Bigoted imagination (me?), flimsy, squishy, pseudo. What desperate mental somersaults to save your stories!

Robert Dimic: It wasn't Fred who wrote this provocative non-sense!

Gerry

Gerry,

First, I did not address your claim (that my personal accountability depends on fear of punishment) for the simple reason that you pulled it from thin air. Like all of the other ideas you project onto me, it is entirely a product of your limited and somewhat bigoted imagination.

Here is my poetic explanation of personal accountability: Unless it is disfigured by sin, the human heart naturally inclines toward justice and mercy, because it is imprinted with their very image. If we truly are grateful for the wondrous gift of life, then naturally we will seek to live as the Creator meant us to live. Becoming who we were created to be is the greatest joy.

As for your own explanation, it remains pretty flimsy. Now you allude to the "value of life", but that is pretty squishy, pseudo-religious language, is it not? Remember, you're aiming for something purely rational and empirical.

Fred wrote: "Does an atheist have a sense of ultimately being held accountable? If yes, why?"

Fred, yes, it is correct to state that an atheist believes there is no "ultimate" accountability for his actions. An atheist does not believe that hell awaits him if he bashes an innocent person's brains out, steals from the needy, rapes an innocent, etc.

You would be false, however, to conclude that atheists thus have no moral compass and no ethical acumen which limit their behavior. It is thus false to conclude that a world of atheists would be a cesspool of anarchistic rape, gore, and villainy. Why? Essentially, because morals are not dependent on a codified religious text. Humans are social animals and need structure and behavior checks to function as such. Your conclusion that without a religion, society would descend into chaos is patently false. Let me explain further...

An atheist gets equally sick to his stomach when he sees senseless violence and feels equally indignant when he witnesses wanton theft... as much as a person with religious convictions. An atheist wants to live in a safe and clean environment with social harmony and prosperity for all for the same reasons that you do. Life is better and individuals are happier that way.

Furthermore, the non-religious-specific examples among the Ten Commandments (for example) are, contrary to the assertions of religious persons, universal and in fact not derived from a God. You don't need to believe in God to know you should honor your father and mother, refrain from coveting your neighbor's wife, not steal or kill, etc. Such behaviors are socially and personally destructive and would not be conducive to creating a safe and clean environment to live in. Atheists know this.

Any group of human beings, thrust together, will form their own rules and standards of actions with consequences. There is no need for priests and pastors and holy texts for that to happen. It is natural since we are social animals. All social animals follow a social code.

Atheists, however, have a one-up on religious persons. An atheist who believes that it is wrong to kill simply believes so absolutely and universally. A religious person, however, can be convinced that it is justified to kill under certain circumstances if God or religious leaders tell him so.

As Steven Weinberg famously said:

“With or without it [religion], you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

Thus, I believe that atheist morality is, in fact, superior to religious morality because it is the individual, by making decisions prompted by his principles and conscience, who determines if he is doing right or wrong. A religious person who follows a code of morals prompted by an external source (a holy text, a religious leader, a notion of God) can find himself committing atrocities if the link between his actions and the external corrector is severed or corrupted (misinterpreting the "messages" of his God [Bush invading Iraq, Ossama Bin Laden instigating terrorist attacks], being manipulated by religious leaders with political or personal aims, or faulty religious texts that make very unclear assertions or exceptions for the use of murder, rape, theft, etc.)

Rob

John,

Thank you for the follow-up. I am sincerely trying to understand your personal philosophy, and I am not trying to sell anything. I have the feeling I failed to make myself entirely clear.

I wonder if you can help me understand what you see as the essential difference between your personal philosophy and religious faith (sounds the same to me)?

I respect the fact you choose not to employ the word God in your personal philosophy. But if, for example, there is beauty in the universe, and that beauty is real, what about that reality is not God? Or to ask another way, why is it so important for you to avoid using the word God for that reality?

Thanks for any insight you can share.

To SocNuy & Ken;
Please do not overlook the last two sentences of my post:

“It is my sincere hope that believers and nonbelievers alike will embrace a dialogue that is mutually respectful and that we can all join in committing ourselves to living in a way that promotes what I hope are the universal values of love, kindness, peace and compassion. This effort I’m sure would bear fruit for one and all.”

As I stated above, I hope these values are universal. They are most assuredly not the sole province of any one religion or worldview.

My first paragraph, from which you both quoted, was aimed primarily at professed Christians that seem more concerned with “proofs” and arguments than with living the Christian values they claim to believe.

To anonymous,

After reading your latest posts, I either think that you misunderstood what I wrote, or chose not to accept it. I realize that you'd prefer that my view of the universe included a god, but your attempt to redefine my personal philosophy to include your god is wrong. Let me be as clear as I can. For me there's beauty and wonder in the universe, but no god. For me, there's accountability for how i live my life, but no god. I know, that's not how it is for you, but that's your PERSONAL belief, it is not universal.

Perhaps it is hard for you to put yourself in my shoes, and understand that, despite having no god, I am not moved to suicide. Listen to me and understand that I mean what I am saying. I am a happy atheist. I am far from suicidal. I want to live as long and as fully as possible.

I am not trying to convert you to atheism, only to explain that your view of atheism is incomplete. It does not matter to me whether or not you believe in a god, as long as you don't try to force that belief on me. If you find it difficult to accept that people can live full and moral lives without a god, please understand that that's your personal problem. We atheists have worked it out.

I was born an atheist and I'll die an atheist!

Anonymous,

my sense of accountability springs from my feeling for the value of life (mine and that of others'), yours from fear of punishment. (You seem to be afraid to address this fear point.)

And the reason I have a sense of accountability does not come from the necessity that somebody else must know about it, as is the case with you, but because it is I who thinks it indispensable.

And talking about jumping to conclusions: The fact that I have a brain to think and feel with certainly does not mean - too funny, what do you use for thinking? - that my human relations are not as meaningful as yours. It is the old misconcept that the neurochemical processes are ONLY material. (The old error that a motor is ONLY the heap of crap metal it consists of.) The mere fact that I can say "I" transcends this rather easily disprovable notion.

"Eternity" is now. That is my "conviction", if you want, and it certainly has more to bolster it up than your idea of time as an eternal linear process. I get this rather "spiritual" idea also from modern science, btw.

Eternal life in the general religious sense for me is hell: You would be punished (or "rewarded") by eternal, unbearable boredom. Eternal life is an oxymoron: Nothing we experience in real life counts anymore, nothing is ever finished, nothing has a goal, everything can be done over again, nothing can go wrong, since you have eternity to fix it.

Gerry

Whatever thou sayeth, klaatu. Thanks for not listening.

ANONYMOUS: you appear to be what we on UseNet would call a "troll", someone trolling for responses. you really don't seem to care a bit about what people say, you just want the attention so that you can make your own declarations. You invite responses but you either dismiss them or make arguments against them which aren't direct nor relevant.

Trust me: we don't need you OR your deity to have a reason to live. Some of us doubtless feel sorry that you need some concept of a Higher Power to give you a feeling of validation. We don't need you or your Higher Power to be valid. We simply are, we're people in this world and we don't believe our existences are pointless; we make our own destiny. We aren't moral cripples or people who can't get motivated without some silly folklore to inspire us.

Sorry you're so purposeless without a legend to inspire you, we inspire ourselves.

Have a Happy New Year despite having no possible proof of what you claim is necessary for you to validate your life so as to not need to suicide.

James,

Again, I appreciate the citations. I was simply asking for an indication of good faith that one of the forty books to which you referred me actually would address my questions.

On the basis of the actual evidence you've deigned to share, it's a bit rich for you to ridicule others for opinions that "have little to do with observable facts".

You made three assertions:

- There is a negative correlation between intelligence and belief in God.

- It can be demonstrated that atheists and believers are equally moral.

- There is a negative correlation between societal health indicators and prevalence of belief in God.

You then leapt to breathtaking conclusions (before backpedaling when challenged). The fact that all three assertions tend to flatter your own prejudices is indeed grounds for healthy skepticism. But the real issue in all three cases is that it's nigh impossible to fathom anyone reaching valid and meaningful conclusions for such nebulous hypotheses.

John, I asked my questions in all sincerity because I sincerely wanted to know. I have criticized the tone of some of the posts, but I don't think I have said anything critical about anyone's beliefs or decision to identify himself as an atheist. I frankly was surprised that some people took the questions as criticism.

As for your post, I guess what puzzles me is what God it is that you don't believe in. If your life has a purpose that in any sense transcends the space between your ears -- because contemplating the universe inspires wonder, because you feel accountable to others, because life can have meaning and you don't want to die -- that purpose indeed does have its source ultimately in God, simply because that's the word we commonly use. Using a different word, which is anyone's prerogative, doesn't change the reality.

The fact that you found yourself resorting to schmaltzy, poetic, less-than-Spock-like language tends to reinforce my point: There is no perfectly rational response other than suicide. Once one starts to seek excuses, he affirms the existence of God, whether or not he's comfortable describing it that way.

I wanted to respond to anonymous's statement that a rational person, upon finding out there was no god, would feel compelled to kill himself. And I'd also like to respond to his contention that an atheist is not accountable.

I've been an atheist from the time I began to read, think and figure things out for myself. I was not un-churched, I was raised Catholic, I was in fact an altar boy and can still recite most of the mass in Latin. And I certainly didn't set out to be an atheist, atheism is what I came to as I examined my own church, read extensively of the bible and other texts, studied science and literature, and discussed religion with many people of various faiths. Like most atheists I know, I continue to study religion, as well as philosophy, politics, science, etc.

In all my explorations I've found no evidence of god, but that does not diminish my life. Life is a wondrous thing (I know that sounds schmaltzy, I tried writing that sentence several different ways, but those 5 words best express how I feel). What gives my life meaning is life itself, and what I make of it. The universe is a fascinating place. I will die far too soon as it is, I see no reason to hasten my death's arrival. There's much to be done.

As for accountability, I believe it comes from being human. I've always felt accountable - to my family, my friends, my co-workers, my community. It's hard for me to imagine a person born into any faith (or no faith) who wouldn't feel that tug of accountability to their "tribe", their fellow human beings (which is not to say that each of us acts equally or even adequately accountable, and that goes for both the religious and non-religious).

I understand that there are many people like anonymous who believe that purpose and ethics derive from their god. I'd like to assure anonymous that god is not important or even necessary for many of us. What I would find more useful in this discussion is if folks like anonymous could say "Okay, I hear you atheists and I understand what you say. I believe differently, but I accept that not everyone needs a god to live a rich, purposeful and moral life."

Gerry, the question was asked in all sincerity, and I sincerely appreciate the response. I regret to say it sounds a little flimsy. If human relationships have no reality apart from biochemical processes between your ears, why on earth do you bother to care what impact you may have on anyone else?

On the other hand, do you have the same sense of accountability when no on else knows?

And what does eternity have to do with it, if your consciousness will be entirely and irrevocably extinguished when those processes cease? For that matter, what rational justification is there for postponing that inevitability?

To Anonymous:

I am an atheist, and I have a strong sense of ultimately being held accountable, because whatever I do and think, has bearing on the rest of my life and to a large degree on the lives of quite a few others. And life certainly is part of eternity, isn't it? Once you dig into eternity, you are certainly part of it.

I don't avoid being a criminal out of fear that some threatening god might punish me, but because I think it is bad AND stupid, for the reason I mentioned.

Reward and punishment will therefore be here, in livable, knowable and provable present and experience, not in an illusionary afterworld dependent on some imaginary belief.

Gerry

klaatu:

Thank you for another thoughtful but entirely unresponsive post.

The original question posed by someone named John was:

"What if you found out tomorrow, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there was no god?"

I suggested the answer is straightforward. You objected, but then you went off on tangents describing your own private religion that, while meaningful for you, sounds no less airy-fairy and irrational than any other.

I'd still love to hear a single purely rational justification, in the circumstances posited in John's question, for postponing the inevitable demise of your pointless consciousness.

Fred: Beats me. Does an atheist have a sense of ultimately being held accountable? If yes, why?

Why must this debate be so inflexible? Isn't the point to be kind and inclusive? I don't believe in "God", but one of my closest friends does, and our kids have played together for 10 years. We love and respect each other. Isn't that the point?

I subscribe to the world of Quantum dynamics which ironically parallels the Holy Trinity. (In that conventional logic cannot explain either). Maybe it's all just a cosmic song-trying to explain it is like reading a review of a concert. Ya had to be there...

Chip

Mike said: "Hugh: Thanks for your hateful comments. Your contempt for those who don't share your narrow views makes you no diffrerent than any other ignorant funadamentalist."

I'm only attacking the concept of religion and those who do bad acts and hide behind it, not those who participate in it. If you don't commit horrible acts in teh name of religion, doen't be bothered, I didn't say anything about the people who are kind to others. You, on the other hand, are attacking me personally because I don't share your belief. Sorry to see that you don't practice treating others with kindness and respect. Have a great day!

Anonymous:

The thing is, you cannot prove that universe was a creation, nor can you disprove it. If, however, there was indeed a deity, one presumes that it might provide means for verification of its existence. The closest thing to that which I have seen is the universe in which I live.

That the universe exists, this is evident. That which now is, had a beginning in timespace; at one time it was not, and now it is. Beginning is not necessarily creation. Yet the unfolding of the universe from its instantiation to the present time is beautiful indeed in a way and in such profuse detail that one may indeed wonder in awe at it, whether it simply began or was created.

We have some very good understanding of the course of nature after that moment when this universe began. We don't need to see the nebulous hand of some tribal deity in order to understand the workings of evolution. From the initial conditions, fractal complexity of stunning detail at all scales can emerge. Yet we don't understand precisely what were those initial conditions? And how came they to be that way?

Like the Deists, to which many of the USA's Founding Fathers affiliated themselves in their writings and declaration, I don't have any problem in believing in Divine Providence, while simultaneously stating with total conviction that no democracy can ever be safe until the last king has been strangled with the guts of the last priest. Despotry, be it of Man or be it of Men pretending to speak with the voice of the deity.

I don't require a creator to maintain my dignity and sense of self-worth and value. The universe surrounds me, and I am a part of it as it is a part of me. I advise you to read John 16 and see the mysticism of the Nazarene wherein he explains, not the tripartition, but the unity of deity and man and world.

Is there something that created the stars themselves, all of the space to contain them, the time through which all moves, and the laws by which all are governed? I honestly cannot say but if such exists, it has my worship and my thanks for letting me be a part of it all. If there is no creator, still the universe is a place of unending wonders whether of delight or terror or the mere inbetweens of human life. Though we can little regulate the constants of the universe itself, we can regulate the constants of our personal and national lives. I don't know if a creator exists which I should worship, but I know of Founding Fathers that I do respect, and I respect them most for the Bill of Rights, with special regard for the First Amendment.

No test of religion should be permitted of any political candidate or appointee, nor any employee thereof.

Regards, and Happy New Year.

Amen - Robert Dimic

BTW - Amen was an Egyptian God...

Mike doesn't think there are prejudicial tests against atheists. Then he writes the following:

"The only deep prejudice against atheists I know of is the common belief that atheists are largely arrogant, hard to get along with, and usually clueless about the beliefs of our Founding Fathers and American society in the late 18th century."

Funny how a person who obviously can read and write can be unaware of the fact that this arrogance is one of the reasons why honest atheists shun such "believers" as the devil shuns holy water. When I showed this eruption of bigotry to my girl friend, she finally decided, after much discussion, to get out of her church.

And to Anonymous: How do you deduce - intellectually, if possible - that an atheist "has no sense of ultimately being held accountable"? Does Bush and his holy cronies have a "sense of ultimately being held accountable"? What a strange "Christian" moral that derives its value from fear of punishment!

Fred

It is entirely reasonable to observe that a person who has no sense of ultimately being held accountable for the conduct of his life is a poor choice for any position of responsibility.

klaatu, thank you for your lengthy reply and for your public service. I applaud your civic-mindedness and cheerleaderhood.

I was not paraphrasing you. The original question to which I responded was:

"What if you found out tomorrow, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there was no god?"

The premise absolutely excludes the possibility of a creator, which you say you worship. So, with respect, I don't think you qualify.

"Anonymous" misparaphrases me as stating -- "stipulated that there is no possibility of justice in an afterlife. This is all there is.[...]" which isn't what I wrote. I wrote that there is no guarantee of any afterlife, nor of justice in this afterlife which may or may not exist.

"Anonymous" then challenges me "Give me a single purely rational, empirical explanation for your claim that you are going to exert yourself to 'work for justice'. Give me a single purely rational basis for postponing for a single day the inevitable demise of your pointless consciousness."

I can only answer thus:

A DC-area mailing list going back to the early days of the InterNet, called "DC Story", had a meet and greet at a certain Pizza Restaurant near the Uptown Theater. While there, in the presence of many people who were politically-active, somewhat empowered, and extremely committed to ousting then-mayor Marion Barry. And during the discussion, I suggested to one of the activists that "that nice gentleman in the bow-tie, what's his name, who just fired all of that deadwood when the DCFRA made him chief financial officer for the district, why don't we see if he could be mayor." I was advised that he probably wouldn't want to run. I suggested "well, let's just draft him". Apparently this sufficiently interested or amused the people in question, and they _did_ draft Anthony Williams to be the Mayor of the great city of Washington, District of Columbia. I then spent huge amounts of time online, writing one of the very first blogs (before they even had the word "blog") which detailed what was wrong in the District, what I thought would fix the District, and reporting on what actually happened in the District. Let's just say that whether any of the events subsequent to my request to draft Tony Williams was my doing in whole or in part, the Revitalization of the District was something I supported ardently; I was probably the main online cheerleader for it. Save the cheerleader, save the world, my friend.

I worked against corruption, nepotism and cronyism; I worked for Rule of Laws and not Rule of Men or a Man; I worked for Truth, Justice, and the American Way. Consider that as evidence of past performance as a predictor of future behaviour. I have worked for Justice and I will work for Justice. Foolish delusional Xian, while I am mostly a Pantheist/Animist, with a belief system that lies entirely outside of your spectrum of YHWH/Satan at the extremes with Christ and Man and the Saints in the middle, you may think I worship idols and have other ridiculous beliefs. I worship the creator and the creation simultaneously, by investigating the creation through science and not by accepting a 2000-year-old book of tribal legends as equal to the last issue of _Nature_ or other peer-reviewed literature. But if I had some anthropomorphic deity that I chose to worship, some tribal image akin to your hairy thunderer on a cloud throne, the tribal image I choose to worship is seen as either a curious person in a labcoat, or alternatively, Justitia; both are given to deeply investigating things. I have worked for Justice in the past and I will work for it in the future.

This is all I need to keep me alive, to see the expansion of nearly-certain knowledge, and to see that the guilty pay for their crimes and that the innocent are set free.

Look around you in the District. See the wealth, see the much-improved police force, see the better redistribution of the increased wealth to those who truly need it, see the slow but certain eradication of corruption and incompetence. These are things to live for, even if I cannot claim sole credit nor even much of it other than as a commentator supportive of those who actually had the ideas and actually did the work. See the rebuilding, not all of it for the better in terms of unintended consequences.

All anyone needs to keep them alive is the knowledge that they can say, and mean, one of the most definitively human things one can say: "I can help. Let me help." Been there. Done that. Will do it again. And it's what I would rather live to do, rather than die pointlessly to serve some possibly imaginary deity described in a millenia-old book of tribal lore.

In that book of tribal lore, it says that Moses reached out and brought water from the rock, to grow flowers in the desert. Anyone who knows the _Post_'s Rob Pegaroro, who was at that infamous meet-and-greet at the Pizza Shop, can ask him: "did klaatu tell you some weird rambling aphorism about bringing forth flowers from the desert?" and if his memory is good, he can tell you: "yes. klaatu said he wanted to do that". Well, probably it wasn't me that did it. "Anonymous" might say that it was the fervent prayer I uttered that my nation's capital be saved. Maybe it was me. Maybe it was all of the above. A very important part is that no living person is likely to be able to make an absolutely certain claim as to which it was that caused the effects. But I like to think I did something. And the change to do something like that again is enough to keep on living.

Sorry to go on and on but I'm sure there are others here who can tell you, chances to do good works in this world are reasons enough to not even think of not remaining in it for as long as possible, or at least until your work is done.

klaatu says, "I would rather work for justice that exists in this life, and see justice done in this world while I am in this world, rather than hope that there might be justice in an afterlife which might (or might not) exist."

First of all, the question stipulated that there is no possibility of justice in an afterlife. This is all there is. Human life, as one poster put it, is nothing other than a "thin, sun-driven biochemical reaction on the surface of a lonely planet," and human relationships are nothing other than biochemical reactions between the ears.

Give me a single purely rational, empirical explanation for your claim that you are going to exert yourself to "work for justice". Give me a single purely rational basis for postponing for a single day the inevitable demise of your pointless consciousness.

Hey, PANTHEIST.

You and I are more or less in the same boat, I'm not far from being an Animist or Pantheist. People ignore us. But you have to remember that it isn't incontrovertible that there is a creator, only that there is a creation. I suppose one could deny the latter part but then one would be considered a Solipsist and that's pretty useless in terms of a good philosophy for governance. Ya know, if you believe everything outside yourself is a hallucination, you're not going to give sufficient consideration to the needs of others.

Still I would hope that the People of the US will agitate to firm up their State Constitutions to remove requirements for oath or affirmation in deities, afterlives, or eternal damnations etc. It's enough that people swear that they will do their best, to tell the truth, etc. There are nasty enough penalties in this life to get people making such an oath to tell the truth or to do the right thing.

Moving on: "Anonymous" says that a rational person would immediately kill themselves if they found out there was no deity. Why is that? Do you need the imaginary reward of some afterlife to allow you to survive this life? Are you depressed and need some delusional fiction to fight the depression? Or is it the case that you suffered injustice in this world and need to believe that since you are powerless to get redress on this earth, it must be redressed in the next life? It may work like that, or it may not, I would rather work to find ways to be happy which exist in this world. I would rather work for justice that exists in this life, and see justice done in this world while I am in this world, rather than hope that there might be justice in an afterlife which might (or might not) exist.

Many of us prefer to deal in this world with what is in this world, rather than dream about the next world and use those dreams as a rationalization for inaction in reality. If you want to live in a fantasy as a delusional, go ahead. Just don't try to keep sane people from getting jobs because you're nuts.

Anonymous: simply summarized, your arguments make no sense.

Here are the ten commandments found in the King James bible (Exodus 20:1-17):

First Commandment -
1 And God spake all these words, saying,
2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Second Commandment -
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Third Commandment -
7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Fourth Commandment -
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Fifth Commandment -
12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

Sixth Commandment -
13 Thou shalt not kill.

Seventh Commandment -
14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Eight Commandment -
15 Thou shalt not steal.

Ninth Commandment -
16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Tenth Commandment -
17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

It's funny how Evangelical Christians harp on an on about how important these commandments are... and yet the only one they think we should follow to a tee is the one about adultery.

No Evangelical Christian is opposed to stores being open on Sunday (4th), or plastering their homes and offices with images of Christ (2nd), or invoking God's name for every petty argument (3rd), or supporting the death penalty, torture, and war (6th), or making the most wanton verbal assaults against anyone who disagrees with them (9th), or supporting American-style Capitalism that values one-upsmanship, cutthroat competition, and materialism (10th).

In fact, the issues that Evangelical Christians care about so much... Christian prayers in school, gay marriage, abortion, gun rights, etc... God makes no mention of these things in his most holy commandments.

So they ignore what they don't like -- even direct orders from God -- and they add a few things that they do like.

Why are we debating the merits of religion and Christianity here, anyway? These American Christians plastering this message board with their hubris aren't even really Christians. They are political robots who use their so-called "faith" to justify their politics... often willfully ignoring what the bible says.

As an atheist, I live my life free of such hypocrisy and contradiction... and I let my values and beliefs direct my politics... not the other way around.

Many thanks, Susan, from another freethinker.
I know it takes courage to speak out in criticism of religious fundamentalism. Those who do will hopefully do so with empathy, compassion, even love, but not with ridicule.

For those who are interested, one more brilliant insight into the "why" of human commitments to irrational belief systems that are led by aggressive, anti-humanists can be found in John Dean's amazing new book, "Conservatives Without Conscience." It's every bit as much a "must read" as any of Sam Harris' or Richard Dawkins' works.

Personally: All is one. Would that we all knew it.
Namaste.

Atheism? No future in it.

John asks, "What if you found out tomorrow, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there was no god?"

A rational person would kill himself. If this is all there is, it's all pointless and oblivion is certain, then there is no other rational response—none. That's why there are no living atheists.

"So if god is as volatile emotionally and experiences all of the same states as his creation, then how is he above us? If he is so egoistic as to require not just admiration, but "worship" as a condition for entrance into his domain, wouldn't you worry about his emotional stability a little bit?

And if god is such a game-player that he requires not only full-on worship but total obedience to his will, yet he never clearly spells out what that will is in an unambiguous, easily-understood manner wouldn't you sort of wonder what's up with that?

Not only that, but he also refuses to ever put in any public appearances, just to clear up the whole "is-he-or-isn't-he" debate--I mean, sure he's bound to be busy, but if he's so all-powerful, couldn't he make a little time on his calendar maybe once every couple of years or so? It seems like such a small and easily-accomplished task. I dunno, his whole "love-me-just-don't-look-at-me" pattern sounds a little emotionally erratic for an omnipotent deity."
------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------

I agree. I've always thought that the christian's God seemed to be sort of a mean-spirited jerk. I guess I can add "emotional basket case" to that description too.

Thanks for pointing it out.

For the life of me, I can't understand why this rather well constructed and short article has created such a frenzy of religiously inspired fanaticism. Why is it that if a person brings up atheist, they are a pariah?

My personal opinions are that religiously inspired people are by and large hypocrits, rather ignorant of science, history, culture and other redeaming virtues. I believe that religion has caused more bad than good in this world and don't want to see my kids raised to support molesting priests and believe in leaders who bury their heads in the sand when it comes to fact and science. However, I, as a man who has risked his life fighting for this country, believe that they still have as place in the political discourse.

Ms. Jacoby was saying pretty much the same thing - why can't we include all people and beliefs in the political discourse?

As far as religion is concerned, I follow Confucius, who said that "how can you understand death ... you do not understand even life." I can't even pretend to understand this world, how can I possibly understand how the afterworld (if there is indeed one) is constructed?

When was the last time an atheist crashed an airplane into a building?

We have grown up as a species and the need for a protector in heaven is rapidly diminishing. We are no longer fearful primitives huddled around the fire trying to keep the demons at bay.

It's time to grow up.
It's time to realize that the only gods we will ever know are the ones staring back at us in our own reflections.

Call it conceit if you must, but all the good or ill ever done, came from our own hands, heads, and hearts.

Richard:

"Well, actually Constantine adopted Christianity, if recall correctly."

Sorry, not correct.

Perfect example of how the masses of humanity do not see, or choose not to see, history correctly.

Read about it. Constantine didnt adopt Christianity...he perverted it. In came the pagans and their pagan practices at his invitation. A man, a decision,... to do what he wanted (with help from the Nicene council, no less). Scripture says that Jesus Christ is the SAME, yesterday, today and forever and also states not to learn the way of the heathen. Ah yes, most of world would think "Yeah, Jesus would say that what Constantine did was ok". Uh, no he would not have, my friends. Which is one of the main reasons why we have religious confusion to this very day. The teachings of the early Church was, at that time, lost...except for a few who saw thru it. Ever wonder why most protestants and catholics omit the 4th commandment? God is not the problem, folks....man has made a mess of religion. Not to worry...God will fix.

Lollipop,

Don't hold your breath. Your talking about people who think Jesus might return to Earth if we manage to somehow jump-start Armageddon with a nuclear war... people who think that no harm can come to us if we are allied with Israel. People who believe dinosaurs walked around with the Egyptians 5,000 years ago. Morons. Christians are capable of incorporating any amount of atrociously illogical nonsense into their brains because they've already decided to profess "faith" in something they have never heard, felt, or seen any evidence of... or ever will. But they can't get beyond the brainwashing of their childhood. Like the old Germans who still believe Hitler was right, despite all the cold, hard evidence to the contrary.

Love thy neighbor, forgive, and leave the judgement to God... and also support torture and murder?

What's so shocking about that, given that there are some 9,000 contradictions in the bible that Christians already accept.

Rob

These are fascinating, and frequently frustrating, discussions. I read Susan's column for the first time this morning, and now I find myself poring through past columns as well as the blogs of rants and raves and reason. I can't seem to stop reading - even the absurd and irrational bits - it's like eating popcorn.

There's not much that has not been said. But I do wonder how each of you would answer the following questions.

What if you found out tomorrow, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there was no god? How would that change your life? Would you feel free to sin, rape, steal, etc?

What if you found out tomorrow, again beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there was a god? Would that change how you behave, lead you to go to church or take up prayer?

Personally, if I found out tomorrow that there was a god, I'd be flabbergasted. Given the way the world and the universe work, the existence of a god makes no sense (to me), absolutely none. If god were to suddenly show up and say "hey, humans, yoohoo! here I am!" it would be the biggest joke I could imagine. That god, such a kidder.

For me the existence of a god or gods matters very little. I agree with Susan, it's up to us to decide how we want to live our lives, how we should treat our fellow human beings, and what deeds we want to be remembered by.

jr

Thank you, smafdy. I'm an atheist too -- one of the many of us who never dare to say so publicly (nor even privately, often). I'm appalled by the hanging of Saddam Hussein, not because I think he was a nice guy or deserved better, but because killing -- whether in a gallows or in war -- diminishes us all.

And I must say, I can't understand why so many of you folks who believe in God can't be patient and simply allow God to mete out justice in his own way, at his own time. Since God obviously felt it was OK to let Saddam go on living all this time, how could we humans possibly be *more* just by killing him?

I wonder if you all truly believe in God, and his capacity for justice, as much as you profess to.

Changinging the subject from faith to morality.

Saddam Hussein was hanged last night.

As an atheist, I think that this act was the height of immorality - a murderous act of revenge, covered by the rubric of "justice", and presented on the world stage for all to see.

I don't think that all killing is wrong - killing in the act of self- or legitimate national defense is morally acceptable to me. Self preservation is inherent in us.

However, when an enemy or criminal has been subdued, the need for self preservation has been met, and the justification for killing no longer exists. (I can hear the responses now: "well, what if he escaped?" Fat chance of that).

Yes, Saddam was a murdering thug (as was Pinochet, and as is, I believe, our President and his neocon cabal). Yes, it would be costly to confine him, but we could easily afford to do so (Gitmo comes to mind).

Execution is not punishment (neither is torture - but that's another rant). Execution is murder.

Do the "faithful" on this blog recognize the morality of this position?

Ms Jacoby:
""However, both atheism and secularism are still largely excluded from public dialogue about the proper role of religion in American politics--an omission that I consider much more important than pointless debates between believers and nonbelievers about the existence of God.""

Look no further for proof : Quod erat demonstrandum

Ms. Jacoby could've summed up her argument by just saying "WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!" and been done with it.

Anonymous,

besides completely dropping out of the subject, you seem to infer that the bible should be read as poetry. Of course, that gives room to any arbitrarily possible interpretation, and it amuses me sometimes to witness exactly this disgrace to my and everybody's intelligence on TV- Preachings and similar occasions.

Aesthetically speaking, I do not favor a poetry which graphically describes and glorifies all the aforementioned atrocities, be it literal or poetical reading.

Gerry

I applaud Ms Jacoby for not being ashamed to be honest about her opinions. I agree with her that atheists and even agnostics are these days seen as unenlightened, lacking in moral values; and have often wondered why religious believers seems so threatened and angered by them. Shouldn't everyone in a nation such as America have the freedom to believe whatever they see fit and practice that religion or the lack thereof without being judged for it? And shouldn't such believes be kept a personal and private issue, and politics remain independant of any such personal convictions? If state and religion were not seperated (as they are becoming less so, unfortunately), then who would decide which religion and sub-faith threof was to be followed?

The reality is that there are agnostics and atheists who hold public office. I know because I work for one. They, like many people who are met with hostility about their personal beliefs or orientations ( like being gay for example), are simply closeted about their beliefs. They profess to believe in God and do go to church, but essentially are putting up a facade. My basic point is that atheists and agnostics are involved in our national discussions. They simply can't truly express their beliefs on religious matters.

If god exists, wouldn't it/him/her have tweaked us so that we all believed in it/him/her? We could still have are foibles, faults, original sin, etc. but why not have us all, from the get-go, believe in god? There doesn't seem to be any rationale for allowing us to doubt that god exists, if he exists.

Gerry, if you're such a lover of poetry, why is it that you insist on an absolutely literal reading of scripture?

Mark Beyer:

'...yoke humans with laws..'

Paint us a picture, sir, of a civilization without the morally based laws from scripture that you discount. And be sure to put the blame of the rejection of those laws on whom it should rest - man, not God.

Have you seen this work of art to which I refer, Courage Under Fire? It is one of my favorites in a vast body of tremendous talent that is the career of Mr. Denzel Washington. Whatever your convictions about the circumstances leading up to Desert Storm, I think that Denzel captures the problem of the questionable war that we find ourselves in with crystal clarity. The one moment I refer to is when Washington Post Investigative Reporter Tony Gartner plays back the recording of battlefield transmissions of Lt. Colonel Nathaniel Sterling's brilliant solution to a tactical problem of enemy identification that literally saves the day for his forces, all but one. The one that haunts, and drives him throughout the story. The one both covered up and decorated. The untold truth starts to destroy Col Sterlings life until the real truth comes out. As usual, Denzel's depth of portrayal in this central moment must be seen to be fully appreciated. The story still builds because as powerful as that truth is, there is another hidden truth that must be fully reported in order to appreciate the honor and sacrifice of Captain Karen Emma Walden. Truly excellent movie. Which brings me to an aside, the movie references the unique sounds of a particular weapon, the M-16, and how it helps Col Sterling pursue truth in his own investigations. The M-16 is an extremely high-powered, low-caliber, fully automatic assault rifle. The weapon was engineered to take advantage of the destructive compression of acceleration and fire power to offset it's cold-war equivalent AK-47. In short, investment in speed returns an exponential increase in destructive force by a factor of one. Some disadvantages are that the rounds are easily deflected, and accuracy is said to be acceptable. What does this have to do with anything you may ask? In the verbal warfare above, I detected what sounded to me like an M-16 very similar to that of one Ann Coulter. In any event, I would liken Ms. Coulter to an M-16 of the far right political philosophy. She is very gifted. I do apologize to her for calling her a sociopath. I never should have hurled that word at her regarding her book Godless Liberals. One should never judge a book by the cover. To Ms. Coulter I would openly ponder if she has considered incorporation of the concept of reincarnation into her faith construct? I sense that she has been here before, perhaps as a very strong, somewhat abusive man. That IS NOT intended as an insult, for clearly she is now a very beautiful woman. I hope she finds the peace, love and understanding she is searching for. Perhaps she already has. In any event, Ms. Coulter, the public apology I owe you I now stand and deliver. I am sorry. Please forgive my trespasses. To end, the concept of reincarnation blends the unspoken principle of UNBREAKABLE. So much beauty in art, so little time to enjoy it in life. God Bless you all. Now, would someone over in Iraq please turn on their headlights? God save us from ourselves...Faithfully yours, another Godless Liberal Progressive something or other. :)

Mel Arturo--

You write in part, "appreciate the feedback - I had no idea I was having problems projecting my feelings onto others. Your armchair psychoanalysis is tremendously helpful."

Your sarcasm is duly noted; however, I stand by my comments.

--Nate

It is all too easy to lose faith in faith today. We see it being corrupted, and used to get around normal moral safegards. This is a continuation of the dilution of the meaning of Christmas, the Great Santanic. Do not trivialize, and dismiss that observation. To do so would be foolish in the extreme for it would be analogous to ignoring the rapidly approaching headlight of a full throttle Locomotive at the crossing...Courage Under Fire, dedicated to Denzel and Meg

Well said brother Gerry, very well said indeed. For the heart is truly the center of our being here. Pumping our blood, self-regulating our blood is a nervous system of sorts. Neuro transmitters that man has only begun to discover course through our circulation reaching, connecting, communicating with every other part of our body with each and every beat of our heart, our beings resonate with the beauty of Creations intelligent design. Biochemical vessels, our intelligence is truly centered in each nucleus and we know the truth when we sense it in our very core, though we tend to ignore all but the most basic adaptation of self-realization...DNA is most capable of more, so much more. Trial and Error, trial and error. and error error...but hopefully not fatal ones. Unbreakable? No, all too frail like the Heart and the Mind is our trail. But the soul...M Night Shaymalan...yes tis true, it is our soul that is UNBREAKABLE and that soul is given to each and every one of us whether our adaptive mind choses to believe it matters literally not. Do not forfeit, for it can not be taken, only given away. Hold on to yourself regardless of whether you believe as the masses do. For you all I pray to God, Allah, Creator Bless us All and take Heart, though Your rules of engagement have been violated I still love Dear God..I still see much to love. Holding.

To Anonymous:
"Is there such a thing as an atheist who truly loves poetry? How could that be, since they are so literal-minded and materialist? They must be so miserable. No wonder they're angry."

To Anonymous: Oh yes, there is. I am such a specimen, and most of my friends are. I am a devout lover of art and poetry; music can touch me to tears, a wonderful picture makes my heart pound. But reading the atrocities of the Bible (Old Testament, genocide, murder, aggression, theft, lowest sort of superstition, revenge, all ordered by "god") has a similarly emotional effect: It makes my hairs stand on end. Well, you might doubt my existence, since your belief "moves mountains".

Materialist? Science has come to the unquestionable finding that matter is pure energy, and this finding has enabled, for better or worse, atomic energy. I wouldn't be surprised if the flat earth gang would doubt even this proven fact, because it is "scientific" and therefore from the devil, but then, to come back to Susan, it is almost suicidal to allow a "believer" like Bush etc. to wield any power. Susan is incredibly modest in her quest that atheists should at least be respected. Contrary to your opinion, atheists are excellent American citizens and certainly more patriotic than you, Mr. Bush, who has done more damage to your country than anybody I can think of!

Gerry

Adam:

"Everyone on these forums, religious or not, I have a quote for you. It is one of the greatest quotes of all time in regards to the whole religion debate. Ready?"

(snip quote)

Good one, but I think this is better:

"Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child."
-- Robert A. Heinlein

Jahwe and El come to mind.

My children,

Behold... I have come to ye to giveth of my voice to thine debate and to end thine speculations.

I exist. Neither do I not exist, nor shall I not exist but in being that I exist. So speaketh the Lord.

I shall speak to ye of my truth. Yes, thine God is a man. Neither is He a black man, nor a red man, but verily a white man... aye, with a big, flowing beard who sitteth on a cloud and getteth angry when ye toucheth ye genitals. Do not do so, or ye shall not inherit my kingdom.

Yes, thine God enjoyeth discussions with Pat Robertson... and yes, even did I tell George Bush to invade Iraq. Bunglethed that one up... what canst thine God say? I work in mysterious ways.

Thine God apologizeth for the logical inconsistencies in His holy book. And, oh yea... verily hast thine God forgotten to mentioneth of dinosaurs and neanderthals. Verily wast I tired and thus forgoteth.

I must go, my children... but know ye this: toucheth not thine genitals. Know ye that I am the one true God and I am serious about this... ye shall burn for such sins. And maketh thou sure that thou watcheth thy Fox-News. Neither watcheth thou CNN, nor BBC, but Fox-News. Sean Hannity... heheh.... God loveth him dearly.

Now thine God must go, children. There be genocides to ignore and Tsunamis to start.

Oh... and truly have I said the world is flat. Believeth not ye thy scientists with heathen telescopes and facts. For verily art they witches.

Fare ye well, my children.

p.s. - Verily... touch ye not ye genitals. That maketh me quite angry.

Believer or non-believer I hope that everyone
thinks that discussing how education can be
improved in this country is more important. Finding an official that does something about it is
more noble than learning if he is a believer or not.

Many americans do not know what is National Science Foundation. How much budget does NSF get per year? You'll find out it is a dwarf compared to what is spent on defense.

I'm fascinated by this blog and Wikipedia'd the 10 commandments. Here's a part "You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me"
My GOD!!
Graham

" Bill:

Sometimes I cant help but wonder that atheists amd secularists abandon religion out of pure laziness. They dont like the restrictions that religion and god would put on their the "normal" life they want to have. Thats obviously what Europe has done.

Warrior for Christ, I salute you. "

Bill, are you suggesting that atheists and secularists all want to live a life of debauchery and immorality and that is why they abandon God? Why would they need to abandon God for that? Look at your Christian cheerleaders, bible boy. Ted Haggard, George Bush, Mark Foley, Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Robertson...

Apparently, Christianity is the way to go if you want to be a corrupt/bribe-taking/sex-scandal-perpetrating/ child-raping/ meth-snorting/closet-homosexual/ war-mongering/ war-profiteering maniac!

LOL... yeah... I salute you Christian Warriors. Now pass the meth and the bag of cash... oh, and don't forget to call a gay prostitute for me.

Christians... they never cease to give me a good laugh.

Why can't you crazy atheists just accept once and for all that an invisible man lives in the sky and He made the whole universe and He informed us of all his intentions and everything we need to know 2000 years ago in His book "The Bible" and from now on we should just refer to that indispensible volume for all earthly wisdom and answers to life's questions?

It is sooooo obvious!

It is interesting to me that Ms. Jocoby calls for tolerence and then evokes the same prideful, condescending tone which athetists so often use when writing about religion. It's as if she could hardly get the words down without snickering about how ubsurd she thinks religious beliefs are. Next time you call for tolerence and respect, try to actually sound like you mean it.

On second thought, I guess I do understand why no comments: That Nature is God is incontrovertible.

So, if no controversy I guess we all are getting along.

Nice

and you hit a chord :)

music is so nice when the voices all sing out...

Lets hope that the nation doesn't sing out in anger against the Atheists when President Bush's failed war ends and they look for diversionary homeland targets to blame things upon. Bush's "Higher Father" followers haven't been shown to be kind to non believers in the past.

Peace and acceptance in your way.
http://www.personaltao.com

I'm beginning to feel as ignored as Rodney King, when he said "Can't we all just get along?"

My previous post suggesting Pantheism and its worship of nature as the true creating, all-powerful, omnipresent god has not drawn a single comment.

I'm suggesting a god that has all the attributes of the almighty plus visibility. More than that, you can feel it when it chills you or burns you, you can smell it in the sea, the woodlands and swamps, you can hear its thunder.

You don't have to imagine it in a human form, and then question its reality. You don't have to accept anything on "faith".

See it, feel it, embrace it, live it!

Faith in one thing or another is not actually a choice. You feel it or you don't.

Wouldn't it be easier and more comfortable if we could all just choose to believe that the same things were right, the same things were wrong, the same things were solid, liquid, vegetable, mineral, blah..blah..blah.. I know that faith is real and is powerful. It causes people to do all kinds of things and gives them license to act in ways that impinge on other people's faith in other things.

Several posts have referred to an atheist belief system. What system? Certainly there is belief. I'm an atheist and believe in many things, but not dogmatically or using some prescribed system. I sort things independently of one another, not taking a lump sum of ideas and saying "this i believe". Fundemental to atheism is that there is no system to it, no doctrine, no community of "we all believe the same thing". You believe there is no God. That's it. That is the only requirement. If you aren't sure of what you believe, you are not an atheist. It's not an easy row to hoe, so I've never understood anyone jumping on the bandwagon or the frequently accompanying bitterness of trying to get others to agree that it's correct.

Conversations about religion and spirituality are still possible because as an atheist, I still have experience of these things; most of my friends and family have a different perspective of the matter than I do. I don't declare their ideas void because I don't share them. I listen, I admit I don't know everything (or maybe anything), it's even possible that one strange day I will be flooded with this profound belief in God that's evaded me all of these years. Anything's possible. I used to know that there was a God, I just knew it. Now, I just believe that there isn't.

Jason Bradford: I don't suppose you've considered that no one answers your cut-and-paste postings because you're not really asking a question or making a complete point? An atheist does not have to prove or disprove anything. Facts do not have to be solid and tangible for a person to regard that molecules were arranged by other than intelligent design. There is absolutely no point in your posting towards which to direct a response.

Religion is faith-based. I personally do not sense the presence of a God, in any form, at any time. I wish with all my heart that I did. I respect the faith that others feel within themselves, and as long as it doesn't impede the civil rights of others, I am not only willing to let them get on with their faith, but am very envious of them. My principles don't allow me to trust solely in the faith of others. I don't think that's what God has in mind. I like to think that if God's really out there, he/she/it's just messing with my mind, sort of as a test. I don't like the humor, but who am I to judge?

I suppose I'm an agnostic in public, but an atheist in private. (I was raised a Presbyterian.)

That said, I agree with Ms Jacoby's observation. I believe that new solutions to this world's problems are needed that probably cannot be solved within the parameters of any one faith. To say the world would be a better place if everyone shared Christian-based ethics and morality is true, but illogical. Its not going to happen. You can't force a particular kind of faith on people (starting with me).

If we don't seek advice and insight from every element of humanity, then we're limiting our potential for answers. Atheists and agnostics deserve a seat at the table. This is not much different than past human rights progress that gave women and minorities voices. Sure, we might say something you disagree with, but what else is new? It seems to me that we might in fact have some real value at a table full of religious advocates. Friends to no one, enemies (in a nice way) to all.

The most compelling reason to give agnostics and atheists visibility is the old argument; If you are truly confident in your faith, why are you afraid to let others speak?

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

When The Washington Post's Bob Woodward asked President Bush whether he had consulted his father before going to war in Iraq, Bush famously replied that he had consulted a "Higher Father."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow. I never knew GB Sr got high...

But seriously, folks, here's the thing about God--every religion that I've ever learned about which hypothesizes a god who is omnipotent, all-knowing and involved in his creation on a personal and daily basis also use certain common adjectives/descriptors when they discuss their god. They include terms such as "loving god," "jealous god," "angry god," "merciful god," "vengeful god," etc. You get the picture.

Isn't it coincidental that all of those words used to describe god can also be used to describe a person? I mean, you'd never describe a tree as being "jealous," but you can often attribute the characteristic to a girlfriend/husband/neighbor/etc.

So if god is as volatile emotionally and experiences all of the same states as his creation, then how is he above us? If he is so egoistic as to require not just admiration, but "worship" as a condition for entrance into his domain, wouldn't you worry about his emotional stability a little bit?

And if god is such a game-player that he requires not only full-on worship but total obedience to his will, yet he never clearly spells out what that will is in an unambiguous, easily-understood manner wouldn't you sort of wonder what's up with that?

Not only that, but he also refuses to ever put in any public appearances, just to clear up the whole "is-he-or-isn't-he" debate--I mean, sure he's bound to be busy, but if he's so all-powerful, couldn't he make a little time on his calendar maybe once every couple of years or so? It seems like such a small and easily-accomplished task. I dunno, his whole "love-me-just-don't-look-at-me" pattern sounds a little emotionally erratic for an omnipotent deity.

If god truly existed as described in the bible and by his followers, I'd say check his resume, because he just doesn't sound qualified for the position. If he still grapples with all of the same emotional states as his creation (anger, jealousy, etc.), then how is he any better than we are? And if he's going to require acceptance and belief in order to avoid unimaginable eternal torture, yet make acceptance and belief so difficult by being vague and providing no unambiguous proof even of his own existence, then how is it that he is not just labeled a cruel prick instead of lord?

I don't see how an emotional needy game-player can be seen as a "god."

The thing is, he doesn't exist in the way that his believers (and "biographers") describe. They are making up a character and projecting their own human emotions and motivations onto him. If there is a "god" at all, he is the force which caused existence to be in the first place, and at that point his responsibility and involvement ended.

There's no love or jealousy or wrath or any of that stuff because "he" has no personality, no psychology, no mind. Those are weak, human conditions which, by definition, a "god" would have to be above.

People created this cartoon version of god which presently exists and ascribe to him whatever virtues (and, obviously, faults) best suit their societal circumstances.

It's time we took responsibility for ourselves.

I'm not religious, Atheist, if you will, and that is because it is the only reasonable belief system. I used to be a Christian, but I realized how absurd it is, so I decided to do away with it all together. How CAN you be religious? The evidence against it is so overwhelming! All you have to do is read.

John, President Bush did NOT "declare that he waged this war because his God told him to". Either you know that is utterly absurd, or you ought to. Why did you say it??

Yousev, President Bush never said "God told me to start this war," or anything of the sort.

Praying over an important decision is an act of wisdom, humility and prudence. Few people, and certainly not President Bush, claim to be taking dictation. That's a preposterous canard promulgated by people who are either ignorant about faith or have other motives.

Captain Kirk already met God; He's at the center of the universe. He really needs a spaceship, and if you don't have one, He'll shoot deadly laser beams at you from His eyes.

So if you go looking for Him, go prepared.

(as true today, as it was when it was filmed)

I just would like to have a voice in the political landscape, very thought provoking question - what is so sacred about a religious belief system that qualifies one for public office? Wouldn't an athiest bring more to the table, for NOT having a religous interest to side with?

It is possible to say that nearly every war ever fought has some roots in religion. Bush believed that god told him to go to war in Iraq, Bin Laden and his cronies believe they are waging a holy war against us... and that's not counting the Chechnyan quaqmire. Just seems like an awful lot of people dying over religious indifferences. If there were to be a draft, and since Bush did declare that he waged this war because his God told him to, would you be able to opt out due to religious differences?

Anyone who at any point in his life loves another human being proves that God exists.

Personally I don't care whether people believe, in Zeus, Virgin Births, resurection, all-powerful beings, UFO's, or astrology.

It is only when people say things like:

"God told me to start this war" (see Bush et al.)

"God gave us this land, so we will take it from you" (see Israel)

...then things become unsettling, and we must, at leat, ensure religion is removed from government.

There is a prevailing myth these days that major wars have been fought over religion. It's not true, since most major wars, including our current wars, have been fought over natural resources and land. Plenty of atheists have massacred millions of people. Religion has nothing to do with the right-wingers. As far as I'm concerned, spirituality and religion makes people better, and if George Bush and his friends were truly religious people they would not have caused the deaths of nearly 700,000 people. Only someone with a hatred for life and for God could behave as they have.

Anyway, my main problem with this article is that as always, an atheists imagines they are being persecuted. Perhaps people will be more friendly to atheists when the atheists act more friendly to religious people and when the atheists stop whining about how persecuted they are. I have yet to see anyone who brings up religion in most social and work situations who isn't an atheist. They love to talk about it, start an argument, and then claim they have been persecuted. I think they all need to grow up and respect other people and stop whining about being picked on, like a second grader would do. I'm a liberal, by the way, and I'm not an atheist.

Ms. Jacoby nails the situation exactly right in this country at this time. The more fervant religious people may be finding it disillusioning when their chosen representatives and president have acted so scandalously or stupidly but the people who feel their every move is somehow dictated by or in harmony with a higher power would still never choose an openly secular person as someone who deserved any kind of consideration as a potentially electable leader. However there are many non-believers who still hold all the ethical tenets so dear to the religious people, without feeling the necessity to attribute to any higher power the ability of humans to act in what are known as good ways. Certainly many of the most evil deeds in human history have been perpertrated by those who consider themselves true believers, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist,Jew. Unfortunately, no discussion on Tim Russert, or Jon Stewart will ever change the mind of people who hold to beliefs instilled at a young age, or gained at the time of some life-crisis. But the more we become used to all people, of all persuasions and of all races, the closer we will come to some amount of the necessary human understanding to allow the American experiment to succeed. We have come pretty close to failure these last six years, I hope we are turning a corner.

Most of us just don't trust someone to lead who isn't at least open to being guided by God. Since most Americans believe in God, it makes perfect sense that we don't want a leader who doesn't look for that guidance.

(There is no way to win an argument that there is a god, or is not a god. It is a matter of faith and experience, and both positions are rationally defensible.)

Jason said:

"Hello. I am technically an agnostic, because I recognize that there is no possible way to disprove or prove the existence of God. However, when I am asked, I usually tell people that I am an atheist, because I do not believe in the necessity of a God for 1) the existance of the universe or 2) the existance of human morality.

Atheists get their ethical sense from millions of years of human evolution. In order to survive as societies, urges to kill, steal, lie, and cheat had to be at least partially stamped out by evolution. Otherwise, humans wouldn't be able to survive together, and we would have gone extinct. So we are all endowed with a moral sense that has been given to us, not by God, but by our evolutionary history.

In some way, this means that atheists get their morality from the same place as religious people. The only difference is that religions codify a set of rules that evolution had already established in the minds of human beings through millions of years of natural selection.

By the way, many studies show that atheists are often more kind and fair than religious people, and are often the better humanitarians. The world's largest philanthropists-- Bill and Melinda Gates, Warren Buffett, and Andrew Carnegie, are all a-religious people. So, we do manage to get some strong ethics and morals, without listening to a God."

Thanks Jason, you couldn't have said it better. Christians are often confused as to how I tell a difference between right and wrong without a god in my life. To me it makes perfect sense, to such a point that having a god for this purpose is entirely redundant. It is in my personal best interest to cooperate with my neighbors for the good of the whole rather than try to isolate myself and make my personal life great at my neighbors' expense. Funny, though, since the idea of societies cooperating for the good of the whole is mutually exclusive with the American economic policy - kill or be killed. Short sighted and not sustainable.

Holy ****! I loved your references to state constitutions and required belief in a supreme being, etc. Questions it raises - have any of these been struck down as unconstitutional? How many of these instances have already been amended/superseded in the referenced state constitutions? Are there any instances of any elected officials being kicked out of office for their lack of belief? When and when did it last happen?

Nate - appreciate the feedback - I had no idea I was having problems projecting my feelings onto others. Your armchair psychoanalysis is tremendously helpful. Either that or I touched a nerve about the whole hate thing. After all, it is the atheists who define themselves by being against God/gods. Those who define themselves by simply being against something usually don't have much appeal to the broader populus - we prefer people who are FOR something. No wonder they can't make it on Meet the Press . . .

In fact, I would say that atheists are more qualified for public office than those who believe in god. Religious people often cite their belief or faith as a reason to (abdication of responsibility) end a discussion in making a public decision. I do believe decisions made by atheists are more cerebral. I am not talking about atheists like Mao, who traded religion for communism. The Mao-types are just as bad as the fundamentalists.

Saddam is not burning in hell now; he is available wormfood.

Hello. I am technically an agnostic, because I recognize that there is no possible way to disprove or prove the existence of God. However, when I am asked, I usually tell people that I am an atheist, because I do not believe in the necessity of a God for 1) the existance of the universe or 2) the existance of human morality.

Atheists get their ethical sense from millions of years of human evolution. In order to survive as societies, urges to kill, steal, lie, and cheat had to be at least partially stamped out by evolution. Otherwise, humans wouldn't be able to survive together, and we would have gone extinct. So we are all endowed with a moral sense that has been given to us, not by God, but by our evolutionary history.

In some way, this means that atheists get their morality from the same place as religious people. The only difference is that religions codify a set of rules that evolution had already established in the minds of human beings through millions of years of natural selection.

By the way, many studies show that atheists are often more kind and fair than religious people, and are often the better humanitarians. The world's largest philanthropists-- Bill and Melinda Gates, Warren Buffett, and Andrew Carnegie, are all a-religious people. So, we do manage to get some strong ethics and morals, without listening to a God.

The man with his finger on the button that controls the nuclear arsonal that can end life for all is a man who takes literally what some guy thousands of years ago interprited from a conversation with a burning bush (how ironic). That a person with that much power, with that much ignorance to go with it spells disaster for this little planet. Bible literalists really believe the end is on us this generation and the man with the button isn't afraid to facilitate what he deems as destiny.

Mark,

You really need to think things through more carefully. Your statement that:

We're animals, come from animals, and not even on a higher order, essentially. My evidence for this? Humans are the only animals that murder their own species.

is simply false. Ants have nest wars in which the warriors of a given queen ruthlessly attack other nests. Some even enslave other groups. Not pretty, but true.

As to the rest of it I would refer you to the writings of Roger Penrose who worked with Stephan Hawking on mathematical physics. He points out that this universe is proceeding from a more ordered state to a less ordered one. The existence of thermodynamics allowed him to compute a probability that the universe we live originated by chance. It is a very, very, very, small number (~1/(10^(10^123))) . To avoid the conclusion that a creator set things in order, you have to appeal to a multiverse hypothesis in which all possible universes are somehow created and we are in one that supports life so we can observe it from the inside. There no observations supporting that. Thus you are proceeding on faith what has not been seen, and may never be seen. Sound like someone you would say is unreasonable?

Thank God I'm not religious.

To Andrew H-

Remember my friend, God existed long before we did, and He will exist long after us Christians and the others have passed. One day this intellectual discussion about evidence will pass like a summer's night and we will be far away with the Lord. God never said most of the world will be faithful. He said the world is a fallen place. It is not our job to stop it from falling. The course has already been set. You and I are simply here to be a witness to Christ. God will take care of the rest.

Take care and remember this my friends:

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

John 3:16

Dear Mark,

There is enough vituperation going around on this blog for both sides to haved covered themselves ignominy by now, but precious little reasoning.

Your comment:

The vituperative language and ideas on this post come from the religious.

is an Ad Hominem attack on those who differ with you, without a reasoned attempt at refutation.

Wikipedia defines this as:

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument [aimed] at the person", but usually translated as "argument to the man"), is a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by addressing the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself or an argument pointing out an inconsistency between a view expressed by an individual and the remainder of his or her beliefs.

If you know the word vituperous, you can and should do better than ad hominum attacks.

Is this commentary for real? Of course it is not acceptable to enter into office or be a part of this nation's decision makers if you have no belief in God.

Man's logic is doomed to fail. There is only one truth and that is in the Creator. This nation will always be a nation of God. The secular aetheist will lose as they always have.

God Bless our wonderful country.

Dear Susan,

Please note that a diatribe is not the same thing as an argument.

Your unsupported statements like:

Much of what has gone disastrously wrong in American policy, especially foreign policy, in recent years can be attributed to a reliance on blind faith rather than evidence.

are diatribe and not a reasoned argument.

You produce no supporting evidence later in your essay other than some vague reference to a Higher Father being important. The Bush rivalry with his flesh and blood father actually figured more strongly into the actual events, as was extensively reported at the time.

Like it or not, the Iraq incursion involved many factors, such as fear of, or even paranoia about, weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a man who had murdered twenty-five thousand Kurdish men, women, and children in their villages with nerve gas, and bombarded Iranian troop concentrations with these gases in the eight year Iran-Iraq war. There was a, possibly misguided, desire to stabilize the Oil Patch by installing a friendly government there. Then too there were logistical imperatives from placing two-hundred fifty thousand troops on Iraq's borders to compel Saddam to re-admit UN weapons inspectors. Our recently departed ex-president Gerald Ford commented that he thought the Dick Cheney, caught a fever about terrorist attacks after the World Trade Center attacks. None of these factors had anything to do with religious faith, so what you are doing is not reasoning.

If you wanted a lesson in how to reason, I would refer you to recent writings of Pope Benedict who is a master of reasoned argument. I am not a Roman Catholic, so I have no ax to grind in this recommendation. Also, I have been both an Atheist and a Christian at different times in my life, so I have seen both sides of the argument from the inside. Argument is helpful, but diatribe is not.

There are many other similarly fallacious points you have thrown up, but it would take too much space to refute them in detail here, though it would be easy enough.

The vituperative language and ideas on this post come from the religious. That tells one a lot about the closed society and state of closed thought in which they travel. It also tells one why there is so much murder and death in the world: Christian president invades and occupies a country; Islamic terrorists murdering their own people; Catholic doctrine refusal to allow contraceptives in Africa (and elsewhere), where AIDS is a pandemic, etcetera, etcetera. That's the evidence around us day to day. And atheists? Getting on with life, doing something for the community, environment, and the future of reasonable thought.

Richard claims that religions promulgate dogmas about which "nobody is supposed to inquire."

Huh? Untold numbers of scholars and ordinary adherents have inquired into, pondered, probed, examined, explored, dissected, debated, and revised the tenets of major religions for hundreds (indeed thousands) of years.

This illustrates what's so unpersuasive about many atheists' arguments. The religion they oppose is a childish caricature with little resemblance to actual human experience.

Reading the comments to this post -- many of which I think are unnecessarily vituperative -- I'm reminded of a comment Richard Cohen made earlier this week, in the Washington Post. "As we keep learning, the devil is not in the details, it's in our certainty."

I would tend to agree with him (although he was writing about a different issue altogether). Throughout the course of my life I've frequently observed that, as a general rule, the more certain one is about something, the more likely s/he is to be wrong about the very same topic.

Perhaps all of us -- atheist, agnostic, religious, dog-lovers, and others -- could stand to be a little less certain about our own beliefs and a little more open to others' points of view.

Almost every post by a theist here supports the point I made above; the arguments for God's existence are moral in character, not ontological. To Christians it's not mainly factually wrong to not believe in God, it's _immoral_. The problem of course is that nothing ever existed because it was moral for it to do so. That is at best wishful thinking.

I find it humorous that the most well-stated ideas in this discussion - and those that contain the fewest direct insults to others - are made by the atheists and agnostics.

Brad, I'm an atheist who spent the first 18 years of my life passionately following the christian doctrine, only to eventually give up on it because it provided nothing to me. I read the bible, I sat down with my pastor and spoke with him, as well as other church officials, about the many questions that plagued my mind, the most important of which is "Why should I take the initial leap of faith?" Since I never found any reason whatsoever to take such a leap, I spent the two subsequent years removing faith from my life. It was a trying time in which I would sometimes cry myself to sleep in prayer, begging for forgiveness from god for doubting him, though ultimately I allowed reason to control my mind and since then, faith has had no value to my life. In the past years since I declared independence from religion, my life has felt more complete, meaningful and satisfying.

You still say that atheists do not belong in religious discourse? If you think such a thing, why do you continue to get involved in atheist discourse? You accuse me of being genetically mutated, which is the most hilariously absurd thing I've read, and yet you stand to say that I cannot pass judgements about your beliefs?

I also find it funny that you refer to a "god gene" but if someone mentions a "gay gene" you probably scoff. I'm a believer in free speech but I'm also a believer in free thought, one of which you do not employ.

Contrary to some of the comments, the fact is that President Bush is the first president to explicitly include non-believers in the usual litany.

Look at how religion has contributed to the destruction of 'hope' in the middle east.
I hope not to have the 'same' done to life and limb in this country. The US culture is part of the Western Culture, which is, to a great degree, a secular culture. The right want to usurp that and claim it to be a Christian culture.

Atheism is not itself a belief system. This is where God believers confuse themselves and the issue. Atheism is an understanding of God-belief through investigation and determination of the available facts. There is no evidence whatsoever that a God exists. The Bible does not count; it is a religious tract written by humans to yoke humans with laws and, basically, unatainable righteousness. We're animals, come from animals, and not even on a higher order, essentially. My evidence for this? Humans are the only animals that murder their own species.

"Anonymous:
That is not to deny anything we learn from science. We should be grateful for scientific knowledge, but science does not explain everything. Above all it will never satisfactorily explain who we are or why we are here."

Science explains a lot, religion does not explain anything. If it explains, then this 'explain' is a different quality. Religion lives from the 'dogma'. A truth, that nobody is supposed to inquire.

But again, I am not opposed to religion, only do not impose it to the folks that do not want it.

In other words: keep it out of politics, law, government executive. Untamed it turns into disaster.

" andrew h:

Who attacked us on 9/11? Not Christians."

Well then. You've proven your point, God exists.

Pmbster

The author did not focus on the existence or non-existence of god, but on the exclusion of secularists, agnostics and atheists from forums where the influence of religion on public life is discussed, on religious belief being a prerequisite for public office, and on the pitfalls of running public policy based on religious feelings. Another important issue I'd add is the use of tax money paid by secularists as well as religious people for faith-based activities.

Instead, the religious responders by and large focus on the existence or non-existence of god. This will never be settled and is irrelevant to the important issues she raised. And I'm glad these issues are being raised. Secularists are systematically discriminated against in public policy.

And I'd add one comment on the existence of god:
the nonexistence of this entity certainly cannot be proven. And we will never do so. But knowing what we now do about the extent and nature of the universe, the likelihood of an anthropomorphic god with a human likeness that is interested in the everyday affairs and lives, and can have a simultaneous awareness of everything going on in six billion minds, of a minor planet circling a minor star near the edge of an average galaxy among billions of galaxies, is somewhat absurd. And the existence of any god resembling the Jehovah of the bible who created the world several thousand years ago is preposterous. The bible was written by fallible men little different from those who created the mythologies of Greece and Scandinavia. Men who approved of slavery, stoning minor criminals to death and selling one's children to distant buyers. Those of you who put forth religion as a viable outlook would make a lot more sense if you cut yourself loose from this Judeo-Christian nonsense.

But then you are much too smart to take advice from a secularist.

"I agree with Bush..."One Nation Under God". People don't like Bush because he's oposite from Clinton. That's another subject, though."

Really Andrew, you agree with Bush, atheists shouldn't be considered as citizens?

I guess this says all I need to know about you.

andrew h:

"What's happened to this country that if you believe in God and think homosexuality is wrong, you're a bigot. That's passion which we all share.

I believe our goal as Americans should be to preserve the Nation which means raising children and teaching them that they didn't come from a monkey. If we relate ourselves to monkeys, it's easier to justify abortion; ya know, it wasn't human!"

Too bad we are related to monkey!
Ever heard of genes, 99% or so are exactly the same, monkey/man.

Go on, stick your head in the sand.

By the way, this is a nice example that shows the difference between belief and science:

Finally we maybe having a hard time to see the ultimate truth. But on the short term, this being a good example, it demonstrates the 'practical' implications of science vs belief.

I think, therefore, you are wrong---Descartes, sort of----

I'm sure glad there is so much tolerance out there.

For your sake, Howard, I hope you're right!

There have been thousands of religions based on belief in the supernatural, and none have any more evidence in their favor than any other. So, they all have an equal chance of being true -- i.e. miniscule.

Religion is a cultural phenomenon. All human cultures spawn religions and these faiths all have one thing in common -- they claim that all the other faiths are false. The end result is that all these religions just cancel each other out.

What's happened to this country that if you believe in God and think homosexuality is wrong, you're a bigot. That's passion which we all share.

I believe our goal as Americans should be to preserve the Nation which means raising children and teaching them that they didn't come from a monkey. If we relate ourselves to monkeys, it's easier to justify abortion; ya know, it wasn't human!

Ngordon wrote:

“As a person of faith, I have never known God's voice to sound like my own. Usually, when led by God through prayer for guidance, He calls me to do something that I never even thought of.”

That is a refreshing and enlightening perspective, Ngordon. I also should find religion and believe in God… I guess kind of like those Islamic terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center or the Christian terrorists who bombed the Oklahoma City federal building (not to mention the brutal crusades, the Inquisition, and hundreds of examples throughout the history of Christianity). Then “God” could call me to do something that I “never even thought of”… like torture, maim, discriminate…

Bill Maher said it best:

“9/11 was a faith-based initiative.”… gotta love Bill Maher.

Or Steven Weinberg:

“With or without it [religion], you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

I agree with Bush..."One Nation Under God". People don't like Bush because he's oposite from Clinton. That's another subject, though.

There are so many ways to refute evolution (www.apologeticspress.org), yet the voices of the creationist are "slapped" down.

I am 56 years old. Not once in my life have I ever heard a criticism of someone who is an atheist or anyone who shares a similar view point.

you should be old enough to remember this:

George Bush, to a AA reporter Robert I. Sherman in August 27,1987, while serving as vice-president and running for President:

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are Atheists?

Bush:I guess I'm pretty weak in the Atheist community. Faith in god is important to me.

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are Atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens,nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

You mean to tell me you're not afraid of death? You believe that life ends with the last heartbeat? What a sad outlook!

Part of the communication problem between Christians and atheists seems to be that belief or non-belief in God is approached as a _moral_ question by most religious people. Belief in the non-existence of God is not mainly a false belief to them, but an _immoral_ one. It suggests a lack of character, etc. But things either exist in this universe or they don't, quite independently of what we believe. We base our beliefs on whatever evidence and arguments we are aware of, and belief about the existence of something can't possibly be moral or immoral.
It seems exceedingly likely these days that there are no gods, just as there are no trolls or elves. There is no Zeus, there is no Odin, no Shiva or Krishna, and there is no Allah or Jehova or whatever you choose to call him. He's not there. Nothing seems to suggest it. There are many reasons why there is religion everywhere in the world, but the existence of a god or gods is not one of them. And it's no big deal. Changing a false belief does not change the world, it will remain just as it was before.
When you remove the scare tactics, accusations of immorality, and other psychological persecution of dissenters from this old question (which are all really signs of a certain amount of desperation) the answer is simple enough to grasp.

I don't know if it's rational to have people in power who are, well, firm and total believers in what in modern rational terms is simply wacky weirdness.

I recall when James Watt was Secretary of the Interior. Some of his policies -- belief-based policies -- landed him in a Congressional hearing. Someone questioned him about some of his policies. His response was, loosely paraphrased, "if we cut down all of the trees, then Jesus can come again". His outlook, less loosely summarized, was that there was no need nor value in people planning to keep the planet functional forever. After all, it was written that soon would come the Second Coming, and we only had to last that long.

Of course, this is rank madness. Even if we postulate the Second Coming, we have no reliable timetable. If Jesus will return and all of that, it could be a million years from now.

More worrisome for me are the people who support Israel not because they are allies, or because they have family residing there, but the people who support Israel because they want the Temple to be fully rebuilt so that Jesus can come... that last group terrifies me. They might make policy decisions based on their desires and beliefs that no person would make who didn't share those beliefs and desires. I truly believe that there are people who are headed towards the seats of power who would gladly launch a global thermonuclear war if they thought that meant that Jesus would come again.

Comparably, we in the USA today enjoy many many freedoms and while there is significant debate between those who cherish access to those liberties, and those who wish to restrict them of their freedoms on the basis of religious belief, still the hand of Law is strong and the hand of Faith cannot yet override it. Yet I can imagine the horrors many would experience at loss of their freedoms should Irrational Faith rise ascendant over Rationality and Law. I nave no desire to live in a theocracy like Iran, nor do most Americans. Yet for some reason, the people making it past the party nomination conventions seem to be nearly as much interested in bringing about some goal of faith -- perhaps to the doom of the world -- rather than providing good governance and sound administration.

One of the few hopeful countermovements is this "Creation Conservation" movements which I must support, me being a tree-hugging pagan and all of that. James Watt and his attitude worried me greatly, but the Creation Conservation people are the antidote to that. The Scripture which they cite as basis is far more kindly and loving to the planet than is James Watt's choice of inspiration, which cycles around the epic destruction of the human world and everything pertaining to it.

Many things about the JudeoChristian belief system worries me, for example, the deity of Scripture destroys the world once with a flood, destroys an early civilization (Babel) and furthermore destroys human language and divides humanity into thousands of warring factions. Then it makes unreasonable demands and more unreasonable demands, and then according to the Scriptures, only the people who are mad enough to accede to the demands are those who are aided to survive. If that's really history, what seems to be the purpose and intent of this deity? It hardly seems to be the salvation of mankind, but rather his destruction or domestication. Anyone who can think this through logically to that point, and still wishes to do the will of a hostile entity, might rightly be brought to question for their choice of loyalty and sense of morality. Yet those aligning themselves with this historically (if Scripture is history) hostile and even inimical entity, these are the people who seem to make it through the process where they are among the choices for which we may vote. Worrisome indeed. But you can't mention this to people who are "faithful" because there's nothing more dangerous than challenging the central features of a delusional system.

But I don't think we have to worry so much about that anymore. As education becomes more deep as well as widespread, probably more people will come to understand: either Scripture-as-history is a terrifying tale of mankind's domination by a rather hostile ET entity of great power; or, Scripture cannot be history because none of that stuff could have actually happened as it's written. Either way, people are less inspired in their thoughts and actions by what's supposed to have happened thousands of years ago, and they should understand more that in the modern day they have to seek out the facts and come to their own understanding of how things actually are in their world. I'm tempted to suggest that Harlan Ellison's "Shatterday" should be required reading but the religious right wouldn't let that happen.

If people seeking office need to have a "higher power" to keep them honest or humble, it's not necessary that they believe in the JudeoChristian deity, remind them of the concepts of Fate, Doom, or even Reputation In History and they ought to be as restrained.

Regards,

This is in reference to the second comment made, regarding Bush having said he consulted his "Higher Father". I remember my skin crawling when I heard Bush say that. God, or our "Higher Father" NEVER counsels anyone to go to war. It is people such as Bush, who say such assinine
things that have contributed to religious, who would never even think of using God as a way to promote policies that defy human (or better yet... humane) reason, being given a very undeserved negative connotation.

This group needs a humor break.

OK, here it is. Name the 10 Commandments (if you can).
------------------------------------------
Now that you've tried, watch this enlightening episode of Stephen Colbert's show "Know your district" where he interviews congressman Les Westmoreland of Georgia whose primary project is to get the 10 commandments into the house of representatives and the senate and courthouses.

I also think the "do nothingness" piece of the show is of interest.

Keep listening they will get to the important discussion of the 10 commandments.

It's 5 minutes long in total. Well worth the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHedaxBawBs

Get rid of government and you don't have to worry about all this crap in the first place.

"and no matter how free you want think about it, the thought that the universe created itself will always be a self referential absurdity."

Do snowflakes create themselves?

Or are they a product of physical laws that produce snowflakes in certain physical conditions?

My ability for free-thinking allows a natural process to underlie the formation of this universe, the existence of multiverses, multiple dimensions, new universes being created in black-holes etc etc. Even the possibility of it all being a computer simulation. Maybe even, shock-horror, intelligence formed by an evolutionary process underlying this universe.

You're stuck with 'goddidit'.

Neel wrote

"Ms. Jacoby: what is so ridiculous about preferring that a public servant have some notion of a power and order beyond him/herself? This can act as some mild assurance that he or she won't treat the office in an entirely self-serving manner."

It is only ridiculous if a public servant's "notion of a power and order beyond him/herself" is your main or sole deciding factor in voting for him/her. It is normal to choose leaders who share our beliefs. I do it, too. However, it is wrong and dangerous to choose them purely because they share your religious views. Many Americans wantonly ignore the big, difficult issues and vote for their leaders based entirely on who professes their Christian faith the loudest.

Doesn't it strike you that the loudest and most ardent "Christian" leaders of recent years are facing some of the most heinous charges of corruption, bribery scandals, child abuse, etc.?

Look at Mark Foley, Ted Haggard, Tom Delay, Dick Cheney... the list goes on and on.

They abuse their power and commit atrocities because they know that people of faith will blindly vote for them because they are "God's candidates" and ignore all the other issues and red-flags as long as those leaders continue to quote scripture in their speeches and talk about America's Christian supremacy.

That is why it is ridiculous, Neel.

Conservative Christians wonder what happened to the Republican party... destructive and needless wars, corruption and pork-barrel spending to the umpteenth degree, bribery and sex scandals that would make John Gotti blush, the list goes on.

Doesn't it strike you that these scandals arose with the rise of the religious Right in this country and the conservative Christian takeover of all three branches of government?

Can you see now why the Founding Fathers put no mention of "God" into the constitution? Can you see why the federal government forbids a religious test for any oath of office?

Religion and politics don't mix because politicians will feed on people's hatred, fears, and ignorance for their own political goals... quoting scripture alon the way to placate "value" voters.

Don't forget that the vast majority of Christians in this country supported the invasion of Iraq. After all, George Bush was God's president, so it must be right... especially since he spoke to God about it first, right? Look at the results, three years on...

I repeat your quote, Neel:

"Ms. Jacoby: what is so ridiculous about preferring that a public servant have some notion of a power and order beyond him/herself? This can act as some mild assurance that he or she won't treat the office in an entirely self-serving manner."

Do you really feel that way now, Neel?

Re: Emm:

'like the church song from my youth says, “they will know we are Christians by our love”. All the talking in the world will not convince anyone they are Christian. Being loving, kind, compassionate and peaceful will speak loudly enough.'

Why are the virtues of love, kindness, compassion, and peace exclusive to Christianity?

Why are they exclusive to religion? There are many secular moralities that advocate - or result in the embracement of - these virtues.

Given this, how can non-believers tell that someone is a Christian just by his exemplification of these virtues?

Atheists reduce love to a "biochemical reaction" — and then wonder why people find the concept of atheism so cramped and repulsive. A mother's love for her child has a reality beyond biochemical reactions or evolutionary imperatives.

That is not to deny anything we learn from science. We should be grateful for scientific knowledge, but science does not explain everything. Above all it will never satisfactorily explain who we are or why we are here.

Is there such a thing as an atheist who truly loves poetry? How could that be, since they are so literal-minded and materialist? They must be so miserable. No wonder they're angry.

I typically keep my mouth shut when it comes to religious belief. I've learned that confessing my lack of religion to others almost invariably produces discomfort in the person with whom I am conversing. It puzzles me how many people of faith are threatened by the fact that some of us can lead happy, fulfilled lives without a religious anchor.

The subject at hand is whether atheists suffer discrimination. I can't claim to be an atheist, that level of certainty about the nature of the universe would be presumptuous of me. However, I do believe that religion is a human invention that has little, if anything, to do with the true nature or intentions of any hypothetical creator. On the few occasions when I've ventured to share my thoughts, they typical reaction of believers, regardless of religion, ranges from raised eyebrows to suspicious looks to (well-meant, I suppose) attempts to set me straight. As a non-believer, I expect judgemental tolerance at best.

Consider this: When Michael Newdow argued befor the Supreme court in 2004 that his daughter should not be required to say the Pledge of Allegiance because of the phrase "under God" he remarked that no atheist could be elected to public office in the United States. The audience cheered, clearly because those present believed this was how things ought to be. Is that evidence of bias?

Sidebar - The Pledge of Allegiance survived its first half-century without those two words. Apparently those of us who are non-believers should be denied our ability allegiance to this country unless we also confess a belief we do not hold. Is that truly what my country demands of me?

So I'll pose a question to readers. Do you honestly believe that an atheist or agnostic could be elected President of the United States? How about as a Senator? How about to the House of Representatives or governor? Would you vote for one of us?

"Free thinkers"! Here again the atheistic arrogance exudes. Implying that only those who don't believe in God are free to think or think freely is borderline offensive. Or to say that to appeal to ones faith is only to justify the unreasonable is in itself unreasonable. There are absolutes that no amount of "free thinking" can change. There is justice and injustice, there is good and evil, 2+2 will always be 4, and no matter how free you want think about it, the thought that the universe created itself will always be a self referential absurdity.

Susan is not correct that you need to be overtly religous to be elected to a prominent position in America. She draws the line incorrectly - the line is just short of atheism. It's OK to not wear your religion on your sleeve, as Hillary Clinton and John McCain and most other politicians don't. She is correct to say you can't be an atheist, of course, as this is an extreme position in the other direction and implies knowledge about the supernatural that I, for one, don't have and don't understand.

Before 1964, the religious right was the political center. It is the victory of athiests in getting prayer excluded from public school that created the religious right, along with the 1973 legalization of abortion. Take away abortion and give back school prayer and the religious right will vanish. If she wants to run and be elected as an athiest, she could run as a Communist. They're very devout. Otherwise, who's going to vote for her when they can vote for a religious hypocrite like themselves?

Klaatu,

vey nice post. And I guess everybody will be able to adapt what you put out in regards to Jesus, his teachings.

The reality of the Evangelicals, however, seems to be much more attached to the teachings of the Old Testament, which displays quite a different story, a God of revenge and violence. Jesus' virtues do not really seem to be appreciated that much.

That is one part.

The other part is: it's to a critical part about political power. The Christians in this country (very many) want to impose their world view, their law on everybody, even though the constitution clearly steers clear of that. And if that is relating back to Old Testamenary rules, then I get the scares.

Here lies the real danger.

Anybody might want to believe what he wants, but he may not impose that to me.

Are ya'll afraid to deal with this issue too?

What's the difference between having relations with a man verses an animal? They're both unnatural!

I find birds attractive too!

We haven't given thought to other religions because this is America, not the Middle East or Russia!

Why can't I marry my dog? We love each other and we're in a committed relationship?

What I find most curious is that nobody seems to have given much serious thought or discussion to "alternative religions" such as Zoroastrianism, Jainism, Shinto, or even Confucianism as sources of "moral certitude" which might be as good as any others.

The Romans, for example, had a morality different from that of the Jews or the Christians -- as did the earlier Greeks and other independently-arising civilizations.

Also, it will be interesting to see how the public debate is shaped as more people become aware of various NeoPagan faiths -- some of which aren't exactly faiths but more worldviews. The various NeoPaganisms are taken together the fastest-growing religious group in the States and possibly in many other places as well.

Christianity may in some ways be shooting itself in the foot, as it were, in any case where it fails to adapt to the advance of the rest of civilization. Other religions, for example Buddhism, take to science quiet well, with much of the process of science matching quite well with the Buddhist belief in cause and effect.

Where Christianity starts to fall down badly is when a certain level of devotion in a certain sector of the Faithful seems to prevent acceptance of, much less adaptation to, reality as others understand it. Religions should be a moral guide, rather than a prescription for a worldview which might have been perfectly good in the world in which it was formed, but which becomes divorced from the world of the present in which the beliefs of the past become dysfunctional (or delusional) in the modern day.

I'm NeoPagan, not Wiccan or anything anyone might have heard of in the news. Most people might think I'm atheist or agnostic because I deny any knowledge of the nature of any creator or supreme being, and I certainly deny that I am in communication with any such entity or entities. Rather, in my mindset, the universe itself is suffused with divinity, the creation and creator coexisting and each partaking of and informing the other. To know the nature of the creation is to know the intent of the creator (and the universe may be continually self-creating), and the best way we have to know the nature of the creation is the application of science to the end of uncovering all that it is possible for us to learn about all of creation. Rather a large task, but rather than a daunting one, a holy calling.

I do share with the Wiccans, and some other groups, that two very good phrases can provide the foundations of profound and complex moral systems: "as you would have others do unto you, do unto them" and "if it will result in no harm, do as you will". Of course, these are the steppingstones into reams of debate; "if it harms none" requires one to spend a lot of time investigating the possibilities for harm, if one is to be scrupulous and non-cavalier about that injunction. A good guide to whether an action should be permissible may generally be found in the Law as passed by vote after the debates of elected officials; vast amounts of law hinges on the concept of harm and action or inaction. This isn't to say that the Law is the final authority or that it must be followed blindly; Justitia is blind, after all, and after all it is the jury that must guide her or the law could be followed without justice being done.

I'd be happy to point you to all of the writings of the great Deists among the Founding Fathers but probably most people here have already read Jefferson and know how to find the rest. But I digress.

I suppose I should return and conclude that "faith" versus "atheism" is far more complex than most would have it, as it is generally discussed in terms of Christian v. Atheist. But I must briefly continue.

I'm no Christian but I do have Faith, mostly that gravity will hold me to earth's surface as firmly tomorrow as it has done today. I flatly don't believe for a minute that a someone died, as in actually died and their heart stopped and they had cessation of brainwaves, and then rose from the dead to preach for a while and then ascend bodily into heaven. It's not possible in the world I inhabit, at least it's not possible for the best of our modern scientists and it sure wasn't possible for medics in the year 30 CE. But I have faith in most of the message Jesus was preaching, as he preached against the corruption of the temple and the moneylenders and the priests, and he preached sensible cooperation and friendmaking rather than insurrection against an impossibly overwhelming occupying power. It's not necessary for anyone to believe in the legend of Jesus, to be able to be inspired by his morality, compassion, and sacrifice.

Which then, should be the test for qualifying for public office, whether someone believes without reservation in the divinity and resurrection of the Christ, or that they understand and agree with the content and importance of the fullness of the teachings of Jesus the Nazarene, as they have come down to us?

I submit that we are more likely to get good governance and administration from someone who understands Jesus's message but who doesn't believe in his divinity, than we are likely to get good governance and administration from someone whose faith is unshakeable but whose comprehension of the message is lacking.

Regards to all, from a different kind of "believer".

...and the we'll marry cats!

Religion is for scared cavemen/alcoholics who can't internalize enough science and logic to come up with clear picture of humans' role in the universe. At best religion is fear, at worst it's lunacy. Religion is the biggest threat to humanity, but not the earth. The earth will keep spinning long after we are gone and there will be cockroaches everywhere. The sad thing is, there will only be a few sterile humans around in the end to realize this, and it will be far too late. The grand irony of this all is that perhaps religion is what got humans through the tough times to where we are today (not AS tough), yet in the end will cause the ultimate curtain to close on this scene of evolution. Please prove me wrong, and just wake up.

" DW:

Ancient Rome dumped religion too. Sadly, as seen in the majority of messages here, our society follows. ."

Well, actually Constantine adopted Christianity, if recall correctly.

And then it turned to become most ferocious.

The standard story: religion, abused by power.

We have a president that directly talks to God, these days.

Soon we'll be able to marry our dogs, too!

We all have faith; the direction of that faith depends on the individual.

On one hand, there are the religious that place their ideas in a "higher power," that believe by positive action within society, society as a whole will benefit, and seek to affirm their ideas by demonizing, dismissing, or dehumanizing those that are atheists.

On the other hand, there are the athetists that place their ideas in "truth," "science," and "proof" that believe by positive action within society, society as a whole will benefit, and seek to affirm their ideas by demonizing, dismissing, or dehumanizing those that are religious.

Intelligence has nothing to do with religion or atheism; a person of either faith can retain a great deal of facts.

If you are not trying to convert someone to a belief, then why do you dismiss, dehumanize, and demonize what they do believe in? Making someone "feel bad" doesn't register on most moral codes, religious or not.

The post earlier that said people vote based off of what they know, that was true. No one is going to vote into office a person that uses their position of power to treat them rudely. The religious and atheists both do it, but the religious have the majority.

But to go a step further, atheism is a critical point in Marx and Engels' works. Communism is not something with which most Americans wish to affiliate themselves even after the "red scare" fiasco. The lesson there is that the big communist experiment of the 20th century failed because humans are instinctively greedy, whether they were religious or not.

As with all of our elections, it's the "devil you know" in a religious candidate versus "the devil you don't know" in atheism.

When I can sit at home and read a rational argument for an atheist candidate whose views don't insult the religious, then I'll consider voting for that candidate.

However, since most people here prefer to flame their detractors, I'll not hold much hope that the message will be heard by anyone.

I read Susan Jacoby's book :Freethinkers and really appreciated the historical view on our Founding Fathers and their view on mythology. I think the stigma of atheists being immoral is falling by the wayside but it takes generations for this to happen. As women, blacks and gays were shun there will be a day soon where most Americans don't care if you believe but in how you act.
TXatheist
md457@hotmail.com

Never mind Tim Russert - CNN as a network could easily be mistaken for a religious organization. I've quit tuning in to their supposed news channel entirely because of their continuous RELIGIOUS (don't give me that "faith-based" nonsense) programming.

Ancient Rome dumped religion too. Sadly, as seen in the majority of messages here, our society follows. Time is short. Not only prophetic (emphasis not mine..but scripture written centuries ago), but reality. Read history with an open mind. None of the stages of mans enlightenment thru the millenia has saved him from himself. Think about it.

That's fine if you don't believe...you're not hurting me, just yourself.

Why can't you guys understand that America is a God fearing nation? With distorting the historical facts, revisionist are constantly attackinf family values; hence the comments about socialism (i.e., teachings of Karl Marx.

You think education is being in not believing. Sooth yourself, but there will be a judgement whether people accept it now or latter. That's fine, I'm judgemental. I guess most are.

Pagan,

Pagans hold fast to a 'religion' too. In your estimation, are they having the same problems as Christians?

Andrew:
You are like too many religious ideologs who lay out their issues, pronounce their judgjement, intimidate with passages from the bible, threaten damnation because someone does not believe as you and all in the name of your god.

Then cut and run avoiding the questions and discussions by changing the topics or making an irrelevent and off topic new statements.

This is frustrating behavior long since turned me off and feel that is why most people have dumped religion. We no longer want to be sheep.

GWF

Andrew H -
Do you think Christians are better than other religious types? Do you think the bible is the word of God? Are you reading and following the teachings of your bible? Here are a few tips about children and child-rearing from the bible, courtesy of www.skepticsannotatedbible.com that I trust you follow in order to be a good Christian:

What the Bible says about Children

Children who refuse to obey their parents must be executed.

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. -- Deuteronomy 21:18-21

He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. -- Exodus 21:15

He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. -- Exodus 21:17

Children who mock their parents will have their eyes plucked out by ravens and eaten by eagles.

The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it. -- Proverbs 30:17

Like Abraham, parents should be willing to kill their children for God.

And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and ... offer him there for a burnt offering.... And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. -- Genesis 22:2,10

God killed all the firstborn children in an entire country.

The LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon.... And there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead. -- Exodus 12:29-30

Sometimes God kills children for misbehaving.

And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them. -- 2 Kings 2:23-24

Someday God will force parents eat their own children.

And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat. -- Leviticus 26:16

And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat. -- Leviticus 26:29

And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters. -- Deuteronomy 28:53

And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend. -- Jeremiah 19:9

And then there's this statement, which could only be found in the Bible:

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. -- Psalm 137:9

Please don't hand me any of that "interpretation-of-the-bible-in-view-of-the-time-it-was-written" crap. Do you think that all the religious inbreds down South in red (neck) America understand nuance, context and history when it comes to the writings in "the good book?" Not on your life. Check out the bumper sticker: "The Bible said it. I believe it. That's that." The bible is simply a collection of old stories from superstitious and violent people who lived in a confusing world without the benefit of science and alternative forms of entertainment, such as television. Religions are created when some narcissistic nutjob believes he has heard the revealed word of god. Check out the history of the Mormons for a well-documented example in modern times. I'll take Christians and their dogma seriously once I see more ravens plucking and eaglets feasting on the eyes of mocking children. Now where did I put that pile of stones...

Geez, Brad is real moron.

Posted on December 28, 2006 17:10

Helena Montana:

I hope you can re-subscribe. Mans representation
will always have flaws. That is why Christ died for our sins. Embrace all of the 10 commandments again..for they will bring peace of mind while others find reasons to get around them. Even the Sabbath. It is still the same...only changed by man to another day of the week. History shows that. Just dont let man get in the way. See others faults, forgive and go forward. That is what Christ did and taught. If we all did that..what a better world we would have.

The greatest freedom of religion is freedom from religion.

Phil:
"It all seems simple to me. A belief system MUST start with a set of axioms, i.e. a collection of consistant statements which are assumed to be true. For example, there is a god; god created the earth, etc. Each religion has a different set of axioms. An atheist has a set of axioms. An axiom is a statement that cannot be proven. It is assumed to be true. One may criticize anothers axioms, but cannot claim one set is more TRUE than another."

Well, we also have this little complication known as empirical data. Axiomatic, abstract systems of thought is what mathematicians deal with, but then again mathematicians don't make any claims about the world. Religions do. The existence of god(s) is an empirical claim, like it or not (there either is one or there isn't). Of course it can be challenged. Of course an axiom can be more or less well-founded.

Atheism, on the other hand, doesn't assume anything at all; it has no "axioms". Quite the opposite. It's the LACK of a particular assumption. Atheism is simply a straightforward application of Occam's razor.

Just a quick response to EMM's comment (which was the first one posted).

I'll quote below:

"I’ve written elsewhere on this forum that, like the church song from my youth says, “they will know we are Christians by our love”. All the talking in the world will not convince anyone they are Christian. Being loving, kind, compassionate and peaceful will speak loudly enough."

So, if you were to come across someone who was loving, kind, compassionate and peaceful, do you automatically assume they are christian? I hope not. But, simply stating what you did shows a predisposition to making that assumption.

Now, am I an atheist or christian? Nope, I'm not arrogant enough to claim to know if there is a 'higher' power or not. It's a question to ask but it doesn't really matter what answer you come up with. You live next door to your neighbor; that seems way more important to me.

The wind blows where it wants to blow just as the Spirit of God does. What you believe is what you believe. No one person on this earth can change what you believe. If you don't believe in God why would a person discriminate against you? Why would you choose to discriminate against believers? The fact of the matter is people by nature are just haters. And no one but God, not your father, mother, sister, brother, or you, can change that. Just look and see how we treat each other. Forget religion, how about skin color Susan? What about fat people verses skinny people or male verses female or the haves verses the have nots. Stop crying to people like your faith is in them and try crying to God and see if your faith belongs there. If is doesn't then move on, but stop crying...if you can. Jesus faith was not in man, but in God. No wonder He said Father forgive them for they know not what they do. Place your faith where it belongs. It does not belong in Tim Russell or anybody else for that matter because if they fail you, you will fall right along with them because your eyes are on the wrong thing or in the wrong place. As A child, I couldn't even trust my mother or father to take care of me, but I still loved and honored them. What happens if I fail somebody? I'm sure I have. And although I love (agape) my fellow brethen unconditionally, my trust is where it should be, its in the Lord. I stop crying about man's failure a long time ago when I found the Truth. Now I cry about Hope to those who need it and pray that I don't waste my time with those who say they don't.

Atheism, by definition, is disbelief in the existence of a deity (supreme being). Mankind, as a whole, seems to individually tout their own supremecy (ie 'my views are the right views') - individuals over other individuals, groups over other groups. This proclivity seems to cross over all lines- atheists, believers in God, etc. The major difference is that atheists seem to put their trust in and rely on mans evolution into being, now, 'enlightened', whereas believers in God generally put their trust into the one they see as creator of the universe (not really hard to do when a mortal man can sit at a desk or workbench and design and create something...how puny some are to think that couldnt happen on a grander scale). I would rather trust in the latter...for 'enlightened' mankind is sinking deeper and deeper into an immoral cesspool that has ruined civilizations in the past. Amazing when you read about blessed civilizations were that held God in esteem, and then (relatively) quickly sank into oblivion when they forget Him. Its not a coincidence my friends. Think about it.

I think it's pointless for us to argue about these issues...especially when we're as passionate about our subjects as we are.

This is why America is great: we can have differing views and continue to live.

Have a safe New Year!

ANDREW..oh do you mean those beautiful human beings created in the likeness of god? With all the Whitehouse lies how do we know they were muslim?

The people who attacked Iraq without provacation were xains from the Whitehouse.
Iraq did not attack us.

So who are you BLAMING?

I'm not going to go into the logical contradictions and barbarism of Christianity (slavery, subjugation of women, chosen peoples vs infidels, etc). That has been beaten into the ground already by people smarter than me.

I will say this, however. I grew up in rural Alabama, and it was that experience that led me to find the "faith" of Christians so lamentable and dangerous today. Embracing facts and leaving the yoke of religion behind has made me freer, happier, more tolerant, and a better person, parent, and friend.

That god doesn't exist is not hard to see if you look carefully at the "faith" of Christians. Trust your eyes and see through the b.s. You could see it in people's faces at youth group meetings and church events. Some visiting pastor would get on stage and tell us that god "talked" to him for hours last night and he kept telling god, "I want to sleep, Lord!" Everyone would laugh as they were supposed to... but it was an eerily uncomfortable laughter. They obviously had never had god "talk" to them and certainly not keep them up at night with conversation (because deep in their hearts, they knew he didn't exist), but they were confused. Maybe that was what was supposed to happen? Maybe they weren't faithful enough?

For me, enlightening moments are those like the coal miner tragedy in West Virginia that really cement god's non-existence. I know you all saw that in the news. A bunch of poor, innocent, simple people with a great deal of faith in god prayed all day and night for days to save the miners. Then an official from the coal mine entered their holy, simple church and declared that the miners were all safe. The churchgoers leapt and wept and sang songs of praise and shouted god's glory all night long.

Then the next morning, the terrible truth... the official was wrong. They were all dead. The looks on the those peoples' faces was priceless... and tragic. How could god play such a cruel joke on them? Easy...

God doesn't exist, so it wasn't a cruel joke. It was just bad luck.

And all the pseudo-philosophical nonsense of people like Mr. Bradfield above who are trying to use flowery language to twist the debate up in a pretzel to the point that you forget what you're really arguing about (then they claim victory because you are so baffled) can't hide the fact that believing in a Christian god makes as much sense as believing in the "Berenstain's Bears Christmas Adventure" as holy truth. Utter nonsense... that often has tragic results.

"red fox:

To: The the religious and non-religious,

I happened upon this thread by accident, but found it interesting. It is very clear that any intelligent debate is quickly snuffed out by bigots on both sides. Most of you come on here and try to prove each other wrong and it degrades and degrades and just becomes disgusting. Shows a lot of insecurity and intolerance on all sides. You people focus on what makes us different instead of what makes us similar, and you just can't get past it."

I don't think from a viewpoint of the atheists that is correct:

I think what atheists finally do want to prevent (and you see a couple of posts that bring up related statements with respect to public employment for atheists) is a domination of polictics and political and govennmental power by hardcore believers (Christians, in this case, but all other religions included).

What they want to prevent is a state that is no longer free for people to belief what they want. With all its consequences.

I must say I am very scared if I hear that the president of this country consults with Robson& company. I am very scared when he claims he consults with God.

I actually think that people in this country pray too much and don't use their brainpower enough.

Atheists are much more modest. They do not claim to have divine revelations, they have to judge and decide day by day based on their conscience, not on the 'support' or rules by a higher being.

An atheist's life is much harder.

My what a lot of opinions there are here, and most on both sides are fairly poorly reasoned. I myself am not an atheist, but I wish to respond to some of the unfair criticisms and arguments against non-religiosity above.

As Ms. Jacoby points out, whether or not God exists is at this point not the most productive debate - it has been going on for thousands of years and is unlikely to be settled soon. But I find the bias against atheism inherent in so many of the comments above, so I wish not to prove that God doesn't exist (impossible), but to convince you that we should respect the view point that there is no God, or that there might not be a God. And conversely that there may be a God.

Start with the observation that there are billions of people in the world, and billions more that have lived and died on earth over the course of history. The majority of these are/were not people who believe in a montheistic God. There are entire advanced civilizations, with long traditions of philosophy, that have never considered the possibility of one supreme being, and there are many places in the world that even now, after long exposure to the idea of monotheism, still have very few people who ascribe to this belief.

This of course does not make these other belief systems right or wrong, but it should give us humility in asserting that monotheism is correct. There are many many very bright people who have made the argument for God, and just as many who have made the argument for a worldview without God, and it takes a lot of hubris to believe that you are smarter than all these folks, no matter how convincing you find your argument. I read through most of the arguments above, and I did not find any of them convincing.

In particular, the idea that science is opposed to religion was taken as a presupposition in many of the arguments, and so any fault of science was seen as a vindication of religion. The opposition is a fallacy. Science was considered part of religion for most of its history, and there are many religious scientists today. More importantly, even if they are opposed, arguing against one does not prove the other.

Let's clarify "science" a bit - I think any scientist who tells you science gets at Truth is wrong (though some do make the claim). Science is, essentially a series of observations about the world we live in, put into a framework of belief that is based on other observations. The framework changes over time, and we can clearly say now that many frameworks from the past were wrong or inaccurate. In all likelihood, to a greater or lesser degree, the same will apply to our current frameworks. But the observations were not wrong, and over time the changes to the framework have gotten smaller and more particular.

That is the nature of science. As a scientist (yes, I am one), I can never prove that God did not create the world 6000 years ago, planting fossils and rock strata and distributing species and genes to make it look just as if evolution occurred. Maybe God did this to test the faith of people like me. No scientist can touch that question.

All we can say is, based on the rock strata and fossils, based on the genes and the distribution of different species in different places, it looks as if evolution happened pretty much just as Darwin described it. And if you don't believe that, I challenge you to examine all those things and, without pulling in a priori assumptions about the supernatural, suggest a better explanation. If you do, your career in science is made - that's how science works.

What we scientists must remember, though, is that because the evidence we can observe points in one direction doesn't mean that direction is Truth. We can never know that. Science proceeds not because it is Truth, but because it is useful - it gives us technology, and more efficient agriculture, and medicine. These things work, whether or not they are based on "True" principles.

So please, don't go about thinking you can prove God's existence just because science can't disprove it. Any good scientist knows that (and Dawkins is not a good scientist - he gets very little respect among evolutionary biologists).

And although I am not an atheist, I am definitely not religious. I do, however, have a strong moral code derived from a-religious origins. I live my life more morally than most "Christians" I've met, and my career is devoted to alleviating the suffering of the poor. I am not claiming I am great (I am not), but I am sick, frankly, of hearing religious people claim that there can be no morality without religion. Go out and meet som atheist humanists and you will be convinced otherwise. Some are not moral, some are, just like among Christians.

AHH another Definition Confusion attempt..

Religious Beliefs and Scientific Theories.
NO matter what you do they cannot be interchanged.
OH yes you can exchange the words.

BUT in reality there is no such thing as a Scientific Belief and there is no Religious Theory. AS neither would ever be able to move forward.

When you use facts and evidence to prove a belief it becomes a Theory. Belief falls apart.

Belief is acceptance of an idea without facts.

Thank you, Lisa.

Stop the bigotry. Open your minds.

Anyone with any belief can be a great public servant.

Those who don't profess supernatural beliefs (or at least check them at the door) are actually more likely to do a better job.

"How can you look at the human body and say there is no God?"

Oh dear. You haven't seen many naked bodies, have you Andrew? Heck, you should see mine. Not only did it come into existence disproportinate and covered with eczema; it's not even functioning properly. Never did. If this vile thing is the image of God, I wonder if the Almighty also suffers from chronic lower back pains, migraine and stomach cramps. Is His hairline also receding? Does He have occational, um, you know, technical problems downstairs? Man, this religion thingy really makes you think, doesn't it?

It all seems simple to me. A belief system MUST start with a set of axioms, i.e. a collection of consistant statements which are assumed to be true. For example, there is a god; god created the earth, etc. Each religion has a different set of axioms. An atheist has a set of axioms. An axiom is a statement that cannot be proven. It is assumed to be true. One may criticize anothers axioms, but cannot claim one set is more TRUE than another.

Who attacked us on 9/11? Not Christians.

What's the problem that Tim Russert has? On this issue, he's not as good a journalist as he might be, and on this issue, that's fine with him. Too bad, and disappointing.

It's not only Christian religion that is a "must" in getting elected in the U.S. today, it's also (the image you can create of) the most intimate details of your personal self--as son, husband, father, wife, mother, daughter, etc. We have met the enemy and s/he is--voters who think like People Magazine!

My favorite bumper sticker:

"Religion: an Unnecessary Evil"

Here's how to look at the human body and not believe in God. I can look at the appendix, a useless organ that occasionally bursts and kills people, and conclude that god doesn't exist or care about humans. How about the sinuses? - Sinus drain really well if you walk on all fours. This upright walking thing leads to painful infections. Same gig with your back - made for all fours, doesn't work so well upright. So how did an omniscient god make these basic mistakes when designing the human body?

Andrew.. why don't you get off your lazy butt and go talk to a Muslim. You will find them easy to talk to if you do not hit or shoot them.

To the "Blog Hogs"- Give it a Rest!!!!

With respect to John 3:17-19 : As per Professor Crossan in his book The Historic Jesus, this passage was not of the historic Jesus but a later embellishment. http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf 350-. Jesus to Nicodemus: (1) John 3:11-21;

Item: 359
Stratum: II (60-80 AD/CE)
Attestation: Single (not found in any other scriptural source)
Historicity: Negative

Notice the phrases "religious beliefs" and "scientific theories" in the above posts can be easily interchanged?

Few comments...

I have never understood the idea that someone needs to believe in some kind of brutal disciplinarian-in-the-sky to live a life of compassion and caring for humanity. I only needs to be aware that pain and suffering are a part of sentience and as a pain-feeling sentient being myself, act accordingly to preventing pain in others.

I know.the counter argument..."but humans are innately sefish, so a fear of god is needed to keep them in line." But this whole belief in "innate selfishness" is largely just a necessary belief in our current economic system, earlier and existing tribal, (and hopefully future) cooperative societies would find such a notion of innate selfisness to be foreign.

All the poeple I have met who work the hardest against, war, violence, and greed - from people like Zinn or Chomsky to the staff at my local peace and justice center, are for the most part, agnostic.

I am like some other commenters. I deeply appreciate the non-theistic spirituality of Buddhism (the First Noble Truth - "sentient beings suffer" - was mentioned above). But, I never understood why someone needs to believe in some kind of unseen being guiding human affairs - do they also believe in ghosts?

At the same time I can see how humans can turn to religion when times get hard. I do not believe in heaven, but I have lately been thinking that believing in hell could provide me with a lot of consolation right now, knowing that in the end, characters like Bush might not get away with murder after all :)...

Hi,
I'm an atheist, just to get that right out there for people who think there would be some reason to dodge it. Much of this discussion, though predictable, is depressing. Among the most disheartening types of posts are these two: 1)attempts to prove why one point of view is impossible while the other is unavoidable (pick your side, roll out your precious and usually complicated reasoning, and prove to no one but yourself that you have it all figured out) and 2) assertions that one side or the other would be fine if they would refrain from trying to force their point of view on others. Having gone through a lot of No. 1 posts, no.2 is very tempting - but so often, you hear someone say no. 2 to another who has IN NO WAY expressed a desire to influence; simply expressing (or declining to conceal) a point of view evokes this comment, which leads me to conclude that the commenter is threatened, and apparently simply because they cannot comprehend the point of view they've encountered. This attitude is prominent, generally unacknowledged and quite pitiful.

CLEARLY atheism and theism are diammetrically opposed viewpoints, and they are both here to stay; why struggle so hard to somehow resolve them to each other or eliminate one or the other? That's why Tolerance with a capital T is such a challenge - tolerance DOESN'T include swaying, excusing or even understanding the other side - just letting it alone and treating all with respect. Is that hard for you? Are you thinking up reasons why tolerance isn't so? Stop. Stretch yourself - and just try it some time.

I honestly don't think a muslim is good for America. How many Muslims are standing up against the beheadings?

It happens every election. That's why he can say it.

Is it not interesting that many religious fundamentalists hold the same bitter opinion and prejudices about other religions, gays and atheist AND even other sects within their own religion. All in the name of a god.

andrew h:

How can you look at the human body and say there is no God?

Totally off point.

How can you look at a human being, who otherwise meets all constitutional requirements for office, and say you won't vote for that person solely because of a difference in religious beliefs?

ANDREW SAYS:
How can you look at the human body and say there is no God?

One look at your naked self.
(oh what a terrible sight that would be)
We would know there was no god.

This thing about making religion part of the qualification for a job is not special for the USA. You will find the same requirement in other fundamentalist states like Iran. The view on capital punishment is also the same: An eye for for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. During the execution of Saddam Hussein the Iranian and the American president will hold hands and rejoice. Sweden seems fairly civilized at times. No wars for 200 years and no executions for almost a hundred.

I think most of us heathen non-believers would leave an infinitesimal chance that there is some creator. Beyond that, there is an even slighter chance that Chrisitianity got the God as creator thing right. We need to go through life without certainty and that is uncomfortable for all of us, especially most religious folks. But discomfort is no reason to believe in anything...it can result in some crazy beliefs. We rational people 'believe' in only one thing: the will to question. All else is uncertain. And that's something that people need to become comfortable with...and realize that this lack of belief is no reflection on morality. Back to the original discussion, we non-believers will hold public office when the majority of Americans come to their senses (I'm thinking in decades to centuries time scale). For our children's future, I hope it happens sooner rather than later.

Hugh:

Thanks for your hateful comments. Your contempt for those who don't share your narrow views makes you no diffrerent than any other ignorant funadamentalist.

Humanity is the most beautiful thing...created by God.

To Duane Bass,

It's exactly the reverse. Your post proves my point clearly. Your mind is closed against those who do not profess your belief.

Religions have dogmas precisely to close people's minds.

Lack of a belief in your God does not mean a mind closed to all concepts of higher intellect, including a truly large one (as in typical God concepts) in the universe.

In my experience with many non-believers, I've found them to be the most open-minded people imaginable. They're willing to consider just about any position. Most have struggled with the idea of God for many, many years before deciding that it doesn't matter or isn't rational or whatever their reason is.

I would vote for the non believer with an open mind

Religion is one of the true evils in this world, think of the lives lost in holy wars and other horrible acts committed by people in the name of religion or who claim to be religious. Humanity is the most beautiful and respectable thing. Live your life for this world and it's people, that way maybe you'll get to the next world.

Great point James Bass!

How can you look at the human body and say there is no God?

I agree with Ms. Jacoby about Tim Russert and his promoting Christianity using religious bigots.

I used to watch Meet the Press every Sunday since its inception. Lately, the fanatic guests and their promotion of the Pope and Christianity have become too boring. I hope NBC kicks this bum out!

It looks like there's an easy way out of jury duty in Maryland as long as you're willing to declare your atheism:

"nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefore either in this world or in the world to come."

Of course this wording seems to be requiring God to be unforgiving. Can a state constitution be binding on God?

There are good reasons for not voting for a athiest and number one on the list is I would not vote for a narrow minded person. Believing in God requires an open mind. Not believing in God requires a closed mind. Which would you vote for?

Peace, Duane Bass

Iam no longer a FOX sucquer.

In answer to the original question, there should be no religious tests of any kind for public office. If an elected official commits high crimes and misdemeanors while in office, it doesn't matter whether the official was motivated by his or her own desires or by the dictates of his or her religious beliefs.

I'm going to Fox news where the true Americans are!

OK, it's hard out there for an atheist:

Mississippi at least is concise: "No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state."

I kind of like the specificity and breacth of Pennsylvania: "No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth."

And sadly there are others. See http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/StateConstitutions.htm

ANDREW:
Answer the questions!
Which Jesus Christ are you talking about?
Which ONE god are you talking about?

It's all cool as long as you don't force others into your belief structure.

Our country's founders chose freedom of belief, not of religion. Belief includes polytheism and atheism. Religion requires an institution. Freedom of religion only (and not of belief) would require that all people belong to one of these institutions, and that is what has happened here regarding qualifications for public office.

It is this latter issue, not existence of God (or gods) or of a particular God image or value of a given religion or any of the other topics above that Ms. Jacoby's column addresses, IMO.

Is there any rational reason to exclude someone from higher office in a secular state for religious reasons. The Constitution says, "No!"

Yet this bigotry persists along with that against various minorities. Until 1960, it included Catholics. JFK's margin of victory would have been much greater were he an Episcopalian rather than a Catholic.

I believe that we'll have a black lesbian President before we have an atheist President because of the incredible bigotry of our population.

I would like to see a rational dialog about why this bigotry exists. An atheist may well be more moral, more ethical, more family oriented, more compassionate, and more inclusive of the variety of peoples in our country than the average (or even the above-average) voter. You'll never know if you exclude this person on the basis of "faith" alone.

Our greatest hope and best future in this century could well reside in the person of a "non-believer." We'll never know unless we give up our prejudices, open our minds and follow the teachings of our great philosophers -- including Jesus who taught us tolerance in numerous ways.

IMO, no real Christian should be a bigot. So doing is an afront to your saviour who accepted the lepers, the Samaritans, and others who were excluded from the society of his day.

Let's stamp out xenophobia and open up our society to those whose beliefs don't match ours. As has been proven repeatedly over 230 years, we'll be stronger because of it.

What are you talking about!

ANDREW said:
Jesus Christ and there is one GOD.

ANDREW
Which Jesus Christ and which god are you talking about?

Would the religious philosophers please retire to the green room? The issue at hand concerns atheists in public office. Thanks.

When religous people argue about faith, it's about as interesting to me as blind people arguing about what a photograph depicts.

I considered myself an agnostic for a few years as a teenager before I realized that not knowing whether God exists was the same thing as not believing in God.

Religious people have the obligation to prove the positive notion that there is a supernatural all-powerful being, or whatever they choose to define God as. I've seen it defined so many different ways by those blind people arguing over the photograph.

Jesus Christ! There is one God!

ANDREW H
Which Jesus are your talking about?
The Bible has two different ones.
AND which god are you talking about.
YOUR god or My god?

Holy ****,

The clause is not just horrid, it's also contradictory. "Acknowledging the existence of a Supreme Being" is a religious sentiment.

including...

andrew h:
typo: don't dislike!!!

maybe -- or maybe a frooodian stumble and you've exposed yerself. Haaaahhhaaahhhaaa, I have to laugh. Varmint cong.

Romans 13 defends government action...encluding war.

The Bible teaches that if you do not believe in Jesus, you will not inherit the Kingdom of God. The Bible answers that, not me.

This is truly fantastic. A direct quote from the Texas Constitution, Article 1, Section 4:

"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/txconst/sections/cn000100-000400.html

ANDREW said:
" I guess Jesus hated too"

YES he did.. He was human.
Guess you forgot about his actions wrecking and knocking over the merchants wares.

BTW his name is Issa..

"Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence."

Carl Sagan

Q. What is a religious war?

A. A lethal argument over who has the neatest imaginary friend.

All of the management literature is clear that the worker bees perform much better if they understand the plan.

Why then does "God", if such a being exists, and if such a being has a plan for each of us, leave us guessing in the dark?

Clearly I am an agnostic verging on atheist. There are too many holes in the argument for me to be otherwise.

ANDREW
YOU said there is one god.
Which one god are you referring too?
YOu said there is only one way to god..
Really I guess being from another religion does not count?
It is a Xians duty to defend the Gospel?
So you are advocating war?

Are you prejudiec of people on the left..
Especially after you say.
Love the Sinner, dislike the sin..

Please explain

Last year, Penn Jillette (of Penn & Teller fame), contributed an essay to the series "This I Believe" that airs on NPR's Morning Edition. Here's the link to "This I Believe: There is No God":

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5015557

Mel Arturo--

You write, "The atheists are the ones that are all too eager to violate the Constitution's protections. So busy gettin' their hate on . . ."

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/cgi-bin/mte-1.5/mcom.cgi#comment-762658

It is you who is full of hate. You are merely ascibing to others those feelings within you that you are psychologically unwilling to recognize.

--Nate

Atheist's have already been judged. How sad for them.

John 3:17-19 (New American Standard Bible)

17"For God (A)did not send the Son into the world (B)to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

18"(C)He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of (D)the only begotten Son of God.

19"This is the judgment, that (E)the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for (F)their deeds were evil.

typo: don't dislike!!!

First to Mr. Malleck:

Life is not about deciphering what a god (if existing) may be trying to tell us. Why would a god go this way. Why not talk to all? We'll all made up from the same stuff!

About the dimension stuff. Well, it's Physics. Things are the way they are due to physical laws! No magic, no fairy tales!

Now I have this to say to all:
The debate about the existnce of a god can be made in a few words or in an infinite philosophical document. I guess we just reason diffrently. We need to have these debate always. They will help us get the truth.

However, one thing should become norm. Believers in a god and believers in something else (like Science, or nothing) should be give the chance to contribute to all debates and decisions. People should make religion a very personal thing. Trusting religiously is like trusting that god will never bring on us an earthquake or an asteroid...We know that those happen against an all caring god message we get from most religions.

Some people don't believe in God. It is not a relgion. It is not a belief. Not to believe something is not a belief. It is not an ideology. There sure are alot of dark-hearted and mean-spirited Christians, who do not love their neighbors, and who never miss a chance to put down people who are not as good as they are.
Thanks

Is there really no one in Congress who would answer when asked, "I don't believe that a supernatural conscious entity created the universe, intevenes in it or listens to prayers."? I think I'd move just to vote for such a person! I'd certainly donate.

If anyone knows of a holder of any public office who has approximated such a statement, please let me know.

Andrew said...in his continuing circle of lost arguments. "I guess Jesus hated too".

YES he did. He would have had to inorder it to have talked about it. SUCH as when he trashed and threw out the Merchants. BUT you probably forgot about that. Hating is Human.. Issa was human.

First of all...please note that I dislike anyone in this discussion. I don't want to come across harse. But I do believe (with passion as you do) that my belief is right. I believe the following;
1.) There is one God
2.) There is only one way to god: His son, Jesus.
3.) It's the Christian duty to defend the Gospel
4.) Love the sinner, dislike the sin.

To all who are in the middle, this discussion is only towards the far left.

to Sparrow's claim that major religious sects in this country have not committed major acts of violence:

so all the white christians that watched and said nothing about and tolerated the lynching and degradation of african americans are innocent, non-violent lovers of god?

so the removal of the Native Americans in this country onto squalid reservations where there children were beaten if they spoke their native tongues by our so-called christian nation -- many times led by christian missionaries -- is not an act of violence?

fly away little bird.

I guess Jesus hated, too!

ANDREW..
Iam not defending nor attacking you.
Your actions and behavior were identified.
Read what you said.
I just stated the facts!

God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it?

— Nietzsche, The Gay Science, Section 125, tr. Walter Kaufmann -- the MadMan talking to the atheists.

I love the "lack of moral compass" arguement.

I answer for everything I do in my life, while so many feel comfortable in having the slate wiped clean each Sunday.

The problem is not what individuals believe. The problem is the people who think they speak on behalf of God: the Priests, Vicars, Mullahs, Rabbis, Brahmins and whatnots who have taken upon themselves to interpret the will of the almighty, so that they, themselves, can have power in this world. Perish all Preachers!

In response to Mark's comment about the author being an anti-religious bigot, I am rapidly becoming one. Though I was raised a Catholic under the pre-Vatican II period, my experience is that religion (not faith) is one of the most divisive elements in our society. Religion is a human interpretation and an assault on faith.

Your defense is attacking, not answering.

ANDREW H..
you are a walking contradiction in terms.

This we know of you.
You are prejudice of:
What ever you think a Socialist is?
What ever an Atheist is?
What ever a Liberal is?
What ever you think Evolution is?
You have practiced your religion well.

I would like to commend those (unfortunately few on this blog) Christians who claim to be tolerant of others and accept that atheism deserves a place in the debate. The idea that any position does NOT deserve a place in a debate seems inimical to the democratic society that we inhabit, and to any of those who feel otherwise, I reply "America, Love it or Leave it!"

It upsets me that so many Christians assume they have the moral high ground, in both public and personal life. I've never been one to judge, but I feel myself judged every time I state my atheistic views. "Judge not, lest ye be judged" seems to be one Christian maxim that few believers want to follow. So, it's my turn to judge the moral high ground.

If I am wrong, are there any Christians here that do not believe that Hitler ranks among the most evil human beings to ever exist? I think that I am not going out on a limb here?

Why was he so evil? Because he burned millions of Jews and others who disagreed with him. Correct?

Now take your Christian god, who would condemn these people to ETERNAL hell fire! This idea of god is worse than Hitler.

So give it up. We are all human, we are all infallible. Love your fellow man, and quit claiming to be superior for believing in a god. I wish we could all just get along and start solving the REAL problems facing us.

As a formerly religious person who has drifted towards atheism -- or at least towards a belief that the god of Abraham that stands at the center of Judiasm/Christianity/Islam doesn't exist -- I think I can see both sides of this.

What I miss most my youth as a devout catholic

i) the community of the church -- particularly because it was a community focused on doing good deeds

ii) that feeling of god inside you, particularly during a Christmas Eve mass or during Holy Week before Easter,

and

iii) the inspiration I get when I read the Matthew 25:40 "whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me."

So why did I lose my religion? Mostly because I found the explanations about god so far fetched at times that it reminded me of my efforts to keep my children believing in Santa. I tried to go back to church a few years ago, to my wife's presbyterian church, and the pastor gave a sermon about how the earlier books of the bible predicted the coming of Christ, and the examples he gave were so far fetched and stretched, it was just silly.

Nearly every religious group annoints their leader as god in human form, be it L. Ron Hubbard or Jesus. And I'm no more convinced that the authors of the Bible were true prophets than that Joseph Smith or Muhammad had a direct line to god.

But that doesn't mean I just threw away what I liked about religion. What religious people tend to ignore is that most non-believers are devoted to more than their own personal self-interest. For the most part, non-believers I know are very concerned about the welfare of others and the world in general. So the judgment that god would hold me to according to Matthew 25 is one that I apply to myself -- I don't need god to be a good person.

It's a higher level of goodness if you do it because you know its right, not because you want to pass the test for entry to heaven. The golden rule makes rational sense, regardless of whether it was divinely inspired or not.

I've also found a substitute for the feeling of god within me. It comes from doing good deeds, especially where I get nothing in return. It's not god that gives me that feeling, its me.

But I still miss the community that a church provides -- that's one that is hard to replace.

Someone said above that atheist/agnostics believe their lives are ruled by chance. That is 100% wrong. We believe our lives are ruled by CHOICE! I choose to be a good person. I believe in a moral code which humans should follow (be kind to others, don't lie, don't steal etc.. etc... etc...). My life and existence are a direct result of the way I CHOOSE to live that code. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with chance.

What about the Declaration of Independence" There are many references to God. Again, the Founders wanted freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

Anything can be twisted to be used in the way that is useful to them..even the Bible. For those that do not believe in God, fine. But don't change history to get the point across. Be honest!

I'd be interested in poll results showing what proportion of atheists vs. believers supported the Iraq invasion.

I'm betting that a greater percentage of atheists than believers opposed the invasion from the beginning, putting the lie to the notion that atheists are somehow amoral.

The marriage of the Christian and the Capitalist to produce the modern Republican Party in this country -- such a begetting brings to mind the yeats' poem about rough beasts and slouching toward bethlehem. To me it argues that Christians as a group:

a)believe in nothing or
b) would sell their souls just to have some power base enforce their professed beliefs or
c)all the above.

All of which has nothing to do with Jacoby's main point that in this country people have to profess belief in Chrisitanity before the mainstream media and its concomitant herd gives them the time of day. Her point is true.

I've know many individual Christians who are true and moral beings -- some posts above from believers remind me of those people. Unfortunately, most do not.

Why can't christians act and believe in what Jesus supposedly represented? In this country, the great majority of them are nothing but materialists and consumers and narcissists like all of us non-believers. It's like the joke I heard as a kid about the proselytizing priest who interrupts his homily and says, goddamn, i left my cigarettes at the bar.

To: The the religious and non-religious,

I happened upon this thread by accident, but found it interesting. It is very clear that any intelligent debate is quickly snuffed out by bigots on both sides. Most of you come on here and try to prove each other wrong and it degrades and degrades and just becomes disgusting. Shows a lot of insecurity and intolerance on all sides. You people focus on what makes us different instead of what makes us similar, and you just can't get past it.

"To me, that goodness is merely an aspect of God, whether one chooses to call it Jesus, Allah, Yahweh, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or simply Goodness."

Are you saying that you see "God" as simply a name for the concept of goodness? Or do you believe that a supernatural being determines what is good and what isn't? Personally, I'm uncomfortable with the latter view, because any such being could create the rules for goodness based solely on his/her/its own gratification, and change the rules whenever he/she/it damn well feels like it. I am terrified of the idea of a Supreme Being authority figure, because any such figure would be arbitrary and capricious and impossible to please. Nothing humans did would be good enough for him/her/it.

Believe in god at your own risk.
Facts are facts.
Theories require evidence to prove or disprove an idea. It alows your to decide the nest move.

Example of a Theory:
2+2=4

Example of a Belief:
2+2=5

SUSAN JACOBY IS AN EXCELLENT WRITER WITH MANY IMPORTANT AND TIMELY THINGS TO SAY.

We must often be reminded that many of this nation's founding founders were highly skeptical of religion, foremost among them Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence.

Jefferson never joined a church congregation, not even the Unitarian congregation in Charlottesville VA (still very
active) with whose members he enjoyed socializing. On the matter of whether one of religioius persuasion is better suited for public service than one without such persuasion, Jefferson's position cannot be misunderstood. He wrote: "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no gods. It neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg."

As should be well known to every American, the only two
references to religion in the Constitution of the United States are both exclusionary. Most famous is the first clause of the First Amendment. More important to this immediate discussion
is the concluding phrase of Article VI: "but no religious Test shall ever be required a a Qualification fo any Office of public Trust under the United States."

And elsewhere, concluding Article II, Section 1, we read:
"Before he (the president-elect) enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: -- "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the
United States." There is certainly no religious reference in
this oath, though many of the elected have chosen to make
spurious religious additions.

The insistence of President Bush on some or another religious
faith as a requirement for eligibility to public office is one of
the greatest distortions of the Constitution in our nation's
entire history. For this, and many other obvious reasons,
George W. Bush will go down in history as the worst president
ever to hold office, at least to date.

James Johnson, Plattsburgh NY
Williams College BA 1964
Yale University Doctorate of Musical Arts 1978

To read my essay, "Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury
Baptists," a detailed discussion of the first clause of the First
Amendment, request it at jejphoenix@westelcom.com

How can you believe you "evolved" from nothing? People may not "Believe", but athism is a belief; a belief in self.

This county is a Christian majority...ignorance of history is the problem. Socialist change history which is the liberial goal.

Christians are not weak...every knee will bend before God. If there's no God, I'm okay when I die. What about you?

I appreciate all the links people have posted here. They are truly the most valuable contribution to the 'discussion.' Here's a few more:

For great deals on virtually any book try ...

www.amazon.com

For quick and easy travel reservations go to...

www.expedia.com

For News from around teh world check out...

www.nytimes.com

For top-notch web-searching visit...

www.google.com

And if you like hoome videos, you definitely want to click on this wonderful link...

www.youtube.com

Brad talks about atheism being a belief system built on conceit. He knows about conceit. And pride too.

and by the way, have a good new year.

I have read ever post in this thread.

Where is my prize?

Tonio,

I would argue that moral absolutism is incompatible with "dogmatic atheism". I think that the statement is supported by the teachings of Dawkins, Harris, and the like. Other atheists speak of some other goodness, not God, but some higher goodness or truth. To me, that goodness is merely an aspect of God, whether one chooses to call it Jesus, Allah, Yaweh, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or simply Goodness.

Human certainty is the only problem in this world.

The world is so simply because I BELIEVE it to be so. Evidence be damned. Reason be damned.

Now THAT'S the ultimate in arrogance.

Here's an idea that will be real popular in this thread; A person who really has good will and judgment towards all Americans shouldn't be influenced by any single flavor of belief. That's who should lead this country.

Atheists are the one minority whose rights will never be acknowledged. Yet we are the best part of the American public.

As Jesse Ventura stated, "religion is a crutch for weak minded people"

The only reason that people want to take "God" out of the American life (for thoose that do not believe that the founders believed in God, take a look at our money or glance above the Senate chambers to see "In God We Trust") is because without God there is no standard...hence an unregulated life.

In reference to the question about people who believe in God are uneducated, the ignorance in that statement answers itself. Apologeticspress.org is an excellent website to prove other wise.

If athiest don't belive in God, let us believe
what we want who do! Remember, majority rules in America.

Rob, I don't see anything about the "dogmatic atheist worldview" that would oppose the ideas of inalienable rights or basic human worth. If anything, it is the doctrine of Original Sin that is most hostile to rights or worth. I admit to some discomfort with even the Declaration of Independence's statement that humans are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." Granted rights cannot be unalienable. Why? Because the grantor could take them away if he/she/it damn well feels like it. I much prefer the idea that those rights are inherent, beyond the reach of anyone or anything.

I think that we're today on the path to a post-christian era, and more than that, in a post-monotheism era.

Separation between church and state is of course a fiction, in societies completely drove by 2000 (or more) years of total control held by monotheisms. We're still on religious times, but what we're witnessing today is more or less the same things as what happened at the end of paganism. Considering religions, three steps are clearly visible: the change from paganism to theocracy, the change from theocracy to secularity, and today the change from secularity to post-monotheism. Each time, millenarism and other fears and conflagrations happened as signs of change.

Since 2000 years, we didn't have much freedom to express pure atheism, and few voices were heard (audible) that professed anything else than obedience to a god, an idea, a law given from above...But people like D'Horbach, Jean Meslier, Feuerbach, and, maybe the most important, Nieztche, clearde the path to a new era, a post religion era.

We're now on the path to this new era, and I hope I will witness this.

(sorry for my poor english...)

I am so freaking tired of those who believe in a Christian god pontificating based on 1850 year old texts. Why not Zuess? Thats what I want to know! Then they act like this is the only place from which morality can be derived ignoring thousands of years of philosophical debate and the concept of the Social Contract.

We have American values that are under attack by Christian values... at least this itteration of them.

Ashley:

Thank you. That was beautifully stated.

Christians 95
Atheists 91

a lot of time left in the game.

"When the influence of religion on politics is analyzed in the press, the dialogue usually ranges from religious conservatism to religious liberalism..."

What an astute and riveting observation! When hearing or reading such analysis, I myself am struck by the utter lack of historical context. Most politicians and pundits that acknowledge a 'separation of church and state' omit that, for our founding fathers, this doctrine was adopted to protect religion from being used as a tool by politicos, NOT to protect the government from religion.

Regardless of one's religious beliefs (or lack thereof), it is not in the best interests of our government and nation for leaders to use God as justification for policy or decisions. This happens all too often, as you illustrate with Bush's implication that he consulted a 'higher father' regarding his decision to go to war with Iraq.

As a Christian, I am personally insulted that Bush (or any leader, any time something of this sort is said) seeks to absolve himself from blame by invoking God. It strikes me as contrary to the best interests of our country and our religion for the two to be so closely connected. Keep up the writing on this important subject.

Susan J -

I love what you've said here. Whenever I have been asked what my faith is, and I answer, 'none' or "I'm an atheist", I have always gotten a bizarre stare, or a 'how can you be that way?' kind of thing. Try telling your religious parents that you don't believe in god... they appear sad, like other god-fearing people do. I just don't get it, this whole god thing.

Why doesn't the press touch more on this subject? I think its because they are afraid of what people will say; afraid of offending advertisers, etc..

Secular people don't congregate weekly to discuss their beliefs, maybe we should start doing that, and become a force in politics that we need to be?

"What we ought to be talking about are decent human values that can be subscribed to by Americans of any faith or no faith. I could not care less whether any elected official believes in God: I care about what he or she does on earth."

I tend to agree. However, my discomfort with the dogmatic atheist worldview stems from the fact that the "decent human values" by definition do not really exist. By the scripture according to Dawkins, they are at most convenient societal constructs that can easily and justifiably be replaced by opposing "values" when societal conditions change. Sure all men are equal is good now because it works, but tomorrow we reserve the right to change our mind since society may "need" slaves again.

The good atheist MUST reject the notion that there are inalienable rights. That is someone that, yes, I would feel uncomfortable having protecting them.

Remember (those of you in the US) that we live in a country founded on the separation of church and state, freedom of religion and right to free speech. It's the angry attitude and intolerance of a popular religion that made me follow a different path at an early age. If we are judged on how we treat others in this world, read the responses above and decide for yourself who will get in.

What this world could use a lot more of is respect and kindness towards our fellow man, please!

I am a mainline Presbyterian (Christian) and no where in my life have I ever heard anyone in my church say politics should be ruled by blind Faith. Belief in God and reason do no have to be opposites. God gave us (Mankind) the ability to reason and I dare say He/She would have us use it to make decisions concerning government and all things to do with public life. I am sick a tired of extremists having all the say in the media. Genuine Christians with values don't impose their views on others. That simply is not Christ like. You want someone with wisdom and experience with both government and Christianity to shed some light on the subject. Contact Billy Moyers. That man had some very enlightening things to say on this topic.

Lots and lots of spirited discussion here. Re the "god" gene. That gene is one for spiritualness - not god per se. In other words, some people might be more apt to be unrealistic than others. There is no god, there is no soul, there is no heaven or hell, other than what we make of it in our lives. As an athiest, I behave just like all you good, loving christians: I don't steal, I don't murder, I don't lie, etc.
If you have to be religious to be in public office, then who could possibly want to hold that office?

If all you religious folks believe so strongly in heaven, why do you cry at funerals?

Brad -

You misconstrue the "God" gene. All evidence points that it if exists, it is not a gene predisposing individuals to believe in God, it is a gene that predisposes individuals to have a sense of spirituality. Spirituality does not mean believing in a christian God, it means feeling that there is a spiritual aspect to the world.

All Susan is suggesting is that your religion is not important. There are far too many people who hide behind the Cross, all the while behaving completely antithetical to the teachings of Christ. No one should care if someone "believes" in God or not, but rather if they act like people who believe in God are suppose to act.

Dick..just a note - Treaty of Tripoli was drawn up to assure the 'Musselmen'(muslims) that they could trade with us as a nation as we are not a Christian nation. This was necessary as they were required to kill the enemies of their faith and have nothing to do with them (especially 'People of The Book' - known as The Bible).

Jen..just as atheists are not all alike, neither are believers. I can say that as a believer, I do try and live my life with nothing hoped for in return. Difference is that I do not have to try to 'be good' in my own power. I have a loving, personal relationship with The God of Creation and He helps me each day, in the power of His Spirit, to live a life full of purpose and gratitude.

Peace.

>>This is simply not the truth. The so-called tolerant secularists are trying to disqualify Christians from public life. Your statements are utter hypocrisy. I am tired of the intolerance of the radical left all the way to the liberal right.

It is this shallow thinking that atheists fear. The separation of church and state organizations primarily consists of theists and mostly Christians! Regardless of your belief system, most of us don't want a theocracy - history has shown its dangers. Our country started because of religious suppression in Great Britain. A state church is a BAD idea. Any religious interference in our government is a BAD idea. Non-Christians are tired of sitting at the back of the bus in the USA.

It's predictable that any discussion about religion degenerates into this "I'm right, you're wrong" - "Oh yeah, define right and wrong and 'proof'" chatter.

The inherent problem is not personal belief. It's groups. Any time you get a group of people together there is an overall energy that, if not protected, will get abused. And right now, the majority group is Christianity. And right now, it's being abused by a subset to feed their power addictions.

And whenever criticism of this condition comes up, the entire group runs in and muddies up the discussion as if their personal belief is really what is up for debate. Rather than redirecting the discussion to the constructive effort of checking the hijacking of the groups power - the intervention on other groups on "behalf" of God, the individuals in the group perpetuate this useless chatter.

So here's the deal - atheists are not a group - it is a category - all things that are blue are not conspiring against all things not blue. They are simply all blue. Christians are in fact not a group either, but any one Christian tends to personalize the statement that religion is producing more bad in the world than good.

What really needs to happen at this point is for the Christian religion to reclaim the practice of banishing members for unChristianlike behavior. There would be little criticism to bestow on such a religion that checks itself.

Concerning the existence of God:

1. The more science discovers, the more it finds that it does not know. This will go on forever.
2. Human awareness and intellectual capacity is limited and will never fully understand the forces or meaning behind an infinite universe.
3. There is a ‘life-force” in all living things that drives it to grow and survive. There is also competition and evolution. Love, health, justice and morality naturally enhance long-term survival for humans.
4. So called “sacred texts” such as the Bible and Quran are nothing more than very scary man-made fairy tales that have been thoroughly discredited by rational historians and science. Their continued organized grip on human society causes death, misery, intolerance, wars, and injustice. They promote a personal God that has nothing whatsoever to do with spirituality- or the creation, or intelligence, or purpose behind the universe.
5. Perhaps a small subset of so called atheists does not believe in any god, but most atheists call themselves such to distinguish themselves from the absurdity of religious fundamentalists and others who believe in a personal, supernatural god. Most simply do not believe in a personal God but think more like Einstein, Hawkins, and other serious scientists who are not strict athiests. One must be a non-critical, brain-washed ignoramus to subscribe to any literal interpretation of sacred texts. Most of these organized religions begin the brainwashing at a very early age and do serious damage to the minds of our youth. They are self-righteous, power hungry, abusive corporations operating outside the law (and tax codes).
6. When religious fundamentalism becomes strong in a society, real democracy, science, and secular government wanes. Religious fundamentalism could very well spell the end of the American civilization.

I am 56 years old. Not once in my life have I ever heard a criticism of someone who is an atheist or anyone who shares a similar view point. Where does the Washington Post dig these hate mongers up who believe that, in fact, it must be all about them, and while deflecting any and all criticisms of themselves up front, proceed to rip anyone they desire apart? Simply based on their own personal perceptions, or could it just be a chaste desire to sell a book? It reminds me of a statement I heard a nutty woman at work state once, and she meant it, "Everyone wants to be me."

Atheists being discriminated ag