Cult Plus Time Equals Religion

every religion has its issues and those who believe what they believe are entitled to it, BUT ONLY AS LONG AS they and or their children DO NOT impose their beliefs on others claiming everything they say is right.... maybe everyone needs to take take a class on world religions and geography to fully underdstand why each religion is they way it is.... after being raised catholic and attending catholic schools- The Catholic Faith is way to sexist and doesnt believe in the personal decisions one makes concerning their own bodies... the leaders of the religion which just so happen to be all men state they know what is best for all females etc...

overdeeming ordonnance xerotes dietrichite say laryngofission dark polycarboxylic
http://www.angelfire.com/cakbkf/gz4.html >Circular Flow Diagram
http://www.angelfire.com/ltoeynly/4s5.html

overdeeming ordonnance xerotes dietrichite say laryngofission dark polycarboxylic
http://www.angelfire.com/xuzxvrlg/zcc.html >How To Tell Your Relationship Is Over
http://www.angelfire.com/xuzxvrlg/1189.html

Hello Daniel,

I always enjoy your posts on these threads. You are a Christian, but are thoughtful, and recognize the foolishness of trying to convince others to acquire your beliefs.

Now, in response to my following question to Susan: ‘I take it that you do not believe that god exists. But, can you say that the likelihood that the universe spontaneously sprang into existence from nothing is greater than the likelihood that God exists?

Or, can you say that the likelihood that the universe has always existed on an infinite timeline, from negative infinity to the present time, is greater than the likelihood that God exists?’

You respond that such questions are inherently absurd, because if I understand you correctly, this information is forever locked away from humans, just as is similar information about the nature of God.

You may be right. I certainly never expect to have the answer to these questions in my life time, and perhaps no human will ever acquire this information. But we know that there is no greater urge ingrained in the very fabric of our being to seek answers to these questions: who are we, where did we come from, what are we doing here, etc.

It is no wonder that Susan did not respond. How could she? All we can say as atheists/agnostics is that I don’t know; but based on the evidence available to me, I don’t believe that God exists.

Just as you, I believe, have decided that you don’t know either, but you have always lived in a Christian family, and see no reason to change your beliefs.

I really don’t believe that we are that far apart.

You seem to have some ideas about atheists/agnostics attributing our, and the universe’s, existence to chance, that I don’t believe are correct. We believe that we and the universe are evolving according to laws of natural selection and other physical laws of nature; e.g. gravity, momentum, etc., that are understandable to a certain degree.

You look deeper and conclude that we do not truly understand the underlying cause of these laws; e.g. ‘force at a distance’ (gravity and electromagnetism) and never will. This knowledge is forever locked away from us. I am not ready to accept this. You, being a physicist, know that our greatest minds (astrophysicists and others) are striving mightily to answer these questions and are making progress with new theories such as String Theory and M-Theory. We will see what they find out, unfortunately probably not in our life time.

And also, since it is my expectation that this is the only life we will ever have (no afterlife and no reincarnation), I will probably never know the answer to these wonders. But as Susan says on another thread, I will just have to make the most of the knowledge that I can acquire and things that I can experience during this ever so brief lifetime.

It’s not all that bad a life is it?

Rick said:

"Do you still read the responses to your essay?

I take it that you do not believe that god exists. But, can you say that the likelihood that the universe spontaneously sprang into existence from nothing is greater than the likelihood that there’s a god?

Or, can you say that the likelihood that the universe has always existed on an infinite timeline from negative infinity to the present time is greater than the likelihood that there’s a god?"

Many modern thinking people base their concepts of reality on a belief in the laws of nature. But study of high level physics reveals that the laws of nature are not laws, and have little to do with nature. They are the rules that goverm models that we imagine to simulate specific aspects of the physical world. The laws of nature are not real at all, but only exist in our own minds.

This is not important, when you are strolling through your day, brushing your teeth, filling up your car with gas, going to work, checking email, having lunch, and going home.

It only matters when you wonder about God and the beginning of the universe, and things like that. The Australian aborigines have a concept called "dream time" which refers to time outside of time, the time before anything was, but also including the present and the future.

This is a good way to think. The nature which we reflect is not focused enough, ever to inform us of some things. We have questions, and we search for the answers, but these answers are permenantly and forever sealed from our knowledge.

The questions that you pose are inherently absurd. You are really asking to be admitted into this state of "dream time" which is not accessable to human beings. The words we use are not right for this kind of contemplation. They lead us astray and into traps. The imply, infer, and assume meaning which does not exist, which is false, and which gives us false impressions of reality, a reality which, is, just itself, which we know of by way of impressions of order, impressions transmitted and received; transmitted through reflection of the world, received by focussing into consciousness; all these things, unknowable, unfathamable.

Islamaphobes,

Here is a good article that highlights what should be the focus of the Islamaphobes: the Israeli Lobby that is pushing us over the edge of the abyss. Here are some excerpts:

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=26308§ionid=3510302

‘In my analysis, which is shared, for example, by Ilan Pappe, Israel's leading “revisionist” (which means honest) historian, the answer is that it's mainly the Zionist tail that wags the American dog. As I demonstrate in my epic, two-volume book, Zionism: The Real Enemy of The Jews, it is a fact that, with the arguable exception of Lyndon Johnson, every American President, including the idiot in the White House at present, tried to draw red lines that Israel should not cross; and on most occasions Israel put two fingers up and crossed them. There is no mystery about why the Zionist lobby (AIPAC plus) has such power. What passes for democracy in America is for sale to the highest bidder, and one of the highest bidders, and certainly the best organized and the most effective, is the Zionist lobby, now in association with Christian evangelical fundamentalism and parts if not all of the MIC (Military Industrial Complex). The Zionist lobby has three main weapons of influence:

- money, apparently unlimited, to fund election campaigns (candidates who offend Zionism can be and are destroyed - outspent);

- the organized Jewish vote in close election races (in half a dozen critical constituencies); and

- the use of the obscenity of the Nazi Holocaust as a blackmail card to silence criticism of Israel and suppress informed and honest debate. (On this front the Zionist lobby is assisted by the fact that, out of fear of offending Zionism, the mainstream media in America and throughout the mainly Gentile Judeo-Christian or Western world is complicit in Zionism's suppression of the truth of history. What, really, does the media fear? Punishment by the withdrawal of advertising revenue).’

overdeeming ordonnance xerotes dietrichite say laryngofission dark polycarboxylic
http://www.angelfire.com/fzhrus/1.html >know
http://www.angelfire.com/pblzuz/1.html

overdeeming ordonnance xerotes dietrichite say laryngofission dark polycarboxylic
http://www.angelfire.com/deojja/4.html >26074
http://www.angelfire.com/deojja/2.html

From another thread:

Kavon,

Thanks for your delightful and thoughtful post. I must gently disagree with only a couple of your comments:

1. You say: ‘God? proof of God is reading this text right now...
you already know, but you can deny it to yourself....’

I must respectfully disagree. There are only two possibilities: (1) god exists, and (2) it does not. I place this probability at 50/50, and believe me I do know my own mind. I don’t need you to tell me what I believe. There is absolutely zero evidence to support either contention.

It is obviously comforting to humans to believe that god does exist, as evidenced by the fact that the overwhelming majority of us (80-90 percent?) do believe this, or claim to. I have had supposedly devout believers tell me that you may as well believe in god. It costs nothing to do that. However, if you do not believe in god, you may (however unlikely) roast in hell, the river of fire. This hardly sounds like true belief to me.

I am glad at least that you are a Muslim who has given up faith in the hateful god of the OT/NT and Qur’an who wants to cast all nonbelievers who search for truth into hell, or the river of fire.

2. You say: ‘Great? how about dont bother wasting your time trying to understand it completely now and focus your efforts on improving humanity.’

Of course we should focus our efforts on improving humanity, but don’t ask us to give up our search for truth about the universe that we live in. This is futile, for there is no greater urge ingrained in the very fabric of our being, to strive mightily to discover who we are and what we are doing here.

From another thread:

Chip,

Thanks for the great link to Eternal Universe.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

As you said, it is a great show. In Chapter 6 of 8 in hour 3 of 3, the eggheads get into discussing the Big Bang and origin of the universe. Their discussion parallels ours remarkably well.

David Gross, University of California Santa Barbara, notes that as we run the Big Bang backwards, we reach a point near time zero where the laws of physics completely break down.

Alan Guth says that ‘the classic Big Bang theory says nothing about what banged, what happened before it banged, or what caused it to bang’.

Ed Witten says that ‘most people come at this with the naïve notion that there was a beginning; that the universe emerged into somethingness from nothingness’.

Ed Ovrut, University of Pennsylvania, says ‘I don’t like nothing; do I really believe that the universe emerged from nothing? I’m not a philosopher, but I imagine that to a philosopher, that would be a problem. To a physicist, that also is a problem’.

Alan Guth says ‘I actually find it rather unattractive to think of a universe without a beginning. I find that a universe without a beginning is also a universe without an explanation’.

So we are in good company. No one has a clue how we got here.

However, one thing that we can be absolutely sure of, and take comfort from, is the fact that Maria’s hateful god of the OT and the Qur’an (sorry Victoria and Moody), that wants all of us nonbelievers who are honestly searching for truth, to roast in everlasting hell, the river of fire, does not exist. The likelihood of existence for this god is obviously vanishingly small.

Here is a question that I just posed to WP. Maybe you can help me with the answer; we have already lain some of the initial groundwork:

Atheists/agnostics believe that god does not exist, although they are very careful to leave open the possibility that it does exist. Most atheists put the likelihood of existence at near 0, or vanishingly small as they say. Agnostics (like myself) may tend to rate the likelihood of existence higher, say 50/50. Actually this is a fine distinction, and many consider there to be no difference between atheists and agnostics. Thus I say that I am atheist/agnostic.

If you are an atheist, please explain why you rate the likelihood of god’s existence as vanishingly small. Keep in mind that the only two alternatives are also not compelling: either (1) that the universe that we can all see around us sprang into existence from nothing, or (2) that it has existed forever, from negative infinity to the present. The negative infinity point on the timeline is also hard to get ones mind around. And if infinite time exists, the other dimensions of the space-time fabric are also probably infinite. These assertions of an eternal and infinite universe seem to be no more likely than the existence of god.

Susan,

Do you still read the responses to your essay?

I take it that you do not believe that god exists. But, can you say that the likelihood that the universe spontaneously sprang into existence from nothing is greater than the likelihood that there’s a god?

Or, can you say that the likelihood that the universe has always existed on an infinite timeline from negative infinity to the present time is greater than the likelihood that there’s a god?

From another thread:

Victoria said,

‘to me it beggars the question, well, if atheism is so intellectually superior, what alternatives, social solutions etc have they come up with?’

Speaking for myself, I don’t claim to be intellectually superior, and don’t think others have said that either.

As for social solutions, atheists are no better at this than anyone else. But I will offer a few suggestions at the risk of setting myself up for attack:

1. Get serious about energy independence from Mid East oil. This is the root cause of our disastrous invasions and occupations of Palestine and Iraq.

2. Get the Neo-Con Israeli lobbyists’ hands off the strings of power in our government. This is the 2nd root cause of our disastrous invasions and occupations of Palestine and Iraq.

3. Can you imagine how much better would be our economy and national security, if we had spent the trillion dollars squandered on Palestine and Iraq on infrastructure and alternate energy sources instead?

4. Get control of our worldwide population growth (I can hear the howls already). We are already overpopulated by about a factor of two.

I’m sure I can think of more, but that should be enough for now.

OCTOBER 3, 2007 12:46 PM

Daniel:

Rick

As a Christian, I have to say that I agree alot with you. You may be suprised, because many people assoicate "Christianity" with right-wing-born-again-Christian-evangelicals. They have very big and loud mouths and get all the press. But I am not one of them; I am just a "plain" Christian. As far as my faith and belief go, I have more in common with Mother Teresa than with them.

I agree with you, it is kinda scary. I also have a tip for you: most religious fantatics have a great deal of doubt, which they work feverishly to suppress, instead of allowing themselves to experience. That is what makes them so testy. So, don't think too bad of them.

October 3, 2007 10:13 AM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on October 3, 2007 10:13
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rick:

Good Daniel,

I'm glad that we are able to reach a sort of meeting of the minds. I find that quite rare on these boards.

October 3, 2007 10:31 AM | Report Offensive Comments

From another thread:

Hi Victoria,

You said:

‘actually im not even one tiny bit interested in a definition of atheism- that seems elementary- but what do atheists believe in a more existential sense.’

Not speaking for all atheists of course, just for myself, existentially, I don’t have a clue what we are doing here if that’s what you mean, and neither does anyone else. Kind of scary isn’t it. I just want to get up in the morning, go to work, have three squares a day, enjoy life with my loved ones, etc, etc, etc...

From another thread:

Prof. Stone:

I would also ask believers this question: "if someone did prove to you today that God did not exist, would you behave any differently? Would you start to mug old ladies in the street? Would you walk along the corridor and shoot the colleague you have hated for the last 10 years? Would you begin a string of affairs with other men/women?" I think the answer would be no. There is something in the human psyche that gives us all a limit on what is reasonable behaviour, and what is excessive or inappropriate. And it does not depend on reward or fear.

October 3, 2007 2:32 AM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on October 3, 2007 02:32
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rick:

Bravo Prof. Stone,

Well done. Of course the believers will say that ‘something in the human psyche that gives us all a limit on what is reasonable behavior, and what is excessive or inappropriate’ was placed there by God and is proof of God. Atheists (like me) will say that it was placed there by evolution.

I believe that the Golden Rule is the driving force of evolution’s law of natural selection at the higher levels of development that is responsible for that ‘something in the human psyche’. The cave man learned early on that if he did harm to his neighbor, his neighbor was likely to do harm to him in return.

October 3, 2007 7:44 AM | Report Offensive Comments

I come down on the Atheist/Agnostic side. The odds are 50/50, either an infinite and eternal god exists, who creates and destroys universes to pass the time; or the universe itself is infinite and eternal, having always been here and always will be here, no creator required. Yea verily!

What do you think? There is absolutely no evidence to support either conclusion.

By the way, here's the article in Skeptics magazine:

http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/1998/3_crexpose.htm

Here is an excerpt:

…Richard Dawkins is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. He is one of the world's leading evolutionary biologists, the author of several highly regarded books on evolution through natural selection, including The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker (to my mind, the very best explanation of evolution for the lay person), The Extended Phenotype, River out of Eden and Climbing Mount Improbable, and is constantly in demand as a public speaker, and by the media as an advocate for good science.

Given his position and his professional expertise, it is hardly surprising, then, that he is also a cogent and trenchant critic of the anti-scientific dogma that masquerades under the title "creation science"…

…Prof Dawkins then acquired a copy of the tape and became even more incensed as the details of what had been done to him became clearer. In correspondence to me (published here with his permission) he recounts what had happened:

As a preamble, I should explain that, following the advice of my colleague Stephen Jay Gould, I have a policy of not granting interviews to creationists or flat earthers. This is not because I cannot answer their arguments, but because I have better things to do with my time and I do not want to give them the oxygen of publicity.

On September 16, 1997, Keziah Video Productions, in the persons of Gillian Brown and Geoffrey Smith, came to my house in Oxford to film an interview with me. I had agreed to see them, on the misapprehension (as it later turned out) that they were from a respectable Australian broadcasting company. I had no idea they were a creationist front and I would not have granted them an interview had I known this, because of my policy as mentioned above.

The interview began. I have considerable experience of television work, and I was initially surprised at the amateurishness of their filming technique, but I carried on without voicing my surprise. As the interview proceeded, I became increasingly puzzled at the tone of the questions. Puzzlement gave way to suspicion that Keziah was, in fact, a creationist front which had gained admittance to my house under false pretences.

The suspicion increased sharply when I was challenged to produce an example of an evolutionary process which increases the information content of the genome. It is a question that nobody except a creationist would ask. A real biologist finds it an easy question to answer (the answer is that natural selection increases the information content of the genome all the time - that is precisely what natural selection means), but, from an evolutionary point of view, it is not an interesting way to put it. It would only be phrased that way by somebody who doubts that evolution happened.

Now I was faced with a dilemma. I was almost certain that these people had gained admittance to my house under false pretences - in other words, I had been set up. On the other hand, I am a naturally courteous person, especially in my own house, and these were guests from overseas. What should I do? I paused for a long time, trying to decide whether to throw them out, and, I have to admit, struggling not to lose my temper. Finally, I decided that I would ask them to leave, but I would do it in a polite way, explaining to them why. I then asked them to stop the tape, which they did.

The tape having stopped, I explained to them my suspicions, and asked them to leave my house. Gillian Brown pleaded with me, saying that she had flown all the way from Australia especially to interview me. She begged me not to send her home empty handed, after they had traveled such a long way. She assured me that they were not creationists, but were taking a balanced view of all sides in the debate. Like a fool, I took pity on her, and agreed to continue. I remember that, having had quite an acrimonious argument with her, when I finally agreed to resume the interview I made a conscious effort to be extra polite and friendly…

Here is another version of the video clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-WFIVIQiTo

Here is a link to Dawkins website in which responds to the hoax:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=14255

Here is his reply:

New version of Australian Fake Film by Richard Dawkins on Wed May 09, 2007 7:58 pm

Some of our regulars may be aware of the Australian hoax film in which I am shown apparently flummoxed and unable to answer a question about 'information content' increasing in evolution. Somebody has just pointed me to a new version of the clip on YouTube…, which is interestingly different from the published version.

A full account of the hoax is given by Barry Williams, in the (Australian) Skeptic. I don't have the reference with me (I'm in Miami Airport, on my way to Galapagos) but it is given in the chapter of A Devil's Chaplain, called The Information Challenge. Briefly, the long pause occurred when I tumbled to the fact that the film-makers were creationists, and I had been tricked into allowing them an interview. I was trying to decide how to handle the difficult diplomatic situation. Should I throw them out immediately? Should I answer the question? Should I stop the interview and discuss their dishonesty with them before deciding whether to allow the interview to continue? I eventually took the third option. It later turned out that they used the long pause to make it look as though I was unable to answer the question. At the end of the long pause, they cut to a scene of me talking about something completely different (presumably the answer to another question which was cut), to make it look as though I was evading the question by changing the subject.

In the original film, 'From a Frog to a Prince', the 'information content' question is put to me by a MAN. We see him in a bare room, very obviously not the well-furnished room in which I am shown (not) answering the question. The new version on YouTube is different in at least two respects. First, the question is put to me by a WOMAN (we don't see her). And while she is speaking I am obviously not listening to anybody asking questions (I would be looking straight at the questioner if so) but I am clearly lost in thought, the same long train of thought that persists for a long time after the question ends (intended to look embarrassingly long, as if I am incapable of answering the question).

There is another difference. In this new version of the film, I ask them to stop the camera (and this really happened, for the reason given above). Then there is the cut to me answering the completely different question, as if trying to change the subject. In the original film, my request to stop the camera is missing.

I've got to go and board the plane, but it might be quite interesting for somebody to post both versions of the film together on our website, so they can be compared directly.

Must rush

Richard

Have any of you seen the Australian/American You Tube hoax perpetrated by the creationist nut jobs? Here is a link to it as passed to me by a good friend (and true believer) on another thread:

‘…Here is a 3 minute video from the same show that has Richard Dawkins stumped and speechless when asked a question about evolution

(He’s the king of evolution theory)

He’s also a panelist that posts on these boards - I only had peripheral knowledge of him before I came to these boards-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&mode=related&search=

…its only 3 minutes long’

Daniel, how well do you know the Word of God?

You said,

"The Christianity which you promote is purely political, and you conveniently never quote directly from any of the scriptures regarding the teachings of Christ. I will not point them out to you, because you ought to know them already, but even if you do not, you are as free as anyone to find them and read them. It is your choice, also, to ignore them."

"Whoever acknowledges Me before men, I will also acknowledge him before My Father in heaven. But whoever disowns Me before men, I will disown him before My Father in heaven. Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn "'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother-in-law - a man's enemies will be the members of his own household. Anyone who loves his father or mother more than Me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take up his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:32-39)

"He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters." (Matthew 12:30)

You said,

"However, I can assure you that you can read and read and read, but you will never find this quote, "Blessed are the warriors, for they shall inherit the Earth."

You do not have to assure me of that if you have Scripture in mind. You are not quoting Scripture. (Matthew 5:5)

Nevertheless, the Christian is in a battle against the ways of the world. It is a spiritual battle that wages war against the Word and truth of God. "Did God really say?" (1 Corinthians 3:18-21)

"Dear friend, I urge you, as aliens and strangers in the world, to abstain from sinful desires, which war against your soul." (1 Peter)

"Be self controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. Resist him, stand firm in the faith, because you know that your brothers throughout the world are undergoing the same kind of suffering." (1 Peter 5:8, 9)

Now that is a battle, which I will admit the Lord has won, but many things are waging war against the Christian.

"Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints." (Jude 3)

That's a battle. There is only one Gospel of truth. (Galatians 1:6-8, 11, 12)

"Join with others in following my example, brothers, and take note of those who live according to the pattern we gave you. For, as I have often told you before and now say again even with tears, many live as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and their glory is their shame. Their mind is on earthly things." (Philippians 3:17-19)

The battle continues.

Daniel, you need to take hold of God's Word and trust Him in what He says.

You said,

"Only the loud-mouthed, and immodest Peter Huff's of the world would post here, and claim to speak on behalf of all Christians, and claim the authority of God."

Daniel, what authority has God left us with in this world? Are you the authority that we should listen to? How do you know? I never claimed to speak on behalf of all Christians. Most Christians are shamefully ignorant of the Word of God, in what it teaches.

"Your word, O LORD, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens. Your faithfulness continues throughout all generations; You establish the earth, and it endures. Your laws endure to this day [and ours too], for all things serve You." (Psalm 119:89-91)

"Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path." (Psalm 119:105)

"How can a young man keep his way pure? By living according to Your word."

"Yet You are near, O LORD, and all Your commands are true. Long ago I learned from Your statutes that You established them to last forever." (Psalm 119:151-152)

I see a picture of Christ, the incarnate Man, in all the Psalms, and it is He who we are to fix our thoughts and eyes on! (Hebrews 3:1, 12:2)

The previous post was me. Yes, I am griped by simple-minded, politically motivated, mean-spiritied Christianity, which is selfish and destructive, and only serves, even more, to undermine Christianity, in general. To suppose that Christians are at war with atheists is absurd and rediculous.

I know many, many, many Christians who believe as I do, only you would never see them in a million years posting their thoughts on a forum such as this. Only the loud-mouthed, and immodest Peter Huff's of the world would post here, and claim to speak on behalf of all Christians, and claim the authority of God.

Peter Huff said:

"Daniel, you do not know me or my nature. I use sarcasm and irony, yes, because sometimes sarcasm is the only thing that shakes some people into examining their worldview more closely."

Yes, I do not know you; all I know is that part of yourself that you choose to reveal on this forum. If you would like us to know a better part of you, then it is your choice to show us that better part.

This is not an appropriate setting to issue forth your endless Bible quotes. It is ill-mannered and rude. If you want to be involved in a struggle, then join the army and go to Iraq and fight your war there. If you want to quote scripture, and then go to your church, one where everyone believes just as you do, and then volunteer to teach Sunday School.

The Christianity which you promote is purely political, and you convenently never quote directly from any of the scriptures regarding the teachings of Christ. I will not point them out to you, because you ought to know them already, but even if you do not, you are as free as anyone to find them and read them. It is your choice, also, to ignore them.

However, I can ssure you that you can read and read and read, but you will never find this quote, "Blessed are the warriors, for they shall inherit the Earth."

Hi Daniel,

You said,

"This is not true. If you have confidence in your beliefs, then there is no battle."

How did you come to that conclusion? Not by the Word of God, surely.

The Apostle Paul said,

"So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, WAGING WAR against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members..." (Romans 7:21-23)

See also Galatians 5:17, 18 or 1 Peter 2:11 which says,

"Dear friends, I urge you, as aliens and strangers in the world, to abstain from sinful desires, which WAR against your soul."

As I said before there is a battle going on for the heart and mind. There is a struggle for the Christian, not to live as the world does although the Lord has already won the victory for us. Our battle is not against flesh and blood, but against evil spiritual forces in dark places. (Eph. 6:12)

"I urge you brothers, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to join me in my struggle by praying to God for me." (Romans 15:30; also 2 Corinthians 1:8-11)

"In your struggle against sin, you have not resisted to the point of shedding your blood..." (Hebrews 12:4)

"I don't see any battle going on. There is only a battle if you step in their way to obstruct them. Why do that? If you cannot convince them, then you cannot. Is that so hard to accept?"

There is a battle going on. You need to open your eyes. We wage war against the values of the world that are in opposition to the values of God. (1 John 1:15-17)We fight against the kingdom of darkness. Let's not serve two masters. (Matthew 6:24)

"I have never "professed" to be Peter Huff's brother. I said I was a Christian; it is Peter Huff's appeal to Christian authority that is in doubt, among the many people who post here, including myself."

Do you not recognize the authority of the Sovereign Lord and His Word of truth?

"Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates His brother is still in the darkness...We love because He first loved us. If anyone says, 'I love God,' yet hates his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. And He has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother." (1 John 2:9, 4:19-21)

"Peter Huff has a mean spirit, which he spreads all of over this forum, for all to see, but then denies it. Even his greeting to me was a sarcastic demonstration of this mean spirit."

Daniel, you do not know me or my nature. I use sarcasm and irony, yes, because sometimes sarcasm is the only thing that shakes some people into examining their worldview more closely. The Lord Himself used it on numerous occasions during His earthly ministry. Proverbs 26:5 says,

"Answer a fool as his folly deserves, lest he be wise in his own eyes."

To confront false ideas, sometimes you have to show how absurd and senseless they are because the person will not listen to reason. You have to dig deep and show the person that they are inconsistent in their thinking and that this inconsistency cannot explain why things are the way they are. Their worldview does not let them see the truth of God's Word. But whether they ever come to believe depends totally on the Sovereign Lord, not on what you or I say.

It is funny when you challenge someone in their thinking, often they come back with the only weapon they have available, to call you names and insinuate that you are mean spirited. But when you play that game, it can also show the hypocrisy in your own thinking. I just wanted to point that out, because I myself have fallen into that trap many times before and probably will continue to at times.

Blessings!

Daniel,

You are a very wise man!

I agree, Gerry!

I see my "God" in nature and the universe. That is what I call awe inspiring.

Not some old book written thousands of years ago by some pretty strange guys trying to make me believe in fairy tales and horror stories.

I think that if the bible were the word of God, he would have written it and it would be very clear cut. Instead you have a whole bunch of stories pieced together in mostly incomprehensible passages, that require "interpretation".

Kind of reminds me of the ambiguous language used in government manuals where you need to get clarification from the policy writers of what the intent of the author was.

Besides there are just too many Xian churches, cults and sects, in addition to all the other religions and/or philosophies, to make them believable. All of them claim their way is the "right" way. I ask the "right" way to what?

I don't appreciate being told that I will forever burn in hell if I don't follow their doctrine, nor would I like to be reincarnated as a worm.

Oh, well, to each their own.

Once again, Peter Huff said:

"You forget my friend that there is a battle going on here, and it is for the hearts and minds of people like you and I and everyone who professes the name of Jesus Christ."

This is not true. If you have confidence in your beliefs, then there is no battle. Whatever anyone else might say, in expressing their opinion in the belief in God, or in not believing in God, that is their opinion; I don't see any battle going on. There is only a battle if you step in their way to obstruct them. Why do that? If you cannot convince them, then you cannot. Is that so hard to accept?

Peter Huff said,

"Daniel, my professed brother..."

I have never "professed" to be Peter Huff's brother. I said I was a Christian; it is Peter Huff's appeal to Christian authority that is in doubt, among the many people who post here, including myself. Peter Huff has a mean spirit, which he spreads all of over this forum, for all to see, but then denies it. Even his greeting to me was a sarcastic demonstration of this mean spirit.

He quotes many disconnected verses from all over the Bible to prove his arguments. But, we all have access to Bibles and we can all read them if we choose to. It is not necessary to quote to us, these many, varied, and disjointed verses. He asks me to argue with his Biblical quotes, but I will not. I am not a theologian, and, besides, this particular question was about the cults, not about the finer points of Christian theology.

To try and move the discussion to a more sophistocated level, I said:

"Do we really choose our beliefs? I don't think we do; more than choosing our beliefs, we experience them, as a heritage passed on to us, through a complex of contingencies. And then these inherited, modified beliefs, determine our personalities, and who we are, more than the other way around. So, it is utterly pointless for the anti-Christians to yell at the anti-atheisists, and vice-versa, as though this hostile forceful argument could ever get anyone to stop believing one way, and then start believing another way. It just doens't work that way. It never will."

He has no reaction to this, which was my main, and larger point. How can Peter Huff claim to be a Christian, when his central concerns and central arguments have to do with proof that God exists, and the enforcement of this belief on all others? He remains indifferent, even unaware of the central teachings of Christianity, and what it means to be a Christian, and does not even seem curious in the least, about how to be a Christian. Memorizing the Bible and quoting from it at every opportunity does not qualitfy a person as a Christian.

He says that I am still drinking milk and have not progessed to solid food yet. I have a feeling that he is a young fellow, all puffed up with his Christian goodness, whom he feels everyone must get to know. I am getting old. I can assure Peter Huff that I have thought about all of this stuff a great deal more than he has. And I have encountered many, many Christians llike him before. I am not at all intimidated by his claim to greater Christian authority than I. As I have said several times, already, he is a small human voice, and no matter how loudly he exhorts me, it remains a small and feeble voice and not the voice of God.

Peter "The Bible Thumper" Huff,

Let us "thump" some of the bible together.

First "Paul's" epistles to Titus and also Timothy were, as per most contemporary NT exegetes, not written by Paul so copying and pasting passages from these epistles is "thumping" something Paul did not say.

With respect to the Letter to the Hebrews, Father Raymond Brown in his book, An Introduction to the New Testament, p 684, notes "Authenticity: Author not identified: later church attribution to Paul now abandoned. "

So again by quoting from Hebrews, you are "thumping" something Paul did not say.

And what would Jesus say about your false thumping?? Hmmm!!!!

"My good friend Peter suffers from the three B's i.e. he was Bred, Born and Brainwashed in a Christianity that has significant flaws in its foundations". I do apologize and can only hope that someday he will come to understand the true historic me".

Religious zealots would make excellent secular humanists if they could just be convinced of the difference between believing and actually knowing the truth of a thing - such a conversion is generally unlikely, what with the huge emotional investment associated with religious belief.

And to think everyone was born without a single belief - emotion was all and everything. Later on, after we've sorted through the indoctrination process of becoming fully socialized humans, beliefs that support our emotional security have become the very personal 'doctrines' that we seem to hang on to as adults - proof is not at all necessary.

It must be said that these often peculiar myths & subjective 'truths' that pass for self-evident
explanations of life's mysteries do seem real for the true believer. Here we see a couple of self-declared christians battering their opposition with the bible - and yet not on one single occasion has a universally indisputable objective truth been uttered...a truth that transcends all religions in it's utter correctness.

In fact, this appears to be emotion and nothing but emotion in disguise - masquerading as well established fact. This is ultimately why science and religion should never be confused with one another....

Europe is finally catching up, and is now dealing with creationism and intelligent design passing as 'scientific fact' in the classroom - it's getting to be a real political hot button issue abroad.

At the college level (we're not talking about Bob Jones University) there's never any confusion between the two - there's hard science and there's soft science. Social science and social studies belong to the latter, and includes the comparative study of religion(s). Studied academically, many things can be postulated about the structure and function of religion in human society, but never are the doctrines, rituals and beliefs of any religion held up as true or false -
Why?? Because that's not the point and metphysical assertions are not subject to proof in the ordinary sense. Why this approach is not employed at the high school level as an educational tool is a pitiful commentary on the effects of 'the politicizing of religion' in the USA.

For fundamentalists, religious zealots and true believers, children shouldn't be taught the skills and value of critical thinking, but should instead be indoctrinated just as they were - in mythologies that arrest critical thought processes before they get started. The emotional risk that challenges parental beliefs are simply too great. We usually inherit our religion from our parents and/or from our culure - purely a chance occurance.

In the end, as one poster stated, nothing is ever accomplished in debating a true believer - the defense mechanisms and beliefs are iron-clad and are both confirmed & re-inforced by opposition - a real exercise in futility but sort of fun anyway!!

Gaby,

yes, I love Google Earth. Not many years ago it could have served as a proof for the existence of god (Gottesbeweis), lol!

To me imagining all these incredible natural, VISIBLE miracles amounts to more spiritual "rapture" than any Sunday church visit of the pious.

Just the measuring technique is already so fascinating. Professionally superstitious people, like Peter Huff, of course would say that the distances measured by astronomers are wrong, since god can make that the sum of the angles of a triangle is 179 or 181 degrees, because god invented trigonometry.

I don't read his diatribes anymore. The bible thumping, the quoting obsession, the lack of intellectual honesty really gets on my nerves.

To me, positing a "Super"-natural being without the slightest try at understanding nature in the first place amounts to arrogance, ignorance and megalomania. Nature, with its inscrutable miracles does not incite awe in these mentally challenged people. They regard it as insufficient, think they can look down on it condescendingly, not worthy of research: Instead they demand belief in some outdated, helpless, pitiful attempts to explain the world, dating thousands of years back.

Any candidate for a Ph.D. would flunk if his sources were not up to date. Here it is the contrary: The more outdated, the "truer"!

Desperate.

Hello again Daniel,

You said,

"In Christianity, we are instructed to love our neighbors and to treat our enemies well. This is really hard; almost impossible. Almost no Christians even seriously give it a try, because of the very nature of this impossible instruction. It always seems more important to focus on the difference in other people that make them so objectionabe, and the try and persuade them, or force them to be less objectionable, that is more "like me."

As Christians we are instructed to present the truth in love to unbelievers. What God does with the truth is up to Him. (Isaiah 55:8-11) If I am going to present the truth I am not going to cover it up with compromising words. I do not mean harm in telling others of the grace and mercy of God. For someone who is bent on their ways of suppressing the truth, all I can do is show them why, without God, they cannot make sense of this world. As someone once said, it is like one beggar telling another where he can find a loaf of bread.

Are you trying to prove God without the use of His Word of truth? (John 17:17)

I admit, I make many mistakes, just as you do, but to say I am being untrue to what the Bible says without offering the proof from the Bible is just confirming that you are still drinking milk and have not progressed to solid food yet. There are certain things that God has confirmed to me from His word and by His Spirit. Those things I take hold of as a firm foundation.

Well, it is time for bed. All God's blessings are in Christ Jesus! (2 Corinthians 1:20; Ephesians 1:3)

Daniel, my professed brother,

In response to my statement,

"You forget my friend that there is a battle going on here, and it is for the hearts and minds of people like you and I and everyone who professes the name of Jesus Christ."

You said,

"The only battle is the battle that is going inside of Peter Huff's head. As I said before, the authority that Peter Huff claims to speak in the name of God is not a true authority, it is just his small voice, one voice in a multitude of voices; why should I perk up and respond to his more than any of the others?"

My authority is the Word of God. Since you call yourself a Christian, why are you doubting that what He says is true? (Hebrews 6:17-19; Titus 1:2)

That just makes you look very ignorant of what the Bible teaches,

"For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ." (2 Corinthians 10:3-5)

"Finally, be strong in the Lord and in His mighty power. Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you will be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand....Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God." (Ephesians 6:10-13, 17)

"What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don't they come from your desires that battle within you?...You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred towards God. Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God." (James 4:1, 4)

"Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called when you made your good confession in the presence of many witnesses." (i Timothy 6:12)

That is good advice Daniel.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated, you asked. Is your only recourse now to call me names?

Freestinker said,

"Gerry,

Contrary to what many theists would like people to think, atheism does not imply absolute disbelief."

You are right there. To say that there is no or lack of evidence that God exists is to show that the person making the claim believes that what he sees and how he understands the world is not explained by God, but he has (from what he sees and observes through a myriad of things) a better explanation.

"Theists intentionally mis-represent our position to make atheism appear to require faith."

It takes a tremendous amount of faith. You are resting your suppositions on the fallible minds of mortal men in explaining such things as truth and morality, yourself being the judge and jury.

"Atheism merely asks for evidence before any particular belief is accepted."

Not true. Atheists are not neutral in their belief. They have made up their mind on the evidence that appeals to them.

"We do start from a tentative presumption (with a high probability) of non-existence but that is very different than a firm absolute conclusion of non-existence."

That is a belief. You assert certain things to be true, but as an atheist, by nature you are a skeptic. What evidence would you ever accept?

"Our minds are generally still open on the subject, we just ask for solid evidence before we believe."

Not according to the Bible. (Romans 1:18-2:1) It states that all men have a knowledge of God, it is just not the same kind of knowledge a Christian has - one of special as opposed to general revelation.

You are accusing me as a Christian of being wrong, and more specifically, the Word of God. That is a belief. It is made up of a network of beliefs that makes you arrive at your opinion.

"The burden of proof is on believers to support their positive claims. Atheists are just agnostics waiting for real evidence before we believe."

The burden of proof is upon both believers and non-believers. You are making a claim as well as I am.

I can use the same kind of logic I keep hearing atheists use. I am an A-atheist, or to clarify that statement, I do not believe there is such a thing as an atheist, just someone who is suppressing the knowledge of God. So I am making the claim that there is no such thing as an atheist. Since I have stated a negative claim, the burden of proof is upon you to prove otherwise.

A lack of belief in one thing is a belief in something else, unless you are totally ignorant of any support for your own position. In that case you are more blind than you claim the Christian is. You are willing to bring up your opinions that the Bible is not reliable, that no God exists or there is a lack of evidence for God's existence. What evidence do you have for your claims that are contrary to the Christian position? Please make sense of this.

I know that the natural laws and uniformity of nature will remain the same today, and tomorrow, as they were yesterday because God knows the future and has revealed it in His Word.

"As long as the earth endures, seed time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease." (Genesis 8:22)

Since He sustains "all things by His powerful word" (Hebrews 1:3) and since "He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together" (Colossians 1 17)

I am certain of these things. How about you? I have already read the posts from atheists on this forum that say that they cannot be 100% certain about any thing. How certain are you that your position is true?

Peter "the Bible Thumper" Huff,

Dream on!! And my your "pwtfft" protect you from the demons of the demented.

Hello Concerned The Christian Now Liberated,

You said,

"You seem to meet God on a regular basis. How about inviting the rest of us? Please invite Moses also and the rest of the mythical characters of the OT."

"The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let him who hears say, "Come!" Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life." (Revelation 22:17)

Now you have the invitation. May the Sovereign Lord have mercy on your soul. The Good News is that only Jesus Christ saves sinners from their sin. There is no other Savior.

Hello again Realist. Sorry, another long post. To continue your thoughts,

“He lies, he deceives, he changes his mind, he kills lots of babies; he advocates incest. What he does with Abraham and his son is despicable. He seems like a very nasty character. He certainly seems very confused or at least very hypocritical.”

There again, Realist, what you say definitely confirms that you do not know God or His decrees. You are ignorant, but very wise in your own eyes! This however, God has already confirmed in His Word. (Psalms 14:1)

About incest, how do you think Adam and Eve’s children populated the world?

There again the covenant changed with the Abrahamic and then the Mosaic law and economy as the people prepared to go into the Promised Land. They progressively learned more about God in His revelation to them. Jesus gives us some insight into the Mosaic economy as to divorce when He replied,

“Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.” (Matthew 19:8, 9)

Notice what Jesus confirms from the beginning,

“’Haven’t you read,’ He replied, “that AT THE BEGINNING the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the TWO will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” (vs. 4-6)

So this business of more than one wife was not something God intended from the beginning. Man’s rebellion and disobedience is what causes division. That is the case in how men treat the captives and how they treat slaves too in times of war. But I do not believe God condones cruelty in slavery, regardless of the kind, or human sacrifices for that matter,

“You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fires of sacrifices to their gods.” (Deut. 12:29-31)

“If a man or a woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of His covenant, and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun, moon or the stars of the sky, and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death. On the testimony of two or three witnesses a man shall be put to death, but no one shall be put to death on the testimony of only one witness.” (Deuteronomy 17:2-6)

So justice is to be established by two or more credible witnesses. There are similarities between the law practiced in Old Testament Israel and our law system of today. The witness must be proved reliable. (see Exodus 23:1, 2, 7, 9) You don’t just go out and stone someone to death as a vigilante group. God hates the shedding of innocent blood. Remember also that the Bible records many things that God does not approve of, and will judge according to His standard. What gives you, the Realist, the right as a creature to judge your Creator when you cannot even provide a good explanation for the existence of morals?

So although God allowed slavery in the Mosaic economy, it was not the kind that you give examples of. Slavery in the Old Testament, although historical, in one sense was a shadow and type of the Lord Jesus Christ, in submission to the Father on the behalf of those who would believe. In another, God used it to judge those in rebellion to Him. The term is again used in the New Testament by the apostles, in an act of love for their Master. You can read about Hebrew servants or slaves in the OT in Exodus 21:1-6. What more respect and love can you show to God but to recognize His majesty and worth and humbly bow before Him in service?

http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Gleanings_Exodus/exodus_31.htm

You said,

“He certainly doesn't follow his own ten commandments. His prerogative I suppose, but it doesn't say much for the existence of absolute standards of morality.”

That is your assertion. You said,

“There were actually two sets of ten commandments and they are different. The first set (Exodus 20) that Moses smashed in a fit of rage and the second set (Exodus 34) where God apparently forgot what he wrote the first time.”

Here is what the first passage of that chapter says,

“The LORD said to Moses, “Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke.”” (Exodus 34:1)

I don’t see anything that would tell me that the LORD forgot anything that He had written the first time. In fact the text explicitly states that the words written on them were the same as were written on the first tablets. There again, you show your ignorance of the Scriptures and how poorly you interpret the Bible. Plus you do this repeatedly in your allegations.

“The New Testament God is a much kinder gentler creature, except he's still got issues. The New Testament is an improvement on the old. Obviously the authors of the New Testament had learnt something from history.”

He is the same in every respect, just revealed more fully to us in the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus said,

If you really knew Me, you would know My Father as well. From now on, you do know Him and have seen Him…Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father.” (John 14:7, 9b)

He also said in John 10:30,

“I and the Father are one.”

That ties into the Old Testament, when Deuteronomy 6:4 says,

“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.”

You continue,

“But the basis of New Testament morality makes little sense (the old "eye for an eye" stuff makes sense even if it is barbaric.) First God makes us all inherit Adam and Eve's sin, so we are all guilty of something that we didn't do.”

Yes, we have and we are guilty. You have broken God’s laws and rebelled against Him, as have I. We do what our ancestors have done, we call God a liar, we decide for ourselves what type of morality we will and will not accept by putting ourselves in the place that belongs to God alone, and we proudly display this knowledge before our fellow men as we ignore our Creator. (Genesis 3:1-6)

“The punishment is eternal torture (what a kind and loving God he is!).”

A just God who does what is right and who does not “wink” at evil; it will be judged either in the Person of Jesus Christ or in you.

“And then he sacrifices his son (who is supposedly completely innocent) to himself to convince himself to change his mind and forgive us for being the way he made us. It really makes no sense at all!”

God does what He has done to save His creatures without compromising His goodness and justice.

Again, you confirm what the Bible has already revealed,

“For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who perish, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.’” (1 Corinthians 1:18-19)

And again,

“For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know Him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.” (1 Corinthians 1:21)

I could continue, but there is no point, except to say that God calls all men everywhere to repent, for one day He will judge mankind. He has give proof of this by raising Jesus Christ from the dead. (Acts 17:24-31)

“Was it just for dramatic effect? It's all about punishing the innocent so that the guilty can be spared. I haven't even started on the nonsensical conditions on how we take advantage of God's "generous" offer.”

As a sober note, God cannot be mocked. One day, unless you repent of your sins, you will indeed be punished. But unless the Sovereign Lord changes your disposition I expect to hear more of the same.

“There are numerous books written by people who write much better than I do that you could read: e.g. The God Delusion" and "God is not Great" - both excellent books that go into this subject in some depth.”

Again, they are the writings of sinful men, with a certain disposition (for no one is neutral), who are puffed up in their pride and rebellion. My friendly atheist, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge.”

“Why should you accept my opinion about morality? You shouldn't accept my opinion just because I say so! You should listen to what arguments I present to justify my opinion and if you agree with them, you should accept my opinion.”

I don’t accept your opinion of morality. It does not make sense. I have listened to such opinions many times before and cannot find a way in which you can justify them as being right.

I said:
The God described in the Bible seems to change his mind about what is right and wrong.

Peter Huff replied:
"That is not true. Remember that God made covenants with people and nations. Different stipulations were revealed by these covenants."

OK, I see now. God has different rules for different people and nations. Thanks, that's much clearer now.

Peter Huff wrote:
"But the point I'm making is that there is a correct way of interpreting Scripture, otherwise God would be totally incomprehensible."

Yes, but every different (fundamentalist) sect will tell you that their way of interpreting Scripture is the correct way and everybody else's is wrong. But your particular one just happens to be the only correct way to "interpret" the Bible.

Do you still think that God communicates clearly? I don't think so. If the Bible was clear, there would be little need to "interpret" it.

I wrote:
"In the Old Testament, God seems to be all in favour of slaughtering your enemies without mercy and taking their women as slaves."

Peter Huff replied:
You presuppose that these peoples are innocent in their worship of false gods and that they have not broken God's commandments. God is judging these nations for their sin and wrongdoing in His sight by destroying them. That is His chosen means of punishment in this case.

OK, my mistake. That makes it alright then. It's OK to slaughter people who break God's commandments and worship a different God. Thanks for clearing that up.

It's a good thing I don't worship any false Gods. Phew!

Do you see any difference between your beliefs and those of the 9/11 hijackers?

If God loves us all and cares for us, don't you think he sometimes has a very funny way of showing it?

Regards,
Realist

Peter Huff,

You seem to meet God on a regular basis. How about inviting the rest of us? Please invite Moses also and the rest of the mythical characters of the OT.

Hopefully the "pwtfft"s will serve lunch!!!

To the Realist,

Sorry for take so long in responding. I am at work in between my posts, so time is limited.

I will attempt to answer some of your comments from the other day. The reason I did not tackle them earlier is because they are time consuming and difficult to explain quickly.

When you do not supply Scriptural reference I cannot see the context in which you have subtracted the verses from. I know that God does not contradict Himself or lie, so the right explanation has to be consistent with the teaching of Scripture.

You said,

"But let’s first consider the view that morals are absolute and come from God."

That is a good place to start since God has made known what is good and right, therefore we can know also because He is absolute and does not change. (Hebrews 6:16-19; Psalm 119:128)

"Who is wise? He will realize these things. Who is discerning? He will understand them. The ways of the LORD are right; the righteous walk in them, the rebellious stumble in them." (Hosea 14:9)

You said,

"There are lots of problems with that point of view. Firstly which god is the source of morality? People have invented thousands of gods."

There is only one true and living God, and that is the God revealed in the pages of the Bible. Like you say, people have invented many gods, and I agree wholeheartedly with that statement because it is Biblical.

I also know that you disagree with my statements, as also revealed in the pages of Scripture (1 Corinthians 1:18-25 or Romans 1:18-2:16), so please save your comments. I hear them all the time. You and I work from two different worldviews and have different starting presuppositions. I have been asking you to make sense of yours. How can life come from non-life or intelligence from non-intelligence?

You say,

"Even amongst Christians there are many differing opinions about what is moral and what is not."

I would agree. That does not mean that the Word of God cannot be interpreted correctly. If you feel I am incorrectly interpreting something in the Word, call me on it and let's go deeper.

To continue with your thoughts,

"People interpret different parts of the Bible differently and most Christians ignore some parts and accept other parts because much of it simply does not make sense. Even fundamentalist literalists don't agree on everything (otherwise there would only be one fundamentalist sect, no?). You would think that an omnipotent and omniscient God would at least be able write clearly! Either He can't write clearly or He wants to confuse us. Take your pick."

God does communicate clearly. Many of the concepts that are misinterpreted by Christians are because they read into the Bible their cultural viewpoint rather than extracting the Biblical viewpoint. They put words into the text that are not there or take passages out of context, whether that be an historical narrative as figurative or a metaphorical narrative outside of the guidelines given; they do not take into consideration other passages that speak on the same subject, nor understand the culture in which the passage was written and what it meant then and its implications for today.

But the point I'm making is that there is a correct way of interpreting Scripture, otherwise God would be totally incomprehensible.

"The God described in the Bible seems to change his mind about what is right and wrong."

That is not true. Remember that God made covenants with people and nations. Different stipulations were revealed by these covenants.

The first covenant was with Adam and Eve. God told them that if they ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge they would surely die. That explains death.

Another of His covenants was with Abraham, then with the nation of Israel.

In the Word of God these covenants reveal that He is a God who is holy, pure, and just, without evil. To do what is against His good nature is to invoke His judgment. How can a just Judge ignore wrongful actions? Do you expect Someone who always does what is good and right to compromise His nature and standard? For God, that would be impossible, for He always does what is just and right and good.

Here is the covenant He made with Israel, in which they agreed to follow,

"When Moses went and told the people all the LORD's words and laws, they responded with one voice, "Everything the LORD has said we will do." Moses then wrote down everything the LORD had said." (Exodus 24:3-4)

“Then he (Moses) took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people. They responded, “We will do everything the LORD has said; we will obey.” Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, “This is the covenant the that the LORD has made with you in accordance with these words.” (vs. 7, 8)

God does not compromise His word. There were blessings for following and curses for breaking the covenant. (see Deuteronomy 28)

"If you pay attention to the commands of the LORD your God that I give you this day and carefully follow them, you will always be at the top, never at the bottom. Do not turn aside from any of the commands I give you today, to the right or to the left, following other gods and serving them. However, if you do not obey the LORD your God and do not carefully follow all His commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come upon you:..." (vs. 13-15)

Here is what Moses said in Deuteronomy 20:16-20 concerning instructions on going to war to take possession of the land of Canaan.

"However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them - the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites - as the LORD your God has commanded."

(And here is the reason given for doing so)

"Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God."

God takes justice seriously. If His chosen people are to follow His ways they cannot be influenced by the opinions of those who do not know God, in case they are swayed from doing what is right and led to worship other gods or in your case, Realist, no God at all. These nations in the land would influence the Israelites to do what is evil in His eyes, because they do not follow what God has said is good.

So when you say,

"In the Old Testament, God seems to be all in favour of slaughtering your enemies without mercy and taking their women as slaves."

You presuppose that these peoples are innocent in their worship of false gods and that they have not broken God's commandments. God is judging these nations for their sin and wrongdoing in His sight by destroying them. That is His chosen means of punishment in this case.

This is getting long, I will continue in another post.

"And what if the God of Abraham showed up with the prophet mohammed by his side and no Jesus? What then?"

E Fav, what a blasphemous thought!!!

"But Nazism was NOT identical with atheism."

Absolutely true, Gerry. Bye the way, don't you just love Google Earth?

"Atheists are just agnostics waiting for real evidence before we believe."

Some of us are not waiting actively, if at all. considering the lack of evidence over the millenia.

Also, most religious people are only expecting their own chosen deity to show up. They'd be shocked to see Zues or Jupiter or Mithras. And what if the God of Abraham showed up with the prophet mohammed by his side and no Jesus? What then?

Gerry,

Contrary to what many theists would like people to think, atheism does not imply absolute disbelief. Theists intentionally mis-represent our position to make atheism appear to require faith. Clever maybe, but disingenuously incorrect none-the-less.

Atheism merely asks for evidence before any particular belief is accepted.

We need to be remind folks that most atheists do not conclusively deny the existence of all supernatural beings. We do start from a tentative presumption (with a high probability) of non-existence but that is very different than a firm absolute conclusion of non-existence. Our minds are generally still open on the subject, we just ask for solid evidence before we believe.

The burden of proof is on believers to support their positive claims. Atheists are just agnostics waiting for real evidence before we believe.

"Religions are cults that last." Your wonderful observation implies that religion survives by adapting to its environment, or evolving. Cults and religions that do not evolve are extinguished, as many have been. Those that adapt to their times survive. The Roman Catholic church has changed its trappings many times and is today vastly different in its structure, message, and dogma than it was a thousand years ago. It evolves. It must.

Even Creationism survives by evolving, sadly. The mystery is how a cult can come over time to contradict its own words so blatantly and still gain adherents. What makes the unbelievable believable? Ignorance, yes, and stupidity, but there has to be something more. Doesn't there? Perhaps not.

Ok, Moderate, we can agree then that the Soviet atrocities were committed by an atheist administration (which I never doubted), but not because of and in the name of atheism, but in the name and because of the perverted ideology of authoritarian communism which, at least in the Soviet regime, included the destruction of religions, since they were seen to obstruct the "noble" cause of communism. Communism (Marxism), btw, in its pure form was a philosophical quest for justice on earth, even if in its practice ever so distorted and perverted. Marx himself was unable even to harm a fly.

Since you converted from atheism to Christianity (I converted from Christianity to atheism): I wonder how anyone (you?) still can believe the genesis stories. Download Google Earth, click to turn towards the sky, and detect some of the cosmic wonders.

An example:

Ngc 1512 Nebula: 30 million light years away, 70.000 lys broad, comprising millions of Stars (suns, planetary systems). Alpha centauri, our next neighbor: 4 lys away! This ("near") star's distance can be measured geometrically (creating an equilateral triangle between the earth's two position within half a year, and the star: The length of the basis of the triangle is known (300 million km), so one only has to measure the two angles. They define the distance. Simple trigonometry.

In light of this evidence: So "God" created everything in six days? Even for a fanatic like this Shearer boy who sends us all to hell, such insights would have to gnaw at his literalism.

Friends, just trying to picture this majestic and incomprehensible vastness and grandeur of the cosmos gives me a "religious" feeling way above the rather simple genesis "god" stories - an understandable crutch for our forefathers' lack of knowledge!

Gaby,

I agree with all you said. Hitler used religion for his political megalomaniac purposes. But Nazism was NOT identical with atheism.

The system religion/ethics class is still valid in German schools.

Chip,

I agree with your "practical" stance on maintaining the name of "atheism", although I still believe a positive would be better. I teach a musical instrument and I have learned never to tell somebody NOT to do something, lol!

In a previous post, Realist asked me how I could believe and I responded with the words "transcendental mysticism." But those words are not the right words. I just chose them because they seem approximate enough, at the time. If I have ever experienced anything like transcendental mysticism, it has only been momentary.

However, my believe derives from a sense that is not rational or scientific. Therefore it cannot be proven by rational or scientific means, or by logic. Therefore, I do not seek to prove it to others. It might be possible to lead others to a way of thinking that might enable them to experience a similar feeling, but I cannot see any methodical way to do that.

Peter Huff is trying very hard to prove the existence of God. But he has not yet done that. If his arguments and proofs were valid, we would all be congratulating him; his name would be in the headlines of the Washington Post: "Peter Huff Proves Existence of God." But he has not.

I dont even know why anyone of us, on either side would bring up Hitler or Stalin. They were psychopaths; I do not suppose they took even 5 seconds to puzzle about God, or atheism, or anything like that. Isn't it a little disingenuous to bring them up here, in this forum?

Rene Descartes said "I think; therefore, I am."

My first principle, is, "I have impressions of order."

From there, I wonder, how can I have any impressions at all; and what is the true nature of this order?

And it all just goes from there.

I am not interested in rolling around in the mud over God's existence; some say yes; some say no. So what? Peter Huff? So what?

Gerry:

Mandatory religious studies in German schools went on until at leasat the 1970's. The Catholics were educated by a priest, the Protestants by a preacher. The ones that could prove that they are neither Catholic or Protestant, were sent to an alternative ethics class.

I don't know if this still holds true today considering the influx of foreigners with vastly diverse religions. Probably not!

As far as Hitler's religious preference goes, I think he was a megalomaniac with delusions of grandeur and he could give a hoot about the religion of the day. He used used religion when it was to his advantage and that is about it.

The seven million non-Jews who perished in the holocaust were not sent to the gas chambers because of religion, but because the may have consituted a threat to his absolute power. Certainly there were clergy among those people, but so were gypsies, ordinary citizens, and others who were suspected of possibly sabotaging the ultimate goal.

Just my view!

In the above post, I meant to say:

"On one side we have the angry anti-Christians, and on the other side, we have the angry ANTI-atheists. Chime in on one side or the other, right? That is a fairly unsophistocated way of looking at things."

(I was trying to be ironic, referring to atheists as anti-Christians, and referring to Christians as anti-atheists. I guess I got a little mixed-up).

Peter Huff addressed this to me:

"You forget my friend that there is a battle going on here, and it is for the hearts and minds of people like you and I and everyone who professes the name of Jesus Christ."

The only battle is the battle that is going inside of Peter Huff's head. As I said before, the authority that Peter Huff claims to speak in the name of God is not a true authority, it is just his small voice, one voice in a multitude of voices; why should I perk up and respond to his more than any of the others?

That is something that he does not get. And I wont engage in analysis of Biblical scriptures in a forum such as this. I think that it is inappropriate to quote the Bible or the Koran to prove your argument in such a setting, to people who either do not know anything about the source of the scriptures, or who, flat out, do not believe that they have any meaning or worth. And it is easy to counter any Biblical quotation, with a counter-quotation. Zeroing in on specific verses to support a complex argument is disingenuous, besides being a poor argument, in fact no argument at all.

On one side we have the angry anti-Christians, and on the other side, we have the angry atheists. Chime in on one side or the other, right? That is a fairly unsophistocated way of looking at things.

Do we really choose our beliefs? I don't think we do; more than choosing our beliefs, we experience them, as a heritage passed on to us, through a complex of contingencies. And then these inherited, modified beliefs, determine our personalities, and who we are, more than the other way around. So, it is utterly pointless for the anti-Christians to yell at the anti-atheisists, and vice-versa, as though this hostile forceful argument could ever get anyone to stop believing one way, and then start believing another way. It just doens't work that way. It never will.

In Christianity, we are instructed to love our neighbors and to treat our enemies well. This is really hard; almost impossible. Almost no Christians even seriously give it a try, because of the very nature of this impossible instruction. It always seems more important to focus on the difference in other people that make them so objectionabe, and the try and persuade them, or force them to be less objectionable, that is more "like me."

When you start thinking of the permenant and unchanging differences in others, even in their beliefs and belief systems, it then becomes easier to accept them as they are, and realize the futility of changing them, and then the whole idea of loving people, even ones who are strangers, even ones who are enemies, starts to seem less impossible.

Peter Huff quotes and quotes and quotes from the Bible, like the solicitor general, arguing a case before the Supreme Court. But he never engages in any discussion, angst, worry, or even curiousity about how are we supposed to love our neighbors? As a Christian, this kind of thinking is alot more engaging than trying to step in front of the atheists, to block their way. In fact, I have zero interest in this activity.

This is not a system of belief that you can get from going to church, or reading the Bible intensively. Too much church-going and too much Bible-reading can be part of the problem. This kind of thinking comes about by being in the world and intereacting in the world, and then refelecting on the hard times hard feelings encountered, that we feel and cause.

I have been attempting to review the comments on this thread. The comment that appeals to me the most is the comment by Terry from September 22, 2007 at 9:59 AM.

I think that many enlightened mystics of human history have attempted to teach other people the methods necessary to be enlightened but their teachings have been co-opted by the “followers” who are self interested, egocentric and greedy people. The result of these organizers of religions is a “belief” system instead of a pure “practice” as you see in Zen. Simply “believe in this dogma and you will be rewarded” is the resulting misconception of many religion’s teachings. Jesus Christ seemed to be teaching his followers that they should be one with God and give up their entity of self in each moment. (See Matthew 6:28, Luke 17:21, John 15:13 and John17:21-23) This view seems to be similar to Buddhist thought (except the concept of God which could be interpreted as a personification of ultimate reality). Of course the followers of Christ misinterpreted his teachings in order to fulfill prophecy and to create a self-interested entity of “church”.

The true Christians are the Gnostics who practice Christ’s teachings daily through experience not just belief.

Dear Gerry:

We are finally having a real discussion. Nice to meet you.

"You sneaked in the word atheist"

I didn't sneak it in. Marx and Lenin sneaked it in.

"Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism."
- V. I. Lenin

Clearly that the founding fathers of Soviet Communism thought that Atheism was part of the bargain. Please note that I do not take the fallacy that all Atheists are communist authoritarians as my position. Just that the practitioners Soviet Communism were.

"Authoritarian can be atheist OR religious.
That is no logical proof for equating atheists with authoritarians."

Agreed. I made no such equation as a logical implication. If I had I would be wrong. I make the equation on an historical basis, saying that these particular people at this particular time were both authoritarian and Atheist. I make no claim that this generalizes to all Atheists at all times.

However, I do infer that Atheism does not guarantee of a peaceful, liberal, civil society that respects human rights. The record of the Communist experiments of the twentieth century makes this point abundantly clear. That is a much more limited inference.

"And I think that is a sign of progress, since for the first time you posit the possibility that atheists can be non-authoritarian - my point, q.e.d."

Not the first time at all. You may remember that I was an Atheist for upwards of two decades, and I was no authoritarian, rather closer to libertarian, so I know this in my bones. While I do, and always have, agreed that Atheists can be non-authoritarian, history shows that atheists can be authoritarian, too, and very deadly when they are. My point, q.e.d.

That is why I think that Dawkins in suggesting compulsory adherence to his ideas for future generations is so far wrong. His authoritarian bent is showing already.

Moderate,

glad you agree.

The only word I don't agree with is the one you sneaked into my argument.

I said:

Nazi and Commie bad record = religious bad record.

You sneaked in the word atheist:

ATHEIST bad record = religious bad record, equating again Nazis and communism with atheism, which is a fallacy.

My point all along was and is:

Authoritarian is the common denominator.

But I did not and never will, as you, equate atheist with authoritarian, as you "secretly" tried!

Authoritarian can be atheist OR religious.
That is no logical proof for equating atheists with authoritarians.

It is the very common fallacy:

All beetles crawl. Therefore whoever crawls is a beetle.

But I agree to your last sentence:

"You might compare them to non authoritarian secular/atheist social progressives and find them at no disadvantage." And I think that is a sign of progress, since for the first time you posit the possibility that atheists can be non-authoritarian - my point, q.e.d.

Joke:

How many theists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

None. They'll think that the darkness is gods will.

Joke:

A very religious man lived right next door to an atheist. While the religious one prayed day in, day out, and was constantly on his knees in communion with his Lord, the atheist never even looked twice at a church.

However, the atheist's life was good, he had a well-paying job and a beautiful wife, and his children were healthy and good- natured, whereas the pious man's job was strenuous and his wages were low, his wife was getting fatter every day and his kids wouldn't give him the time of the day.

So one day, deep in prayer as usual, he raised his eyes towards heaven and asked:

"Oh God, I honor you every day, I ask your advice for every problem and confess to you my every sin. Yet my neighbor, who doesn't even believe in you and certainly never prays, seems blessed with every happiness, while I go poor and suffer many an indignity. Why is this?"

And a great voice was heard from above: "BECAUSE HE DOESN'T BOTHER ME ALL THE TIME!"

Joke:

A local priest and a pastor were fishing on the side of the road. They thoughtfully made a sign saying, "The End is Near! Turn yourself around now before it's too late!" and showed it to each passing car.
One driver who drove by didn't appreciate the sign and shouted at them, "Leave us alone, you religious nuts!"

All of a sudden they heard a big splash, looked at each other, and the priest said to the pastor, "You think maybe we should have just said 'Bridge Out' instead?"

Joke:

One day the zoo-keeper noticed that the orangutan was reading two books - the Bible and Darwin's Origin of Species.

Surprised, he asked the ape, "Why are you reading both those books?"

"Well," said the orangutan, "I just wanted to know if I was my brother's keeper or my keeper's brother."

To all who enjoyed the jokes, I am glad you did. This blog takes itself WAY too seriously. Some of them were written by Atheists who think it is time for a good laugh or two. We have this kind of thing for all the other tolerant (Gerry might say non authoritarian) religions. And before you get cranked up, Atheism is a faith based position about (the) God(s), so lighten up and laugh a bit.

Dear Gerry:

Good post.

Progress at last. So it is not just the religion after all? Are you conceding that societies based on authoritarian religions are as bad as societies based on authoritarian atheist ideologies? I think you are right if that is the conclusion you have come to.

Therefore I claim the idea that the world will necessarily be improved if we can get rid of religion is not supported in history. So much for Dawkins and his idea of compelling parents to stop training their children in religion. I am sure you would concede that this is an authoritarian proposal, and as such likely to go bad. Thus you can see that my problem with Dawkins is not that he is an Atheist, but that he is an authoritarian. He sees his beliefs as the one true way and is already advocating that others be forced to follow his beliefs in future generations.

Not clear why all the Atheist societies have been authoritarian, either, but they have. You could argue the point that it is a small sample fluctuation because the were all descended from a common authoritarian ancestor to dispute the notion that this is inherent to Atheism. Seems some dictator always appoints himself God like Stalin, or Mao, or Pol Pot, or God Emperor Hirohito. Or like the Xerxes, or Commodus long before that. Something about absolute power seems to bring that out.

Now, what about non-authoritarian religions? The American Main Line Protestants and reform Jews are very liberal, and not very literal. They have been a force for good from the abolition of slavery, religious hospital systems, civil rights, human rights, charitable activities, and cultural moderation generally. You might compare them to non authoritarian secular/atheist social progressives and find them at no disadvantage.

Sorry for the double post earlier.
The refresh button is our friend!

Peter Huff wrote:
"The reason that I can make sense of it all is because the God of the Bible is an objective standard, outside myself, who made and understands everything. There is no limit to His wisdom and knowledge. Therefore, in my worldview I can know for certain."

Yes, you and Al Quaida and all the other believers out there know for certain that they are right.

I wish I could publish proofs in maths journals with logic like that.

I just had to comment on that again. Peter, your mind is gone. You are beyond help.

Regards,
Realist

Sorry about hitting the "post" key too soon.

Not so Moderate anymore,

Nazi + Commie bad record = religionist bad record
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Common denominator: Authoritarian.

Authoritarian = in the possession of absolute truth (Marxism faith, racism faith, Bible faith, Quran faith, Jupiter faith...*). Enforcing "absolute truth". Deviants must be eliminated. Adherents may wear white or gray or checkered socks, as long as they stick to the "truth".

What about the Reichskonkordat? What about Nazi time religion classes? Is it too embarrassing for you to even mention it? It still seems to escape you that the discussion is not about the atrocities (let alone their numbers you can't help but produce, ha!), which nobody contests: It is about their philosophical/religionists roots. Get it?

Yours truly,

Bunky, 2nd prize winner

*Wikipedia: Authoritarianism describes a form of social control characterized by strict obedience to the authority of a state or organization, often maintaining and enforcing control through the use of oppressive measures. Authoritarian regimes are strongly hierarchical.

Jay S.:

Joseph Campbell posited that female-dominated religions once existed in societies that relied on fishing and agriculture. These societies worshipped godesses, symbols of fertility and bountiful harvests. These societies developed matriarchal power systems.

In the global industrial economy, these religions don't much exist anymore.

In Campbell's view, the male-dominated religions developed in societies that relied on hunting for their economic survivial and developed patriarchal power systems.

I'm not endorsing Campbell's views just passing on a reference in answer to your earlier question:

"Are there any female-dominated religions (or cults)? If not, why not? It does seem to suggest that there's something involved with male dominance in religion formation."

Susan:

I thought you hit this one out of the ballpark!

Dear Moderate -

Thanks for the apology on the HW song.

Whoever thought that On Faith would be a forum to argue/apologize over the HW Lied in any way, shape or form?

Not so Moderate anymore,

Nazi and Commie bad record = religionist bad record
--------------------------
Common denominator: Authoritarian.

Or in mathematical form, so you understand better, maybe:

N+RBRR
________ =
A A

What about Reichskonkordat? What about religion classes? Is it too embarrassing to even mention it? The discussion is not about the atrocities, which nobody contests: It is about their philosophical/religionists roots. Get it?

Yours truly,

Bunky, 2nd prize winner

Dear Gerry,

The citation for the lyrics is given as:

Richard Grunberger, A Social History of the Third Reich, Penguin, 1991. I don't actually have that book, so I am passing the citation through.

Pardon me, I did misread the article. It was, in fact, another Hitler Youth song ABOUT Horst Wessel. I do try to vet materials I post here but I made an error with this one. Regardless of WHICH Nazi propaganda song it was though, the Nazis were substantially anti religious and their use of such lyrics, which no one denies here, confirms it. No BS there.

And Gerry, in regards to:

"Can't you make a logical distinction between killing people WHO ARE RELIGIOUS (for whatever other reason) and killing people BECAUSE THEY ARE RELIGIOUS, IN THE NAME OF ATHEISM, Bunky?"

I do make that distinction.

According to Pope John Paul II, who was there at the time, the Nazis shipped twenty-five thousand Catholic Clergy in Poland to the death camps. There is absolutely no reasonable question that they did this BECAUSE the priests were Christian. If I ever do earn a "Bunky" award, I'll accept it, but this time the "Bunky" award is on you. Dude. ;-)

You guys just can't accept reality. The Atheist record is as bad as the worst of the religions. The Dawkins Delusion is flat broken.

Sorry.

speed123,
de·moc·ra·cy /dɪˈmɒkrəsi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-mok-ruh-see] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -cies. 1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

re·pub·lic /rɪˈpʌblɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-puhb-lik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
~~~~~~~~~~

as you can see that Democracy and Republic means the same...so please stop saying they are different. One is Roman and one is Greek...

Our Constitution garentees the protection of minorities..we do not have majority rules over minorities.
terra

Dear Gerry & E Fav -

Don't expect Moderate to admit he got the words wrong on the HW song. He doesn't have the spine nor the ethical center to do so. Like most religionists on this blog who get called on their lies, he'll just ignore the slapdown and move on to his next line of BS.

Sorry to be so hard on you, Moderate, but your past actions proceed you here.

To Moderate and Gerry - I googled some of lyrics above and see that they are not from the horst wessel song itself, but are from another song, ABOUT Wessel, supposedly sung by Hitler youth.

At any rate, it doesn't seem to be about atheism - as atheists don't advocate following one human instead of one supernatural being, and don't look to a swastika or any symbol to bring "salvation" on earth.

Well, Moderate, you concede I am one quarter right. A progress, as I said.

I am as well aware as you that in German concentration camps masses of Christians were killed (e.g. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, member of the 20th July 44 resistance and a huge number of others.) You certainly don't have to teach me that, Bunky! (What a funny sounding insult, but an insult anyway).

Look up Horst Wessel song on Google: A lot of pathetic Nazi propaganda, but your version? Not a word. An invention. As a little boy, I even had to learn that song. Not your lyrics, however. Where did you get those from?

Can't you make a logical distinction between killing people WHO ARE RELIGIOUS (for whatever other reason) and killing people BECAUSE THEY ARE RELIGIOUS, IN THE NAME OF ATHEISM, Bunky? Sad. That is all I want to state. You still refuse to acknowledge the religion classes in German schools until 1945. And you throw dirt at me!

Since your wisdom is so superior to anybody else's: Ever heard of the Reichskonkordat? Google it: A treaty between the Nazis and the Holy See, allowing the Catholic church to teach and perform their religion.

Dear Gerry,

"Hitler and Stalin did not commit their atrocities IN THE NAME of atheism"

Three quarters wrong. The Communists did murder in the name of creating the New Socialist Man, whom they insisted must be Atheist. The anti religious strain in Nazism is well documented. The Horst Wessel Song, for just one (of a huge number I could post) example contained the following:

"We follow not Christ, but Horst Wessel,
Away with incense and Holy Water,
The Church can go hang for all we care,
The Swastika brings salvation on Earth."

(Horst Wessel was an early Nazi party Sturmabteilung street-fighter
murdered by communists and turned into a martyr by propaganda chief
Josef Goebbels.)

Can you get it more clearly stated than that?

Many Christian clergy were sent to the death camps along with the Jews. In fact, about seven million non Jews were murdered in the camps where six million Jews were murdered. Most of those were Christian. You should read George Weigel's Biography of Pope John Paul II. You get a real eyeful of the real nature of Communism, Nazism, and their treatment of the religious. Solzhenitsyn gives another eyeful.

"There is a demeaning expression almost in every single sentence."

People throw lots of rocks at me on this blog, and being The Moderate does not mean I will be buffaloed or pushed around by rhetorical cheap shots. When dealing with someone who simply will not employ reason I accord the Appellation "Bunky". It is my short hand way to say that I am dealing with a "DON'T BOTHER ME WITH THE FACTS!!!" discourse or person. DuckPhup has been consistently demeaning and insulting in his discourse, and completely unresponsive to factual arguments. Sometimes you are too.

The Moderate,

I think you are making progress,

"bring up the Atheist crimes not to say that all Atheists of today are guilty of the crimes committed in the name of Atheism (a huge stone falls from my conscience!) but to point out how stupid your arguments about corporate guilt are".

I don't remember ever to have referred to corporate guilt. An interesting issue, but a completely different discussion.

I think it is you who smears other people, reading some of your stuff against Duckphup. There is a demeaning expression almost in every single sentence. Personally, I don't remember smearing you, although I notice that you are unable to stay on a certain level of argumentation - if this statement is a smear, so be it.

Hitler and Stalin did not commit their atrocities IN THE NAME of atheism, whether they personally were atheists or not. Stalin turned atheist (after his basic education as a Christian orthodox seminarist), he thought communism would bring the ultimate justice to the world, annihilating any possible resistance against his ideology. Hitler in his stupid Germanic racial superiority psychopathy vacillated between religion and atheism, using religion at least for his purposes, among other things referring to Luther for the legitimation of the holocaust. He never left the catholic church and talked about the "divine providence" in his speeches all the time. He did not abolish religion classes in school (do you regard this statement as a smear against you? You never seem even to read it, since it does not fit into your preconceived world picture.).

But thanks for the jokes!

Peter Huff wrote:
Is logic something that applies universally to all men for any man to make sense of anything? If yes, then logic is an absolute that must be true. If not, then how do you know that anything can be made sense of? What makes sense to you may not make sense to any other person.

Another great question.

Yes logic and mathematics are a form of absolute truth. But unfortunately logic and mathematics have their limits. Not all mathematicians agree on what rules of logic are valid, although there are many systems of logic (first order predicate calculus) that are known to be equivalent that apply to most reasoning and mathematics, and they do seem to be absolutely reliable. It took hundreds of years for mathematicians to figure out exactly what these rules are and what their limits are. There are still significant theorems about logic and computation being discovered today.

I think the fact that we can make sense of the universe is quite amazing and remarkable. The human brain is one of the wonders of the universe.

Peter Huff also wrote:
In a universe that came about by random blind, chaotic chance that is material in nature, explain how something that is conceptual and immaterial arose out of this blind chaotic material?

I don't know that you can say the the universe came about by "blind chance". I don't know how the universe came about. I don't think anybody does. Physicists are working on this problem and they are making progress, but the jury is still out about exactly what happened at the begining of the universe and possibly we will never know.

The universe seems to follow some relatively simple laws. We have some approximations of those laws, but we don't know and probably can't ever know if we have figured out exactly what the laws are. If the universe was completely random, it would make no sense and there would be no complex patterns such as us. It's obvious where you are trying to lead me :-). Unfortunately I don't think you can conclude much about the creator of the universe from the fact that the universe is comprehensible.

You also wrote:
The reason that I can make sense of it all is because the God of the Bible is an objective standard, outside myself, who made and understands everything. There is no limit to His wisdom and knowledge. Therefore, in my worldview I can know for certain.

I really don't see any connection between the Bible and our ability to make sense of the world.
I think that there is an objective reality. That's why we can make sense of it all, but the Bible describes how people several thousand years ago attempted to make sense of the universe. We now have much more accurate ways. Our brains have evolved to make sense of things. Being able to make sense of things obviously has great survival value because it is the reason we are at the top of the food chain. But I don't see any evidence that there are any other intelligences in the universe or outside the universe, or that there is anything outside the universe (or multiverse). I think it's highly likely that there are other intelligences, but it's very hard to speculate without any hard evidence.

Regards,
Realist

Peter Huff wrote:
Is logic something that applies universally to all men for any man to make sense of anything? If yes, then logic is an absolute that must be true. If not, then how do you know that anything can be made sense of? What makes sense to you may not make sense to any other person.

Another great question.

Yes logic and mathematics are a form of absolute truth. But unfortunately logic and mathematics have their limits. Not all mathematicians agree on what rules of logic are valid, although there are many systems of logic (first order predicate calculus) that are known to be equivalent that apply to most reasoning and mathematics, and they do seem to be absolutely reliable. It took hundreds of years for mathematicians to figure out exactly what these rules are and what their limits are. There are still significant theorems about logic and computation being discovered today.

I think the fact that we can make sense of the universe is quite amazing and remarkable. The human brain is one of the wonders of the universe.

Peter Huff also wrote:
In a universe that came about by random blind, chaotic chance that is material in nature, explain how something that is conceptual and immaterial arose out of this blind chaotic material?

I don't know that you can say the the universe came about by "blind chance". I don't know how the universe came about. I don't think anybody does. Physicists are working on this problem and they are making progress, but the jury is still out about exactly what happened at the begining of the universe and possibly we will never know.

The universe seems to follow some relatively simple laws. We have some approximations of those laws, but we don't know and probably can't ever know if we have figured out exactly what the laws are. If the universe was completely random, it would make no sense and there would be no complex patterns such as us. It's obvious where you are trying to lead me :-). Unfortunately I don't think you can conclude much about the creator of the universe from the fact that the universe is comprehensible.

You also wrote:
The reason that I can make sense of it all is because the God of the Bible is an objective standard, outside myself, who made and understands everything. There is no limit to His wisdom and knowledge. Therefore, in my worldview I can know for certain.

I really don't see any connection between the Bible and our ability to make sense of the world.
I think that there is an objective reality. That's why we can make sense of it all, but the Bible describes how people several thousand years ago attempted to make sense of the universe. We now have much more accurate ways. Our brains have evolved to make sense of things. Being able to make sense of things obviously has great survival value because it is the reason we are at the top of the food chain. But I don't see any evidence that there are any other intelligences in the universe or outside the universe, or that there is anything outside the universe (or multiverse). I think it's highly likely that there are other intelligences, but it's very hard to speculate without any hard evidence.

Regards,
Realist

"Thanks, Moderate, for the jokes. I hadn't heard any of them."

Ditto - I'll be sharing them at my next atheist gathering.

Where did you get those, Moderate? Are these the kind of jokes Christians tell when they get together?

Realist,

Thanks for your honesty in answering the questions. Much appreciated. I have much to say about your posts but it will have to wait for a more opportune time. Just a quick few thoughts on your first post, even though it is pregnant. You said,

"I certainly don't have any magic way to decide if something is true or not. I can only rely on my own knowledge and reasoning. Since I don't know everything and I can't verify every fact, I have to rely on other people's knowledge and opinions as well. I can only use my own judgement to decide which sources of knowledge are reliable. Do you know of any better way?"

So you are relying on your own subjective opinion to tell you what is true, but you are ever the skeptic, admitting that your judgments may not be sound. You also are relying on other subjective opinions that, in themselves have no way of knowing whether they are true. As I said before, you cannot make sense of it all without God.

"I think there are very few things we can know for certain. But some things are more certain than others. Mathematics and logic come pretty close to certainty. Rene Descartes' "I think therefore I am!" is hard to argue with."

Is logic something that applies universally to all men for any man to make sense of anything? If yes, then logic is an absolute that must be true. If not, then how do you know that anything can be made sense of? What makes sense to you may not make sense to any other person.

In a universe that came about by random blind, chaotic chance that is material in nature, explain how something that is conceptual and immaterial arose out of this blind chaotic material?

If all we are are bags of biological matter reacting as our particular chemicals combined, how can you ever be sure that two biological bags would ever react the same at any given time? Why do they? How does chance chaotic matter produce intelligent or thinking matter? The only piece of rock I have ever seen thinking is "The Thinker."

That is the difference between your worldview and mine. I can make sense of these things, whereas the best you can come up with is, well maybe? (forever the skeptic who can never know anything for certain, as you have yourself admitted)

The reason that I can make sense of it all is because the God of the Bible is an objective standard, outside myself, who made and understands everything. There is no limit to His wisdom and knowledge. Therefore, in my worldview I can know for certain.

"If we are talking about objective reality, the findings of science are about as close as we can get to certainty about the universe we live in."

Take a look at your objective science and the constant tweaking of the evolutionary position. That is why God makes the wisdom of the world so foolish. It constantly changes as we "learn more." His Word is truth and does not change like shifting shadows. (James 1:17) There is nobody like Him!

"Why do I trust logic, mathematics and science? Because they have proven themselves to be extremely reliable. Religions, on the other hand have proven to be very unreliable sources of truth. If you don't agree, ask yourself how many religions do you *not* believe in?"

There is only one true faith. All the rest are human inventions. The blueprint and plumb line is the Bible, the word of God.

Thanks, Moderate, for the jokes. I hadn't heard any of them.

Realist

I wrote:
"The more we learn, the better our standards get."

Peter Huff replied: Better in whose opinion. Whose standard do you measure better against? Yours? Why is your "better" better than my "better"? Because you say it is so?

It's a good question and it deserves an answer. As with everything else, I measure "better" by looking for evidence.

Morals and truth are very different things. I don't believe in an absolute morality. I know you will disagree with me right there. But I have evidence for my position.

But let’s first consider the view that morals are absolute and come from God. There are lots of problems with that point of view. Firstly which god is the source of morality? People have invented thousands of gods. Even amongst Christians there are many differing opinions about what is moral and what is not. People interpret different parts of the Bible differently and most Christians ignore some parts and accept other parts because much of it simply does not make sense. Even fundamentalist literalists don't agree on everything (otherwise there would only be one fundamentalist sect, no?). You would think that an omnipotent and omniscient God would at least be able write clearly! Either He can't write clearly or He wants to confuse us. Take your pick.

Let’s assume the God of the Bible is the real deal (though personally I find some of the other gods much more convincing). The God described in the Bible seems to change his mind about what is right and wrong. In the Old Testament, God seems to be all in favour of slaughtering your enemies without mercy and taking their women as slaves. He lies, he deceives, he changes his mind, he kills lots of babies; he advocates incest. What he does with Abraham and his son is despicable. He seems like a very nasty character. He certainly seems very confused or at least very hypocritical. He certainly doesn't follow his own ten commandments. His prerogative I suppose, but it doesn't say much for the existence of absolute standards of morality.

There were actually two sets of ten commandments and they are different. The first set (Exodus 20) that Moses smashed in a fit of rage and the second set (Exodus 34) where God apparently forgot what he wrote the first time.

The New Testament God is a much kinder gentler creature, except he's still got issues. The New Testament is an improvement on the old. Obviously the authors of the New Testament had learnt something from history.

But the basis of New Testament morality makes little sense (the old "eye for an eye" stuff makes sense even if it is barbaric.) First God makes us all inherit Adam and Eve's sin, so we are all guilty of something that we didn't do. The punishment is eternal torture (what a kind and loving God he is!). And then he sacrifices his son (who is supposedly completely innocent) to himself to convince himself to change his mind and forgive us for being the way he made us. It really makes no sense at all! Was it just for dramatic effect? It's all about punishing the innocent so that the guilty can be spared. I haven't even started on the nonsensical conditions on how we take advantage of God's "generous" offer.

This post is already too long and I haven't even started on where morality really comes from. I could write a whole book on how little sense the idea of morality coming from God makes. Fortunately I don't have to. There are numerous books written by people who write much better than I do that you could read: e.g. The God Delusion" and "God is not Great" - both excellent books that go into this subject in some depth.

I will try to post more if I have time, but let me answer your original question before you accuse me of evading it. Why should you accept my opinion about morality? You shouldn't accept my opinion just because I say so! You should listen to what arguments I present to justify my opinion and if you agree with them, you should accept my opinion.

Regards,
Realist

Joke:

Did you hear about the 15,000 atheists in London who rioted after a blank sheet of paper was found on a cartoonist's desk?

I once wanted to become an atheist, but I gave up - they have no holidays.
- Henny Youngman

Joke:

An atheist buys an ancient lamp at an auction, takes it home, and begins to polish it. Suddenly, a genie appears, and says, “I’ll grant you three wishes, Master.” The atheist says, “I wish I could believe in you.” The genie snaps his fingers, and suddenly the atheist believes in him. The atheist says, “Wow. I wish all atheists would believe this.” The genie snaps his fingers again, and suddenly atheists all over the world begin to believe in genies. “What about your third wish?” asks the genie. “Well,” says the atheist, “I wish for a billion dollars.” The genie snaps his fingers for a third time, but nothing happens. “What’s wrong?” asks the atheist. The genie shrugs and says, “Just because you believe in me, doesn’t necessarily mean that I really exist.”

Joke:

Atheist: What’s this fly doing in my soup?
Waiter: Praying.
Atheist: Very funny. I can’t eat this. Take it back.
Waiter: You see? The fly’s prayers were answered.

Gerry:

You really don't get my point.

Actually, Hitler was a vegetarian. That’s why he wanted to kill everybody... So the soft and furry little animals would not have to be killed and eaten. Yeah, that's it! All vegetarians are guilty of the Holocaust! Vegetarianism is "child abuse" and should be forbidden because of its well documented ties to Nazism!

You guys are always trotting out some religious atrocity, often made up or exaggerated, to prove the Dawkins Delusion that religion is the source of all evil and getting rid of religion would get rid of all evil. I bring up the Atheist crimes not to say that all Atheists of today are guilty of the crimes committed in the name of Atheism, but to point out how stupid your arguments about corporate guilt are. The hope is that by changing the variable names, it will make the absurdity of the standard arguments thrown around by morons like Dawkins pellucid, limpid, and clear, even.

Get it now Bunky???

If you do, try some more civil and honest arguments than the smear, slander, and hyperbole that are usually used around here.

BTW,

What do you call an Atheist buried in a suit?
All dressed up with nowhere to go. ;-)

Peace.

Stalin was evil because of atheism? Interesting premise.

Haven't read A.S. so I do not know how he frames Stalinism.

But to an ignorant trog like me, Stalin was evil, not because of atheism, but because of enforced collectivism, absolute authoritarianism, and pathological sociopathy, cured only by his auspicious death. Eternal Suffering Be Unto Him.

Collectivism is a foundational element of Christianity. You are but a helpless sheep, a weakling, a meek servant whose highest aspiration is complete poverty in service to the lord. Authoritarianism is also a property of all the Abrahamic religions. There is God, and there is everyone else, preferably, on their knees in poverty, submission, and servility.

Non-defensive use of force, first psychological, then physical, to enforce submission is a trademark of an abusive leadership. Use of physical force against an individual is the highest breach of civil order, and indeed, civilization. From individual freedom, springs all that we consider "rights". Stalin was catastrophic for the individual, as are cults, and religions, and other collectives asserting control by force, psychological, or physical.

---FIUS

"And if the love remains
Though everything is lost
We will pay the price
But we will not count the cost"
-Rush

... and Google Earth is a fake Hollywood production!

Friends,

you cannot "beat" Peter Huff. If god created mathematics, it cannot be used against god. PH simply performs a logical pirouette with the question "how do you know that 2+2=4" etc. - and you lose, because he knows, lol! There is no argument conceivable that would "prove" that his thoughts are delusional: The BASIS of his thinking is delusional. On these grounds, nobody can "discuss" with him and his associates. "God" by definition can derail any non-god argument!

WITHIN the "God"-system anything goes, even a (limited) amount of "operational" intelligence. PH is not interested in looking for truth: He possesses it, and it never changes (if it would change, it wouldn't be truth, therefore the earth is flat!), any question anyone?

Realist says: "Science is the best method we know to determine the truth. The whole point of science is that people make mistakes. Science is a process for learning from what we can observe and for catching those mistakes"

I agree. Human perception and understanding is imperfect, and the scientific process provides the best means to cull out incorrect ideas from those that hold up under continuous scrutiny by multiple scientists working in different fields of research.

Peter responds: "How do you know that the theory of evolution is not a mistake?"

It might be, but many different lines of scientific evidence indicate otherwise. You would have to compile a lot of new evidence that shows that the huge amount of data that SUPPORTS evolution is wrong.

Or come up with an entirely new theory that is based on the same body of data, but explains those data better than the current model of evolution does.

In my view, anti-evolutionists have two choices: Simply reject vast amounts of information provided by several different fields of modern sciences and embrace creationism, OR devise a new scientific theory that does not involve evolution to explain the evidence that is available, and do it better than evolutionary science does.

The former is much easier, since it does not require any heavy mental lifting and actually allows one to embrace the widespread ignorance of science. Not surprisingly, it is the most popular.

Peter Huff wrote:
"God is the objective standard."

Well he just spoke to me and told me that I'm his new representative on Earth, so you can believe everything I say on authority from God.

Do you believe me?

Peter Huff wrote:
"You assert that no standard is absolutely true. Is that statement true? Either the claim that nobody has an absolute standard of truth is an absolute truth claim or you have an infinite regress of constantly changing truth claims in which no one can know anything for certain."

I certainly don't have any magic way to decide if something is true or not. I can only rely on my own knowledge and reasoning. Since I don't know everything and I can't verify every fact, I have to rely on other people's knowledge and opinions as well. I can only use my own judgement to decide which sources of knowledge are reliable. Do you know of any better way?

I think there are very few things we can know for certain. But some things are more certain than others. Mathematics and logic come pretty close to certainty. Rene Descartes' "I think therefore I am!" is hard to argue with.

If we are talking about objective reality, the findings of science are about as close as we can get to certainty about the universe we live in.

Why do I trust logic, mathematics and science? Because they have proven themselves to be extremely reliable. Religions, on the other hand have proven to be very unreliable sources of truth. If you don't agree, ask yourself how many religions do you *not* believe in?

Regards,
Realist

To Daniel,
Thanks for responding to my question. I admire your honesty and humility.

Regards,
Realist

Mr. Moderate,

I will always be suspicious of anybody who starts an argument with

"Truth is on my side"! That is what caused and still causes all the terrible atrocities in history, religious or otherwise. But it represents the usual religionists' stance of circular reasoning.

Oh yes, Moderate, you are right about the criminal atheism. Hitler was so busy killing Jews (implicit religious root of the crimes, re. Luther!) that he simply forgot to prohibit mandatory religion classes in all German schools. Isn't it understandable for a poor overstressed administration...

I try to face it like a man that you like reading the Archipelago Gulag.

Stalin was atheist. Admitted. He committed atrocious crimes. No debate. Stalin liked singing in a choir as a adolescent.

Therefore Stalin committed the atrocious crimes in the name of the choir singers.

Moderate says: "face it like a man. When you stop denying the historical record and meditate upon the implications, I will stop repeating it.

Face it, Moderate, you have no intention to stop repeating it and it will never make sense no matter how often you repeat it.

And what is your message? In order to avoid future bloodbaths, we have to profess belief in an invisible supernatural being? that hasn't worked so well up to now.

How about: People are going to kill each other anyhow, so why not believe in an invisible supernatural being? Not a ringing endorsement for religion.

Dear Gerry:

"Neither Hitler's nor Stalin's crimes were crimes "in the name of atheism". This silly pretension does not gain weight by senseless repetition."

You are wrong. Read what the Nazis and Communists said. I only repeat the historical record because you repeatedly deny it. Truth is on my side. Read the Gulag Archipelago. A brilliant observer, caught up in a society that, according to the Dawkins Delusion should have become the workers paradise, and who earned a Nobel Peace Prize for his writing disagrees with you.

The Dawkins Delusion has it that the World's ills will be cured by the elimination of religion. When religion was eliminated in the Soviet Union, the largest blood bath in human history ensued. Face it like a man. When you stop denying the historical record and meditate upon the implications, I will stop repeating it. Until then, you clearly need to hear it.

To the Realist,

Get real. You said,

"Nobody has an absolute standard for judging what is good, right or true. We all have to choose for ourselves what to believe."

You assert that no standard is absolutely true. Is that statement true? Either the claim that nobody has an absolute standard of truth is an absolute truth claim or you have an infinite regress of constantly changing truth claims in which no one can know anything for certain.

God is the objective standard.

"Our standards of morality don't change "with the wind". They change with experience and knowledge."

Yeah, whose experience and whose knowledge. Yours?

"The more we learn, the better our standards get."

Better in whose opinion. Whose standard do you measure better against? Yours? Why is your "better" better than my "better"? Because you say it is so?

"Science is the best method we know to determine the truth. The whole point of science is that people make mistakes. Science is a process for learning from what we can observe and for catching those mistakes"

How do you know that the theory of evolution is not a mistake?

You judge everything from within your subjective experience. Christians judge reality from an objective source of knowledge outside of themselves who we know is true. (John 17:17)

Peter Huff wrote:
"Are you going to look to some subjective human being to tell you what is right and good and true and noble over the very words of God?"

No I'm not! That's why I don't believe the authors of the Bible. They were a bunch of people just like the people who wrote the Koran, just like the people who wrote the Book or Mormon, like the people who wrote the Baghavad Gita. I don't trust them to tell me the word of God.

Peter Huff also wrote:
"They do not have a standard that can make sense of good and right and truth. It changes with the wind."

Nobody has an absolute standard for judging what is good, right or true. We all have to choose for ourselves what to believe. But you can choose to accept the standards of people who lived thousands of years ago, or you can choose to learn from the last few thousand years.

Our standards of morality don't change "with the wind". They change with experience and knowledge. The more we learn, the better our standards get. We've learnt lessons like not discriminating against women, or people of other races. In many developed countries, we have learnt that homosexuality is a biological thing and discrimination against homosexuals is wrong. The US lags behind other countries in this regard because of all of the people who want to remain ignorant and want to stick to the morality of thousands of years ago.

The Old Testament God was all in favour of murder, rape, slavery. We've learnt from bitter experience that these things do not lead to peace or happiness.

The morals of the New Testament are all about punishing the innocent and forgiving the guilty.

Science is the best method we know to determine the truth. The whole point of science is that people make mistakes. Science is a process for learning from what we can observe and for catching those mistakes. Whenever Science has disagreed with the Bible, science has always been right. Science progresses as we learn, whereas religion resists progress. Science is based on knowledge and religion is based on ignorance.

Much of what is in the Bible is now known to be false. E.g. we now know that diseases are caused by micro-organisms, not by demons. We know that rainbows are caused by refraction of light, not by God.

Much of what the Bible considers moral is considered immoral today. People learn from experience and from history. Society develops as we learn better ways to live. If you want to live in the kind of society with morals described in the Bible, you can go and live in the Middle East. They still believe the same myths and live the way people lived in Biblical times.

Regards,
Realist

Check out the story on MSNBC regarding an atheist
soldier in Iraq that has filed a lawsuit for harassment. The lawsuit includes Secetary Gates for allowing a culture of Christian fundamentalism to permeate the military in Iraq -this complaintent has allegedly been confronted, threatened, and essentially ostracized for his
beliefs. I seriously doubt there is any exaggeration whatsoever in this tale of invidious
persecution. Whoever said this wasn't a religious war??? Stalin the atheist wasn't capable of initiating Armageddon - the Bush Christians are not only capable, but seemingly don't mind heading in that direction day by day.

Interesting about Sweden's purported atheism these days. I always found Immanuel Swedenborg to be among the most fascinating of Swedes - a Lutheran and mystic (much like Jacob Boehme the German showmaker a century before), the man had visions of the heavenworlds and was a frequent otherworld traveler, but managed to be a great inventor on the order of Leonardo himself. A great genius that wrote volumes about his visits in the afterworld - as with most Christian mystics, his experiences were interpreted and filtered through his Christian orientation.

Gerry -

I appreciate your rebuttal to the strangely name "The Moderate," but one may as well try to shout down the wind.

The Moderate points to the works of Solzhenitsyn as an indictment of atheistic society. I wish I could comment, but I have only read his Gulag Archipelago and August 1914, and that was way back in the late 70s or early 80s and I really need to re-read them before I could offer a cogent reply (I need to read a few other AS titles as well). However, what The Moderate fails to grasp is the simple truth that Solzhenitsyn's writings describe ONE atheistic society that was being run by a madman. Were Solzhenitsyn born and raised in largely atheistic Sweden, his writings would have been of a much different tenor, so much so that they would probably qualify as some of the most-boring reading available.

Mr. Moderate,

there is no crime "in the name of atheism", as Duckphup already has pointed out. By contrast, there are immense crimes against atheism, as even seen when people get mobbed for being atheists in the US or killed for performing an abortion, legally, again in the US.

Could you bridle your logic a little bit: There are crimes for power, crimes of authoritarian governments or dictators against anybody who jeopardizes their power: Hitler, Stalin (your "numbers" favorite), crimes for an ideology (Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot...). Ideology is a very close relative to religion (or, more exactly: Religion is an ideology!). Muslims hang atheists, atheists don't hang Muslims. All religions kill apostates (Inquisition, Mormons' Meadow mountain massacre, 30 years' war etc.)

Neither Hitler's nor Stalin's crimes were crimes "in the name of atheism". This silly pretension does not gain weight by senseless repetition. Hitler's or Stalin's victims were as "atheist" as they come. They were not killed for being "theists", but for threatening the particular ideology (see above!). Even the holocaust, by the way, was a continuation of earlier, especially Luther's demands for killing the Jews! And Hitler bragged about doing what Luther had demanded 500 years earlier! The holocaust was a residue of the ancient antisemitism, a revenge for "killing Jesus". So it can be rightfully said that even Hitler's crimes had a religious note.

And: School children had official mandatory religion classes in Germany until 1945, which, btw, I remember personally!

On the other hand there are the purely religiously motivated crimes against anybody who thinks freely, that is, who thinks "officially" undesired thoughts. The result: Millions and millions of murders and deaths, even if you desperately try to belittle the scope of these horrors, committed by pious Christians with a 100% clear conscience. I repeat: The German population was reduced to one third by the religious 30 years' war.

A person with the intellectual claim and condescending attitude as yours should really not fall into this obvious primitive trap:
The sky is blue. My shirt is blue. Therefore my shirt is the sky.

Duckphup - interesting list. after "Victim: manipulator: clergy: sincere/deluded" how about, "Victim: manipulator: clergy: sincere/unconsciously internally compromised"

Also, my BS detector, working overtime these days, with so much material available, is telling me that you are not the "Bunky" type and that Moderate is desperately hoping that belittling you will get others to take your remarks less seriously.

Oh, I get it - he was trying to de"bunk" you.

Dear DuckPhup:

It is painful to give up a fantasy like the Dawkins Delusion so you can't bring yourself to do it.

Your version of "history" contains strong fantasy elements. You really should do some real research on the topics you expound upon.

Judging by your unbalanced views, I'm guessing you don't know who Alexander Solshenitsyn is, or at least have never read his documentary work on an Atheist society of the twentieth century.

You guys who like to dredge up every wrong done anywhere and anywhen by religionists in the last 4,000 years, and yet squirm away from facing Atheist crimes are laughable. You can't have it both ways and be honest at the same time, Bunky.

Religionists never seem to entertain the thought the 'ultimate reality' that they seek is by nature far beyond religion or the practice of religion. In that sense religion does seem to be a trap of monumental proportions that holds it's believers fast in the web of practices, beliefs, traditions, rituals, etc. that comprise that particular religious tradition.

Of all religions, certain traditions in Buddhism recognize this 'entrapping' phenomenon very clearly - that being the Tibetan Dzogchen school of the Great Perfection and of course Zen (I personally favor the Rinzai or sudden enlightenment school over the Soto or gradual enlightenment school).

In these traditions all religious practice is aimed at achieving enlightenment, or an intuitive and direct perception of the nature of reality - once this occurs, one's view of life is transformed altogether - that which had iron-clad validity previously, now has only relative and transient value in a relative world. These practices are for the religious and the non-religious alike. There are no restrictions as to religious belief or pursuasion.

A fully enlightened individual perceives reality as both samsara and nirvana simultaneously - the relative and absolute forever entangled in Suchness (the singular nature of reality) but nevertheless separate at the same time. This is a deep paradox that is indeed beyond religion.

In my view getting to this point of pure seeing is the only reasonable function of religion - all else is either mis-direction or a con job.

E Favorite quoting Duckphup: "I see only two classes of christians... victims and criminal manipulators."

E Favorite: "My BS filter tells me many clergy are not criminal manipulatiors. Not sure what they are, though."

I agree... a large percentage of the clergy are victims, too. Perhaps I should have said that I see only two MAJOR classes of christians. By applying a finer set of filters, it would certainly be possible to break those two classes down into sub-categories. Who knows?... it might actually be useful to do so. Even on the victim side, there are manipulators... they just don't necessarily know what they are doing, or even know that what they are doing is morally corrupt.

Something like this might be a (tentative) way to look at it... and it could be an fun exercise for some bored (or interested) sociology or anthropology student to pursue...

Criminal manipulator: evangelist: atheist scam artist (Example: Benny Hinn)
Criminal manipulator: evangelist: believer (Example: Billy Graham)
Criminal manipulator: apologist
Criminal manipulator: fear-monger (Example: Tim LaHaye, Jack Van Impe)
Criminal manipulator: pseudo-scientific liar (Example: Ken Ham)
Criminal manipulator: dangerous: dominionist (Example: Dr. D. James Kennedy)

Victim: manipulator: clergy: sincere/deluded
Victim: manitulator: proselytizer: sincere/deluded
Victim: sheeple: brainless: tithing revenue source
Victim: sheeple: defender-of-the-faith: cannon fodder (Example: ... never mind)
Victim: sheeple: fanatic: TBN/CBN revenue source
Victim: sincere: good-hearted believer: good-works source
Victim: sincere: loyal: takes quiet comfort from beliefs
Victim: dangerous: dominionist

I should mention... I do NOT think that Peter Huff is a 'criminal manipulator'. All you've got to do is count the logical fallacies in (SEPTEMBER 20, 2007 12:58 AM) to see that he is not. There is a HUGE difference between intending to scam and defraud people, and manipulate them for nefarious purposes... and not knowing how to think critically.

Anyway... that's just a quick and dirty look at how this sort of thing MIGHT be broken-down. It's really pretty sloppy, at this point... I hadn't really thought of it before now. In any case, I don't intend to pursue this idea any further... I've just got too much other stuff to do. But... some readers might want to take a stab at improving upon this idea... improving my categories... adding categories... think about where the people they know (or know of) might fit.

But there IS a very scary part to this exercise, which I noticed as I looked back over the table. As you DO this exercise, and consider each category, and consider how many people might occupy each category, and who, ASK YOURSELF THIS... is it necessary to have applied critical thinking skills to qualify for this category? If you DO that, in an intellectually-honest fashion, this little mental exercise just might scare the crap out of you.

Duckphup: "I see only two classes of christians... victims and criminal manipulators."

My BS filter tells me many clergy are not criminal manipulatiors. Not sure what they are, though.

The Rich Man: (1a) Mark 10:17-22 = Matt 19:16-22= Luke 18:18-23, (1b) Gos. Naz. 16a; was a later addition to the NT/Bible as per many contemporary NT exegetes. Historically, therefore Matt 19:17 is not part of the Jesus biography/ways/sayings i.e. not part of a properly cleansed bible.

Hi Daniel,

You said,

"Based on your many posts here, I find your take on Christianity to be a little shaky. Not to be infringing on your freedom of speech, but a lot of what you say would be better left unsaid, because in saying such things as a Christian, you undermine the credibility of other Christians. Your credibility is pretty low. You are just another voice, among many, seeking authority, but it is still just your small, human voice."

Daniel, you mistake my intent as hatred for atheist. That is not the case. Yes, I like to show the absurdity of their authority and arguments because they keep borrowing from our Christian standard in all kinds of areas, such as truth, morals, uniformity in nature, logic, etc., all the time denying that their very breath is given them by God, that He and not they is sovereign and the source of all knowledge. (Acts 17:24-30 or Colossians 2:2-10)

You forget my friend that there is a battle going on here, and it is for the hearts and minds of people like you and I and everyone who professes the name of Jesus Christ. If you do not take the Bible as the very Word of God then it is not worth believing, because how do you know which parts are true and which are human errors? (1 Thessalonians 2:13-14)

Are you going to look to some subjective human being to tell you what is right and good and true and noble over the very words of God? They do not have a standard that can make sense of good and right and truth. It changes with the wind.

As Duckphup said,

"OK... my standard for doing so is a sane and rational brain that has the (rare... about 10% of the population) capacity for 'critical thinking'... a capacity which your god apparently neglected to bless you with...."

How does he know that his standard is rational and critical, because HE says so? Why should I believe his standard? It is just his opinion, or the opinion of other subjective men/women. What makes them right?

Without God, it all boils down to subjective human preference. Good is determined by either popular opinion or voluntary conscription. (i.e. you either look at good the way we do or we force you to do so) God is the only objective, absolute ultimate standard.

Daniel, our Creator determines good. As your Lord Jesus said, "There is only One who is good." (Matthew 19:17)

God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble. To those who think they can live autonomously, one day their eyes will see. They either bow now before the Almighty in reverence or they do so later. (Philippians 2:9-11)

If you think I misinterpret the Scriptures, so me where.

Robert K. Baker,

I enjoyed your post on September 21, 2007 3:30 AM. Well done! Excellent!

Gerry wrote:
"If they were statistically evenly distributed, there would have to be 50 times (!) more atheists in prisons than there actually are!"

Makes you wonder about this "morality comes from God" stuff that people keep telling us doesn't it?

I don't see any of the atheists I know dealing drugs or raping and murdering people. They are too busy designing the consumer goods that we all take for granted. I wish there were a lot more atheists like them.

Regards,
Realist

That is so true!! I love to make up new words, due to the fact there is so much history with other words...I have taken to the American Tradition of slang!!

Did my rant make any sense...when I get worked up I seem to forget all the grammar rules and go straight into the babbling that I call my English comprehension!!

PEACE BE UNTO ALL

_MONK_

Duckphup

I've spent the last hour reading your posts
and enjoyed them very much.Your arguments are compelling, clearly expressed,and fun to read.
If there were any waverers or fence sitters reading this thread,you may have won a few people over to at least reflect on the irrationality of religious belief.
So keep on making sense.The doubtful do read these columns,as do the curious.

Xymerian Monk, you said:

'ps "humantium" is a word I use to describe what we have turned the teachings of Christ into..ITS NOT A REAL WORD!! Don't need anyone saying I make up words for those "dumb" believers.. :('

Nothing wrong with coining a word, and it seems to fit. Could have been a subtitle to Monty Python's 'Life of Brian'.

Hello Again!

anyway I have finished reading all of Senor Duck's post...truly moving, I see now why the story seems to pale in comparrison to 'reality'. It is so hard to show evidence in the exsistance of God, me personally (and of course all will laugh at me) I think that God has removed his blessing on the world as a whole, now he still blesses those who teach and live what CHRIST teaches; however, the great miracles that happened in the old and new testament would no longer be needed, to show His power, he sent us to make disciples of all nations. Now before you attack the statement, Jesus wanted us to help and love one another not torture attack and kill; however, you add that Human Element: "Humantium" and now people die.

People hate rejection, all people no matter the language the place, the cultural upbringing, so naturaly when someone feels rejected and compromised we attack and stop the threat...unfortunatley when you are spreading the message (NOT RELIGION) of Love you just can't adhere to the natural "attack the rejector" mentality that grips us all. That is where we as Followers have failed, Religion is MAN's TAKE ON GOD/HIGHER POWER...the message of Jesus was not to go and DEvour all nations, but to spread the word.

Now when RELIGION started to replace the teachings of Jesus we fell short at a faster rate once people started to see the "Humantium" element to the teaching of love and respect. These BASIC FREAKING things that Christ taught have become the biggest things ignored by modern Followers. I mean you see the pain in the world and the starving children $5 a month is too much? But still playing on emotions is not the point, but if you have seen starvation and death right in the place where it consumes to many lives to count...you feel a little something 'screaming' of injustice...be that the Holy Spirit or an evolved sense of morality...no one can say for sure (I choose Holy Spirit)

So tonight I ask you when you go to sleep just remember I just need you all to send me $29.99 so that you will sleep better.(Joking)

PEACE BE UNTO ALL

_MONK_

ps "humantium" is a word I use to describe what we have turned the teachings of Christ into..ITS NOT A REAL WORD!! Don't need anyone saying I make up words for those "dumb" believers.. :(

Dear DickPhup:

You think you know many things that just aren’t so.

“Whoopee. We agree on something.”

Hmm… Actually not. Too bad that you think freedom from tyranny only applies to you. You defend the Dawkins Delusion, and the rot in it that can’t wait to force others to conform to Dawkins’ view of “reality”.

“Uh-huh... you ought to read up on 'dominionism'.”

Actually I read a couple of interviews with Sam Harris wherein Harris personally advocated torture by the Administration. He is a sick man, and adds to the blot upon the American soul along created by Bush and Cheney. Given his low regard for human rights, I remain uninterested in his views on theology. Because they hold high office, I must remain interested in the doings of Bush and Chaney, but Harris, having discredited himself in this way is of no further interest. You do yourself no credit by standing with him.

“There weren't any 'atheist societies' in the 20th century.”

"Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism."
- V. I. Lenin:

So nice try Bunky, but flat wrong. The Soviet was an Atheist society, and a carnal pit. Face it like a man.

I will I will grant you that not all Atheists are Communist Murders, and that you are not a communist murder. But the Communist Murders were Atheists of an Atheist society.

Now the Dawkins Delusion clearly states that abolishing religion would result in a Utopian rationalist society which would no longer have many of its problems. History records another story. The Dawkins Delusion is wrong.

“I am aware of hundreds of millions of human beings having been tortured and/or murdered in the name of 'christian ideology'.”

You know no such thing, because it never happened. That is where I start using terms of derision, because you do not see it as a burden of yours to get the facts right.

The Spanish Inquisition for, for example killed a couple of thousands over three centuries. They executed about one percent of the people tried. The Atheist Soviets killed thousands of times more.

“I am not aware of even a single person who was tortured and/or murdered in the name of 'rational skepticism'.”

Ok. But “Scientific Socialism” of which “Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion” is clearly another matter.

“By the way... this bit about terrorizing, torturing and murdering people because of their beliefs... that comes straight out of christianity's play-book. They INVENTED the concept.”

Wow. You are shockingly misinformed. I don’t know what propaganda you were fed, but it is wrong. The Catholic Church pushed the modern concept of human rights into the international community.

“You ought to try reasing up on some REAL history some time... not the pseudo-history that is spewed by christianity.”

I read a lot of history. I think yours from the school of hysteria, fear, and misinformation.

Do you know who Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn is? He saw an Atheist society at work. He said this:

"Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.

Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."

- Alexander Solshenitsyn, recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize 1983

If you want some real history read The Gulag Archipelago.

Daniel,

You are a kind voice of reason here - the voice crying in the wilderness? I appreciate your posts.

Duckphup,

You exhaust me! Your heart is in the right place, but, sacram merdam, you can be acidic!

I post on these forums, in little bursts from time to time. The harshest people are the ones who call themselves Christians. Some of them write personally insulting things to me and say things like I am an idiot, which hurts my feelings.

The irony of it is, that I usually can follow the atheist arguments pretty easily; but the Christian arguments are a cacophony of mean spirits. It's no wonder atheists appear here in such a bad mood.

Can a person apologize for other people? I am not sure. But I am sorry for all the mean-spirited and jerky things that get posted here in the name of Christ. That really is a pitiful shame, in my opinion.

I wish they, Peter Huff, and people like him, would apologize on their own behalves, but I would not ever expect that to happen.

Duckphup,

I think it is the "eat sh..., billions of flies can't err"- syndrome. Everybody does it, believes it, therefore it must be good (like the 95% of genital mutilation in Africa). The sheer numbers proportion fallacy puts people off guard, and since democracy rests on this principle, it is necessary that we push people's attention to understand the functioning of this "syndrome". It is the tribal adaptation that locks out any otherwise functioning reason. People produce very intelligent, "well-read" arguments once they are within the syndrome.

To modify Dante's hell: Lasciat' ogni raggione, voi ch' entrate!

Daniel...

P.S.: I am not writing with the idea that I might be able to influence the thinking of either Peter Huff of The Moderate... that, of course, would be a futile and forlorn hope. Rather, i write with the understanding that these pages are view by others... lurkers... who read, digest, form opinions... and are seriously trying to make up their minds, and figure out what to think. I view what I am doing as an intervention of sorts... in the hope, perhaps, of preventing vulnerable minds from becoming confounded by logical fallacies, misinformation, misdirection and lies... and that learning HOW to think is much more important than having someone tell you WHAT to think.

If some people are shocked by what I have to say... that is my intent. Hopfully, the shock might be sufficient to motivate them to the point of investigating and learning on their own, and figuring out to form valid conclusions... even when the ONLY valid conclusion is "I don't know."

“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." ~ Thomas Jefferson

Daniel... Peace, brother.

While my post (and, I'm sure, my succeeding one) may have seemed angry to you... I assure you... I am not (angry). I regard these posts as an entirely necessary 'dope-slapping' exercise.

I find your attitude to be most refreshing... and encouraging.

**********

"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." ~ Jonathan Swift

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." ~ Ben Franklin

(Martin Luther's remarks censored to get past the forum software filters.)

PETER HUFF wrote (SEPTEMBER 20, 2007 6:57 PM): "I would be interested to know where you got this quote from, "Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and... know nothing but the word of God." ~ Martin Luther"

Sure... "There is on earth among all dangers no more dangerous thing than a richly endowed and adroit reason... Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God."~ Martin Luther (Works Vol. 12). You can also find it quoted by Walter Kaufmann, 'The Faith of a Heretic' 1963, page 75

You might also find these additonal Luther quotes to be of interest...

"For reason is the greatest enemy that faith has: it has never come to the aid of spiritual things, but -- more frequently than not -- struggles against the Divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God." ~ Martin Luther, from "The Table Talk of Martin Luther" (303)

"Whoever wishes to be a Christian, let him pluck out the eyes of his reason." ~ Martin Luther (First Psalm Lectures, Luther's Works, Vol. 11, p.285)

"Reason is the Devil's greatest wh*re; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious wh*re; she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed wh*re; wh*re eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom ... Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism... She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets." ~ Martin Luther, Erlangen Edition v. 16, pp. 142-148

"Let your faith supplant reason. Abraham mastered reason by faith in the Word of God. Not as though reason ever yields meekly. It put up a fight against the faith of Abraham. Reason protested that it was absurd to think that Sarah who was ninety years old and barren by nature, should give birth to a son. But faith won the victory and routed reason, that ugly beast and enemy of God. Everyone who by faith slays reason, the world's biggest monster, renders God a real service, a better service than the religions of all races and all the drudgery of meritorious monks can render." ~ Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (1535) by Martin Luther, Translated by Theodore Graebner (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1949) Chapter 2, pp. 86-106

I just love this guy... as whacky as he might have been, his career as an inveterate blabbermouth provides some key insights into the kind of (alleged) 'thinking' that takes place in the (alleged) minds of the religiose. He obviously wasn't overly fond of people who knew how to think.

PETER HUFF: "You do what the majority of atheists do on this forum. They assume that all Christians are dupes who are incapable of thinking for themselves."

Well... yeah... but, of course, that doesn't count the ones who are actively involved in the overall operation and direction of the criminal business enterprise that we know as Christianity. Generally, though, I see only two classes of christians... victims and criminal manipulators.

"...dupes who are incapable of thinking for themselves." Well... yeah... at least 'critical thinking'. You know... like being able to figure out what actually constitutes a fact, and what can be used as 'evidence'... and how to apply logic to facts, and reach conclusions without getting yourself all tripped up in logical fallacies. Let's take a look at you, for example. To the extent that I have been able to observe (from your writings), I have concluded that the foolishness which serves you as a substitute for knowledge and reason is a logical fallacy (a flaw in thinking) known as the "Argument From Incredulity"... which is a sub-category of the "Argumentum ad Ignorantiam" (Argument From Ignorance). It is also known as the 'Divine Fallacy'. It goes something like this: "I can't conceive of (or imagine) how this might have come to be; therefore, God did it."

That does not point to a limitation of science, or of nature... rather, it illuminates a limitation of YOUR knowledge and/or intellect. Also, it is intellectually dishonest, since it does not (as scientists do) ACKNOWLEDGE the limitation of knowledge... it merely invokes the fanciful idea of a supernatural creator-entity to manifest the ILLUSION that your ideas correlate to 'facts'. Finally... it reveals that you presume, for yourself, a form of omniscience... thinking that goes like this: "If this were understandable, then I should be able to understand (or imagine) it... but I do NOT (or can not) understand it (or imagine it)... therefore it is NOT understandable... and since it is NOT understandable (by me), it logically follows that it cannot be 'true'. Therefore... God did it." (See? Right back to the Argument from Incredulity.) From what I have seen though, you do not even seem to go THAT far... instead, I get the distinct impression of a 7-year old kid with his fingers stuck in his ears, going "la-la-la-la... I can't hear you... la-la-la-la... god did it...la-la-la-la..." A shame, really.

'Faith' (magical, wishful thinking) is a lame and pathetic substitute for 'evidence'.

Faith-based 'belief' (the internalized certainty that you are privy to the 'truth' pertaining to vital aspects of existence and reality) is a lame and pathetic substitute for 'knowledge'... in fact, it is the ILLUSION of knowledge.

Faith + belief ---> Self-delusion and willful ignorance.

'Belief' is an insidious mind-killer... it cuts one off from the open-minded and intellectually honest (willing to actively question and doubt one's own assumptions) consideration of alternative possibilities.

Undoubtedly, you will quote the preceding paragraph and assert that unbelievers are not open-minded because they won't consider the possibility of 'the truth of the word of god', or some such blather. The thing that you guys seem to have a hard time assimilating is the fact that most atheists/agnostics HAVE considered it. Look... you are going to be sorely displeased with the way that I word this... but you will have to admit that the following is an ACCURATE summation of christianism. You believe that a cosmic Jewish zombie, who is his own father, can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced, by a talking snake with legs, to eat a piece of fruit from a magical tree... (etc.)... and that there is something horribly wrong with people who ARE NOT so gullible and droolingly stupid as to believe such outrageously ridiculous codswallop.

Well... here's a new flash... that is INSANE.

"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance... it is the illusion of knowledge." ~ Daniel Boorstin

"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion." ~ Robert M. Pirsig

PETER HUFF: "Have you ever read John Calvin, Martin Luther or any of the early church fathers? Ever read Augustine? How about Greg Bahnsen or Van Til? I would be surprised if they did not push you to really do some hard thinking. Ever tried to makes sense of the Bible by the study of hermeneutics?"

Well... I have read some of St. Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin... and let us not forget St. Thomas Aquinas... I've read a lot of Aquinas. But this would probably be a good place to point out that I tend to regard a Ph.D. in Theology as roughly equivalent to having a Doctorate of Teletubby Anatomy, a BS in Warp-Nacelle engineering or an advanced degree in 'Republican Ethics'. One can take only so much of the self-deception, misconceptions, sophistry, and downright willful ignorance that are necessary to arrive at such pseudo-justifications for christianity's false beliefs, false morality, and self-delusion... unless such efforts are necessary to the solidification and furtherance of your OWN delusions, or as an aid in foisting these delusions off onto others.

PETER HUFF (quoting DuckPhup): "One example of this lies in the idea that you can't properly interpret the bible unless you are possessed of the Holy Spirit. What having "...the Holy Spirit to help illuminate our minds to God's word" REALLY means is that they have been so thoroughly brainwashed that they are attuned to 'doublethink'. Up is down, bad is good, murder becomes 'love'... fools are wise and the wise are fools... knowledge is meant to steer you away from the Lord, and ignorance is the way to righteousness and salvation... and gullibility, ignorance and drooling stupidity are holy virtues. It means insisting that god is 'all loving'... and knowing all the while that god frequently commanded his flock to bash babies skulls against rocks and slash open the bellies of pregnant women, with swords... and not sensing any conflict or contradiction between these ideas."

PETER HUFF: "Some points about your comments,

PETER HUFF: "1) What is the highest source of authority you can appeal too? For the Christian, it is the Word of God, the Bible."

Uh-huh... so your highest authority is the collected and consolidated myths, superstitions, fairy tales and fantastical delusions of an ignorant gaggle of Bronze Age fishermen and wandering, militant, marauding, genocidal goat-herders. Yes... we knew that. However... sane and rational people have something of a hard time acknowledging such ridiculous drivel as the 'highest source of authority'... or ANY source of authority, for that matter.

My 'highest authority'? LOL. A good bullsh*t filter and bullsh*t alarm, which are plugged right into the reason and critical thinking circuitry of my brain. And in conjunction with that, a good understanding of what we are justified in claiming as 'knowledge'... and what we are not.

PETER HUFF: "2) To believe up is down or murder is love is just some absurd spewing coming from your mouth."

Poetic license, in part... but, see below, for the rest. (I notice that you declined to pick at the 'fools are wise and the wise are fools' part. Why is that?)

PETER HUFF: "You are talking non-sense. And before you can define bad is good I would ask you what is your standard for doing so?"

OK... my standard for doing so is a sane and rational brain that has the (rare... about 10% of the population) capacity for 'critical thinking'... a capacity which your god apparently neglected to bless you with.... because if you WERE capable of critical thinking, you would not be a party to the standard description of the christian god: loving... merciful... forgiving... compassionate... (lots more warm and fuzzy adjectives)... when it takes no more than a cursory reading of the Old Testament to reveal that... (take it, Richard)...

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." ~ Richard Dawkins 'The God Delusion'" ~ p.31

And then, of course, we have what I cited as one of the innumerable examples of christian 'doublethink': "... insisting that god is 'all loving'... and knowing all the while that god frequently commanded his flock to bash babies skulls against rocks and slash open the bellies of pregnant women, with swords... and not sensing any conflict or contradiction between these ideas." I'm sure I don't have to point you to the scriptural references where it tells us that the wise are fools and fools are wise. You probably know them by heart, and quote them all the time... you just didn't know that they were examples of 'doublethink'... and for the most part, they are warnings to evangelicals-in-training... telling them not to waste their efforts on people who are intelligent and educated, or else they will just get laughed at (and, probably, tarred-and-feathered and run out of town). The advice of the apostles is that they should direct their efforts solely toward people who are as dumb or dumber than themselves. (I was able to interpret that properly, if course, because I am possessed of the 'Secret Magical Decoder Ring'... ehhh... oops... sorry... scratch that... er... I mean that I am possessed of the 'Holy Spirit'.)

PETER HUFF: "3) To quote verses without context is just another way of misleading your audience. That is something that atheists are good at. Very seldom do they provide chapter and verse or book reference. How about it Ducky?"

Back to the beginning, please.

Oh... before I go... one more quote from our old buddy Martin Luther might be useful here... it provides an insight into why christianity is so deceitful... and Peter... you might want to look this up for yourself, just to make sure that I am not misrepresenting it by taking it out of context:

"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church... a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." ~ Martin Luther, in a letter in Max Lenz, ed., Briefwechsel Landgraf Phillips des Grossmuthigen von Hessen mit Bucer, vol. 1.

Oh... and you have a blessed day.

Duckphup's angry posting is a reaction to Christians like Peter Huff. Christian hostility to atheists makes atheists angry.

When Christians compare any atheist posting to Stalin or Hitler, it makes the atheist angry. Christian hostility, in general, to any group of people, only undermines the credibility of Christianity, in general. It is hypocritical for Christians to get into pissing matches.

Merely using the word, "love" as the centerpiece of your Christian belief is not good enough. Many Christians regard it as just a word, an utterance that their doctrine requires. But there should be some kind of meaning behind it, that goes beyond merely loving your own personal "loved ones." After all, what is the credit in that?

There is alot involved in working through the word "love" and I think most of it is work to be done inwardly and not at Bible study classes or on forums such a this.

So, even Duckphup's angry statements do not make me angry at him, nor dislike atheists.

THE MODERATE wrote (SEPTEMBER 20, 2007 8:51 PM): "Dear DuckPhup:
Fundamentalism is for simpletons."

Uh-huh. So is religious belief, in general.

OK... this is the part where you get all irate and produce a SHORT list of very famous, very smart people who were religious... a VERY short list. Of course, whenever such a list is produced, nobody EVER bothers to acknowledge that in the time when MOST of the people on such lists were alive, essentially EVERYBODY was religious... because their lives depended on it. Also, in those times, the ONLY place where anybody could get an education was via the church. If you eliminate THOSE people from the list, and limit it to people who actually had a choice... the list becomes VERY VERY short. In other words... we've all seen the list... don't bother. We're not impressed.

Oh... also, in those times, natural philosophy had not advanced to the point where it was even conceivable that complex systems could arise naturally from simplicity, over time. That idea did not even firmly take hold until science had digested Darwin's theory. Up until then, 'natural philosophy' (and later, science) saw its mission as uncovering and explaining the methods by which god had implemented his creation, and kept it running.

Today, it is dult acknowledged that there are some very smart, educated people who are religious... Francis Collins comes to mind. However, people like him are so few that it can be regarded as a statistical abberation, rather than a matter of great consequense. It could be an example of compartmentalization... i.e., think critically in the lab... check your brains at the church door. Or, it might simply demonstrate that high intelligence and education do not automatically confer an immunity to self-delusion.

THE MODERATE quoting DuckPhup: “Actually, I am very much in agreement with Dawkins.”

THE MODERATE: "Hmm… Lets see… You rail against the religious people because they can’t prove there is a God, while you can’t prove there isn’t.”

Well, here's the thing, you see... we don't HAVE to prove there isn't (a god). This is really VERY simple. In general, atheists do not 'believe' because in the mind of a sane, rational person, the reasons or evidence purported to support the idea that invisible, magical sky-fairies (gods) 'exist' are not compelling, and thus are insufficient to initiate or sustain a mental state of 'belief'. The idea that there is a 'choice' involved seems silly to me.

Let me try to explain this in another way. You guys come around here telling fantastic stories about this wonderful, loving, capricious, vengeful, murderous, genocidal, caring, compassionate, mass-murdering, forgiving, jealous... loving... did I already say loving?... supernatural entity who poofed the universe into existence, fabricated humans from a dust bunny and a rib... while just outside of the Garden where he was doing all this, the Mesopotamians were making beer.... and you have no evidence... none... at all... zilch... nada. You tell us that a cosmic Jewish zombie, who is his own father, can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced, by a talking snake with legs, to eat from a magical tree... (etc.)... and that there is something horribly wrong with people who ARE NOT so gullible and droolingly stupid as to believe such outrageously ridiculous codswallop.

OK... here's the thing... we DON'T BELIEVE YOUR STORY. That's it... that's what an atheist is. Somebody who DOESN'T BELIEVE your story... and other equally ridiculous stories, either. Simple, huh?

The reasons and evidence that you present, for WHY I should believe your story is either 'good', or 'NOT good'. If it's NOT good, then my 'bullsh*t alarm' goes off. One does not CHOOSE to have one's bullsh*t alarm go off... it just goes off.

OK... so... your story makes my bullsh*t alarm go off... and that means that I think your story is bullsh*t. I do not have to PROVE it is bullsh*t... I don't have to BELIEVE that it's bullsh*t... I just have to THINK that it is bullsh*t. In other words, I am simply NOT impressed.

Now... here's where it gets REALLY tricky. You've heard of the 'burden of proof'... right? Well, here's what that means. If YOU want ME to believe YOUR story, then it is UP TO YOU to present your story to me in such a way that my bullsh*t alarm does NOT go off... and THAT means that you must accompany your story with credible, compelling evidence... WHICH, by the way, nobody has been able to do for nearly 2,000 years... so I'm not gonna be holding my breath, waiting for that to happen.

So... now I've got to ask you... does the fact that I think your story is bullsh*t, and that your reasons for believing it are worthless, constitute a 'belief'... the internalized certainty that the mind-picture in my brain is congruent with some cosmic 'truths' relating to important matters of existence and reality?

LOL. Nonsense... I just DON'T BELIEVE YOUR STORY. I think it is a droolingly stupid, insane and ridiculous story... just like if you came around telling me that there was a herd of invisible pink unicorns that pranced around in your back yard under the light of a full moon... with no evidence... I just had to have 'faith'... I just had to 'believe'. Well... I wouldn't believe THAT story, either. My bullsh*t alarm would go off, and I would think THAT story was a droolingly stupid, insane and ridiculous story, too... just like your god story.

So... would that make me a "no invisible pink unicorns in your back yard-believer?" I don't think so.

"Atheism can be considered to be a 'belief', or a 'religion', only in the same sense that one might regard NOT collecting stamps to be a 'hobby'." ~ Unknown

"If you claim that something is true, I will examine the evidence which supports your claim; if you have no evidence, I will not accept that what you say is true and I will think you a foolish and gullible person for believing it so." ~ Richard Dawkins

THE MODERATE: "So you say they engage in: 'Doublethink'.”

Uhhh... well... yeah.

THE MODERATE: "Then you agreed with Dawkins who says that his unproved idea should be shoved down other people’s throats by force of law.”

Well... no, actually... I didn't say that at all. You must not have had 'reading comprehension' activated, as you read over that. What I ACTUALLY said (SEPTEMBER 20, 2007 2:21 PM) was THIS: "When we get to the part about making it illegal... well, that's where it gets tricky. You see... I regard the parents who are wilfully and enthusiastically engaged in the process of indoctrinating (brainwashing) their children to be just as much victims as the children they are complicit in brainwashing." Now... does THAT sound like I want to have "... his unproved idea ... shoved down other people’s throats by force of law?" I don't think so.

So... I think that the problem has to be attacked at a much higher level than trying to make it illegal for parents to teach their children what they want to teach them. There are several problems with that... not the least of which are that it would be unenforceable, it would be unconstitional and it reeks of totalinarian thought-police stuff. No... this problem must be attacked through education... through something that our education system does not presently accomplish... teaching people HOW to think.

THE MODERATE: "If the religionists advocated you be forced to teach your children their beliefs you would rightly believe it to be a tyranny."

Whoopee. We agree on something.

THE MODERATE: "So it is you are engaged in the “Double Think” you mock. Only a fundamentalist could even try something that stupid. You have a premise that you defend at all costs, and against all reason. That makes you a fundamentalist."

No... not at all... remember?... you just weren't comprehending what you were reading.

THE MODERATE: Then you quote Sam Harris: “Anyone who cares about the fate of civilization would do well to recognize that the combination of great power and great stupidity is simply terrifying, even to one’s friends.”

Uh-huh... you ought to read up on 'dominionism'.

THE MODERATE: "Was he thinking about the torture that he advocates when he said that? Self-righteous tyrants, who believe that any one who disagrees with them should be sanctioned under law, or tortured, and murdered, had their day in the Atheist societies of the twentieth century."

No... Sam was thinking about the insane people... Christians... presently holding high government office... who think they are the 'good guys'... who think they are on a divine mission from god... who think they are charged with establishing the conditions here on earth that are foretold (in prophecy) to presage the second coming of christ... and are formulating foreign policy on that basis.

There weren't any 'atheist societies' in the 20th century. There were totalitarian governments... IDEOLOGIES which held the STATE to be the highest, ultimate authority. These totalitarian IDEOLOGIES found themselves to be in conflict with competing RELIGIOUS IDEOLOGIES, which held that invisible, magical sky-fairies (gods) were the highest, ultimate authority. So, what you are dishonestly attempting to portray as 'lack of belief in dieties' being responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions of human beings is a vile lie... it was, instead, a political' god in conflict with an imaginary supernatural 'god'... forcing people through terror, torture and murder to acknowledge the STATE as their master, instead of a supernatural 'god'. This was a POLITICAL agenda... and had absolutely NOTHING to do with the reasonableness or unreasonableness of 'belief' in deities.

I am aware of hundreds of millions of human beings having been tortured and/or murdered in the name of 'christian ideology'.

I am aware of hundreds of millions of human beings having been tortured and/or murdered in the name of 'totalitarian ideologies'.

I am not aware of even a single person who was tortured and/or murdered in the name of 'rational skepticism'.

By the way... this bit about terrorizing, torturing and murdering people because of their beliefs... that comes straight out of christianity's play-book. They INVENTED the concept. You ought to try reasing up on some REAL history some time... not the pseudo-history that is spewed by christianity.

To Peter Huff

Based on your many posts here, I find your take on Christianity to be a little shakey. Not to be infringing on your freedodm of speech, but alot of what you say would be better left unsaid, because in saying such things as a Christian, you undermine the credibility of other Christians. Your credibility is pretty low. You are just another voice, among many, seeking authority, but it is still just your small, human voice.

To Realist

Why do I believe at all? It is a complicated thing to explain, and I know I won't be able to here.

I do not deny science, and I do not deny reason, and I do not confuse reason, certainty, and faith. Without denying any of these things, there is also a sort of "transendental" mysticism involved in my thinking, which I am not able easily to express or convey to others. If I tried, I know it would be a big effort and take up alot of words. But it involves the constitution of existence in the material of our bodies, the dynamism of our spirits, the rythms of tiime in which we dwell, and the mysterious balance that causes all things to work as they do. I conceive of all these things in a Christian setting.

Regarding atheism and agnosticism, I find these points of view easy to understand. It does not require any thoughtful justification; it is quite easy to understand. It is disingenuous to suppose that an atheist should produce a complex reason for being atheist.

By my observations of the world, I see that many people believe many strange things. It is not my job to correct them all. But I certainly do not dislike people for their strange beliefs, since I realize that mine may also appear strange to others.

It is hypocritical for Christians to hate atheists. Peter Huff? You may wish to instruct me on how wrong I am, but what about you?

I posted a reply to Peter Huff about 15 minutes ago... but received a message saying that its posting was delayed pending approval by the BLOG owners. It still has not shown up. I don't know if it will. If it does not appear in the next hour or so, I will censor it, and try it again. It contained some quotes by Martin Luther... and we all know what a dirty-mouth HE was. So... I think I will probably have to clean up some of the language of the Father of Protestantism, before my message will be posted.

To Susan, I respect your ideas and your passion. There are times you have made false accusations about the religious and this is one of them. You write:

“In general, all fundamentalist religions are terrified of secular education. Those who believe in a literal interpretation of books written thousands of years ago know very well that it is dangerous to their faith to expose children to more rational ideas before the youngsters have been thoroughly indoctrinated.” - Susan.

Susan, I guess you never heard of The PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES.

"To you noble champions of human arts and disciplines the Church acknowledges complete freedom in method and research..."

The Pontifical Academy of Sciences is international in scope, multi-racial in composition, and non-sectarian in its choice of members. The work of the Academy comprises six major areas: Fundamental science; Science and technology of global problems; Science for the problems of the Third World; Scientific policy; Bioethics; Epistemology.

The new members of the Academy are elected by the body of Academicians and chosen from men and women of every race and religion based on the high scientific value of their activities and their high moral profile. They are then officially appointed by the Roman Pontiff.

Since the Academy and its membership is not influenced by factors of a national, political, or religious character it represents a valuable source of objective scientific information which is made available to the Holy See and to the international scientific community

During its various decades of activity, the Academy has had a number of Nobel Prize winners amongst its members, many of whom were appointed Academicians before they received this prestigious international award.

You see, the Catholic Church is not afraid of scientific endeavor; in-fact to your surprise the Church promotes honest and truthful scientific exploration that is not based on religious precepts!

The purpose of the Catholic Church is to discover the truth and the origins of man! The Catholic Church has credible evidence for the existence of God through the inward spiritual realm of sound reason, historical and philosophical explorations.

Some people like myself once refused to listen to the Church's reasoning for the faith and hope! But not now!!!

Science has and has not proven God’s existence through the scientific methodology! The church pursues scientific research because the Church like myself are confident that God is real and is not afraid for the honest investigation of the human sciences!

Faith is much more stronger when it has been tested and refined! My beliefs like many other Catholics doesn’t come from indoctrination like you accuse so often!

As a child, I challenged the authority of the church and as I matured and grown have come to the realization that all of my accusations where answered.

In pursuit of the truth I am thankful that I had the openness and patients to allow the church to answer my critical questions regarding the faith.

I stand firm with my faith today simply because I understand it…

I know there will always be nonbelievers regardless of the evidence presented. Romans 1:19-22 19 for what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. 20 Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; 21 for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 While claiming to be wise, they became fools.

I do think it’s foolish to completely deny the possibility of God! And I also think it’s completely foolish for the religious to completely deny science!

I will continue to be a proud member of the Catholic faith until I have been shown credible evidence by creditable scientists that prove otherwise. Until then, the wealth and wisdom of the church will continue to teach charity, hope, faith, love and morality! Useful tools to help live a peaceful, happy and prosperous life.

P.S. The origins of secularism has roots in the teachings of Jesus Christ but that is another discussion! Matthew 22:21 13 At that he said to them, "Then repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God."

Quia rectum est verbum Domini et omne opus eius in fide

Peace, my friend.

Peter Huff wrote:
"Daniel, I will save the argument against your post on September 20 @ 5:07 p.m. It would be unproductive to discuss Christian theology on a mainly atheistic forum."

Is that because you are afraid that we might make you look foolish by pointing out any factual errors, or logical fallacies in what you say?

For twenty years, I didn't say much about religion. I always thought religion was a private thing and each person is entitled to their beliefs. But I realized that religion, particularly the Abramic religions, are actively trying to keep people ignorant, which is something I'm totally opposed to.

What are you afraid of? That you or Daniel might actually learn something? If what you believe is the truth, then you should have nothing to fear from talking to people who have a different perspective. If what you believe is not true you have nothing to lose.

If you only talk to people who share your views you can never learn anything. The fact that religious people only want to talk to each other is very suspicious is it not?

Regards,
Realist

Dear Susan,

In regards to the Dawkins Delusion that the world will be all sweetness and light if we can just get rid of religion:

"Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.

Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."

- Alexander Solshenitsyn, recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize 1983

I thought you should see this, because you clearly don't study history much.

Realist,

it all fits so well: The "original sin" was the human quest for knowledge, which threatened and still threatens the priest caste of society (priest caste understood in a wider range). What do you suppose is the average education and IQ of the crowds that fill the pockets of the Robertsons, Falwells, Haggards?

R. Baker has never read the statistics of atheists in prisons. If they were statistically evenly distributed, there would have to be 50 times (!) more atheists in prisons than there actually are!

And he thinks he is sooo intelligent and educated!
If people only would start to understand that religion, before all the bantering about "eternal truths", is in the first place a question of power, and in the second place a question of judgment and insight in reality!

Superstition has always been, and still is, the leverage to exert power.

Robert K. Baker wrote:

"In general, all fundamentalist religions are terrified of secular education." Yes, I guess that doesn't make any sense. It is o.k. for students to call their teachers mother f--kers, to refuse to follow their instructions necessary for an orderly classroom, to hit them instructors and each other, to cheat on examinations, to be unruly in class, to engage in various sex acts in the school bathroom, to reject the value of an education and glorify selling crack cocaine, to endorse promiscuity, and, yes, to denigrate the values of various religions.

Huh??? What has bad behaviour in class, drug use etc got to do with secular education?

With all the swearing, brawling, bashing teachers, having sex in the bathroom, doing and selling drugs, and rejecting the value of education, it's amazing that I somehow managed to get a degree in mathematics. Oh, you caught me out, I cheated on my exams.

Actually, the least religious countries have the least social problems. The social problems that you refer to are common in the USA where more than 85% of the population are religious. So I can't see how you could make any kind of connection between secularism and social problems. Other countries where the levels of religious belief are much lower don't have so many of those social problems. I'm not suggesting cause and effect one way or the other, but either way you are talking nonsense.

Robert, for your education: education is negatively correlated with religiosity. The better educated a person is, the less likely they are to be religious. So of course fundamentalists are terrified of people getting a secular education. They would prefer people to remain as ignorant as possible.

Regards,
Realist

Daniel wrote:

"To believe in God and to be a Christian is not necessarily what President Bush, nor the Pope, nor evangelical groups would have you believe."

Thank Christ for that!

"Many Christian groups claim divine authority and many individuals do, as well. They tell us what God wants, and what the Bible means. But they are all just men, the same as you and me, and they don't know, authoritatively, any more than you or me. And they are all in conflict; who is right?"

Exactly! Nobody knows if any religion is true, because there is no evidence. Hinduism is just as likely to be true as Islam or Christianity, or Pastafarianism (google it!). How do we resolve this problem? How about only believing things for which there is good evidence?

Don't you think that all of the confusion about religion is because religions are just stories made up to explain things that we didn't understand? That seems to be the only sensible answer.

"I am a Christian who believes that no one knows what God wants us to do, nor how to interpet the Bible. We each experiment with meaning inside of our own heads, and then negotiate with each other. If someone proclaims to me, the will of God, then still, that is not the will of God, but just a man talking."

So why would you believe things that people proclaimed a few thousand years ago?

"That is why, I would never, as many of my Christian brethren do, announce to the world in a forum such as this, what people should believe regarding the true nature of God and Jesus, and would never assume that I am more right than all the other people, who think they are also right."

Good for you! But why would you think that the people who wrote the Bible knew any more than you do?

"I am a believing Christian, and this is some of what I believe."

You just explained that you have absolutely no basis for your belief. Why do you hold such beliefs? Is it just from peer pressure?

Regards,
Realist

After the huge diatribe of Mr. Baker we have a few facts standing out.

1. Mr. Baker hates humanism and quotes whatever he finds on the web to bolster his stand.

2. Quotes are never proofs. Take Luther ("proof of witches"). But also take Thomas Paine, Einstein (whom he loathes, why?) Unclear. Quotes are the opinions of people in a given historical and social surrounding. Von Neumann was catholic. So what? His reasoning was not about creationism, lol! I was protestant. So what? I am an atheist.

3. Mr. Baker offers a lot of personal opinions ("Secular Humanism is not "just another religion", but it is a religion and an especially PERNICIOUS one at that. It seeks to subvert and suppress all other religions not through meeting the intellectual challenge, but by SUBTERFUGE worthy of the TYRANTS they claim to oppose.") with an imposing amount of arrogance. What a convincing display of anti-humanist proof! All Mr. Baker's very personal opinions brought forth with a huge attitude of authority.

4. Nobody knows the origin of the world. The difference: Believers of any religion (Mr. Baker seems to tend towards Islam, where the women are so happy, especially the genital-mutilated ones) pretend to know by putting a proxy ("god") into the void (the more stupid specimens of this position being the "young earth creationists"). Atheists, by contrast, rely on their "god-given" reason (pun intended!) to sort out the possibilities and arrive at logical, falsifiable conclusions, as honest, skeptical science does (falsifiable by Neumann's or Goedel's clear thinking!)

5. Mr. Baker is not a part of nature, but he is perfectly able, with a lot of knowledge and intellectual pirouettes, to muddle the pond of the discussion (excuse the metaphors).

6. Mr. Baker hates atheism, fine, but does not offer one single conclusive thought in favor of religion.

7. Mr. Baker falls prey to the long (even statistically) debunked creed that morals must be based on religion.

8. I had thought that a person with the intellectual capabilities of Mr. Baker knows that you cannot prove a negative. His nice (old) phrase "The belief that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence is based on faith. It is a religion"

depicts beautifully the basic arguments of all religionists, if slightly modified to: "Absence of evidence is evidence of presence". Absence of evidence in reality proves neither absence nor presence. It neither proves nor disproves the existence of a flying spaghetti monster.

9. I, personally, am a faithful believer in the Holy Reformed Church of the non-rabbit-breeders. I am also a heretic and apostate, since I left the false religion of the non-pigeon-breeders, who now harass and even threaten to kill me all the time.

So much fog!

Secular Humanism is not "just another religion", but it is a religion and an especially pernicious one at that. It seeks to subvert and suppress all other religions not through meeting the intellectual challenge, but by subterfuge worthy of the tyrants they claim to oppose. That has been its objective since its founding the early part of the 20th century. In that regard it is unique among religions in this country. It claims that is o.k. suppress all other religions because it is not a religion. That simply is not true.

Ms. Jacoby never addresses the central issue.

Many religious people, such as me, read and make an effort to understand the views of the Secular Humanists. The Secular humanists brand those who disagree with them as "cultists" without examining any of the evidence or demonstrating a cursory familiarity with the relevant history. They gloss over the fallacies of their contention by equating religions (in contrast to religious institutions) to Communist institutions at their worst. When all else fails, the resort to the sloppy use of language.

"Fear and loathing of intellectual challenge is the essence of all controlling religious factions, whether the God is called Stalin, Jehovah, or Allah." Allah is not a religious faction. Neither is God. They are the names used by religious people to designate their supreme being. I was never aware that I "feared and loathed" intellectual challenge. I was never aware that Thomas Aquinas "feared and loathed" intellectual challenge. I was never aware that Sir Isaac Newton, George Washington, John Adams, Noah Webster, Daniel Webster and John von Neuman "feared and loathed" intellectual challenge.

"Free inquiry is the mortal enemy of all controlling religions." That is amazing. I suppose John von Neuman never realized that his Catholic religion was the "mortal enemy" of free enquiry. My guess is that Ms. Jacoby does not know John von Neuman. He was, perhaps, the greatest mind of the 20th century. He was not the self promoter of Einstein’s vintage, but he was head and shoulders above Einstein in translational science. If she knew about von Neuman she could not make such an absurd statement. If you don’t know him maybe you will look him up. It will be risky. If you take his example seriously, that might suggest that the faith of Secular Humanists that religion is the mortal enemy of free inquiry is not based on evidence. It is based upon an unexamined belief system. As often as believers in any other religion, Secular Humanists give no weight to any evidence that undermines their righteously held views. They simply ignore it.

"Christian societies, of course, used to kill people for blasphemy." Ms. Jacoby must be referring to the Quakers, right? Where does it say in the Bible that nonbelievers should be killed for blasphemy or any other manifestation of failure to accept Christ? How many Christians went about killing others during their first four hundred years? I wonder if Ms. Jacoby can name any. Why is it the Americans, 92 percent of whom appear to be Christians, fought to protect the Moslems in Bosnia and Kuwait? They didn't understand these people did not accept Christ as their Savior? I don’t recall the question ever coming up.

It is true that at various times common religious belief was exploited to unite multiple nation states to organize for war. The conquest of the middle-east by Mohammad in the 7th and 8th centuries and the mobilization of the Christian Crusades in the 10th and 11th centuries are obvious examples. We have the inquisition in Spain, a legal system run amok. In the 14th and 15th centuries the largest selling book after the Bible was a primer on how to identify and try witches and procedures for burning them alive. Literally hundreds of thousands of women were murdered in this way. The Bible says nothing about burning women alive at the stake. To the extent we can tell, Jesus held women in high regard and always respected them. The Catholic Church was corrupt to the core for much of the 11th through 17th centuries. In fact, during parts of this period it was dominated by various European Noblemen. Phillip the Fair, King of France, comes to mind. He orchestrated the inquisition of the Templars. He threatened to imprison Pope Clement the IV, as he had done his predecessor, if he did not go along with it. That says something about the people; it says nothing about the religion.

I know Moslem women living in Saudi Arabia who are perfectly happy with their lives. They are treated well. Some are very active in businesses which they own and operate. Yes, they do have a driver, at least when they are in country, but not when they come here. That does not mean that women are not mistreated there or in Pakistan or other Moslem countries, but it does not make the religion bad. Are they treated any worse in these countries than they were in secular Iraq?

As to polygamy, my guess is that in many parts of the world the choice between being the only wife of a ne’er do well and the third wife of a man who is kind, can provide well, provide security, and support and protect their children would be a close one. Who is Ms. Jacoby to pass judgment on them? The Moslems made it possible for the Christians and Jews to live in Jerusalem in relative peace until the arrival of the Crusaders and again after about 1182 when Saladin defeated the Templars at the Horns of Hattin and then retook the city. He even mediated among various Christian groups to allocate access to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Moslems were dominant, yes, but unlike the Christians, they did not slaughter all who believed differently and facilitated the practice of their respective religions.

Bad men come into positions of control and influence in religious institutions just as they did in secular institutions. Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, Mao’s China and Saddam’s Iraq come to mind.

"A more useful distinction would separate religions (or factions within religions) that attempt to control nearly every aspect of people's lives from religions that allow their members considerable latitude to choose different ways of existence without being driven from the fold."

Ms Jacoby has nothing good to say about the second group, those who allow their members considerable latitude. She does not even mention those religions who believe others should be free to follow a different religion. Either way, she fails to acknowledge the incontrovertible fact that religions exist that allow people to believe differently -- they are not even required to kill them, shun them or be uncivil. A rather significant subject given that she seeks to condemn not only a particular religion, but all religions. This must be another manifestation of Secularist’s enlightened thinking. I call it arrogance founded on a conscious decision to remain ignorance.

"In general, all fundamentalist religions are terrified of secular education." Yes, I guess that doesn't make any sense. It is o.k. for students to call their teachers mother f--kers, to refuse to follow their instructions necessary for an orderly classroom, to hit them instructors and each other, to cheat on examinations, to be unruly in class, to engage in various sex acts in the school bathroom, to reject the value of an education and glorify selling crack cocaine, to endorse promiscuity, and, yes, to denigrate the values of various religions.

How many of the values that are "allowed" to prevail in secular schools are bad for the kids, bad for the society and bad for the world. Children under the age of 7, by and large, absorb whatever they are presented with. If you want to teach them there is no right and wrong, there are no general rules for the conduct of society that everything is open to experimentation, that there is no obligation to treat others like they would like to be treated, that greed and selfishness are the highest good, fine. But by insisting that parents are not allowed to control the values their children are taught, that too is a cult. The Secularists stated objective is to establish a "religion of humanity"', to exclude "God and His moral principles".

Secular Humanism seeks to banish religious principles from the market place of ideas. For at least four decades Humanists have successfully projected their beliefs, often against the wishes of the parents whose children they are propagandizing. Their primary approach is to target the youth through the public school system. Humanist Charles F. Potter writes, "Education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism, and every American school is a school of humanism. What can a theistic Sunday school's meeting for an hour once a week and teaching only a fraction of the children do to stem the tide of the five-day program of humanistic teaching?" (Charles F. Potter, "Humanism: A New Religion," 1930)

John J. Dunphy, in the Humanist’s revered essay, The Humanist (1983), discloses the strategy, "The battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: A religion of humanity -- utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to carry humanist values into wherever they teach. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new -- the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism."

It began long ago. A sort of stealth operation. John Dewey, who played a pivotal role in the formation of our current educational systems, was a principal supporter and signer of the 1933 Humanist Manifesto. The Humanists have sought to take over the education system and use it as the pulpit of their religion. They have succeeded in gaining control and dramatically limiting or excluding all other religions.

Ms Jacoby never addresses my first contention that it is by and large men, not religions, which are responsible for the actions she condemns. I have never been very keen on religious institutions. With few exceptions, most churches in this country do not have the kind of authoritarian structure that she describes. Each Church is pretty much autonomous. Each congregation has a substantial voice in the selection of their pastor. Some of the congregations are very strict; some are very free and easy going. Some are corrupt. None are very powerful. Most important, if you don't like one, you can try another at no additional charge.

Religions are expressions of faith. Ms. Jacoby never addresses the basic contention as to why belief there is no God is an act of faith. Atheists have no evidence that a supreme being does not exist. Their only basis for denial of the existence of God is that there is no evidence of existence. By this reasoning until a secular scientist (the priests of the Secular Faith) confirm that a species of animal exists, it does not exist. If a planet has not been deemed to exist by a “scientist”, it does not exist. When the scientist decides it does not exist, it no longer exists. The Secular Humanist Religion rejects the common sense notion that “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

The belief that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence is based on faith. It is a religion. As such it is not entitled to preferential treatment from the government and especially in the schools and public places. The Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution prohibits the establishment of a government sanctioned religion. It does not prohibit the equal treatment of all religions.

Equal treatment, on a par with other religions, is what the Secular Humanists seek to avoid. They do this by claiming they are not a religion. When, however, it suits their convenience, they embrace their faith as a religion:
In United States v. Kauten (2d Cir. 1943), conscientious objector status was granted to Mathias Kauten, not on the basis of his belief in God, but on the basis of his "religious conscience." The court concluded: "Conscientious objection may justly be regarded as a response of the individual to an inward mentor, call it conscience or God, that is for many persons at the present time the equivalent of what has always been thought a religious impulse." [United States v. Kauten, 133F. 2nd 703, 708 (2d Cir. 1943). See also, United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965).] Thus, the court clearly adopted a definition of religion that did not require a deity.
Another example of the adoption of a functional understanding of religion occurred in Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda (1957). In this case, the Fellowship of Humanity sought recovery of property taxes because, it argued, its grounds were used for religious worship (though not the worship of a transcendent deity). They were awarded a refund of paid property taxes. [ Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal. App. 2nd. 673 (1957).] In praise of the decision, Paul Blanshard, a signatory of the Humanist Manifesto II, declared that the court's decision regarding the Fellowship of Humanity represented "another victory for those who would interpret the word religion very broadly [viz. to include Secular Humanism]. . . .["Paul Blanshard's Column," in The Humanist, No. 4, 1959, p. 238]
Finally, the United States Supreme Court’s 1961 decision in Torcaso v. Watkins. That decision arose from a Maryland notary public who was disqualified from office because he would not declare a belief in God. The Court ruled in his favor. It argued that theistic religions could not be favored by the Court over non-theistic religions. In fact, in a footnote that clarifies what the Court means by non-theistic religions, we read, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others." [Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495, fn. 11 (1961).]
Secular Humanists have no problem being a religion when it serves their purposes? So much for their holding the high moral ground.
There is nothing in the history of the Establishment Clause that would prohibit the government from providing the same amount of financial support to religious schools as it does to secular schools. It can impose the same educational standards, but it should not favor those schools whose purpose is to advance faith in secular humanism. The present policy acts to suppress all other religious faiths.

In his farewell address (September 19, 1796), George Washington warned, "Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supports. . . And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. . . Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." To the Humanist, the experience of George Washington is irrelevant.

Noah Webster, another founder as well as an educator declared, "All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible." Another one of those people

John Adams wrote, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords or our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Daniel Webster wrote, "If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering, but if we neglect its instruction and authority, no man can tell how soon a catastrophe may overcome us, and bury all our glory in profound obscurity."

Patrick Henry wrote, "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians -- not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ."
Those who would deny school facilities for religious clubs, for example, are opposed to all religions but their own. They seek to suppress the religious practices of others. That is not separation of Church and State.

The most obvious manifestation of the suppressive and oppressive approach of the Secular Humanists, their controlling Fascistic side if you will, manifests itself in their tactics against the teaching of creationism.

The first plank of the Humanist Manifesto states: "Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created." The second plank states: "Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process." These religious teachings are projected through the public schools. They condemn the concept of God. Creation Science has been kept out of the public schools on the grounds that it is religious, and the government should not support religion in any fashion. "In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it, and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it." (H. S. Lipson, FRS, Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution", Physics Bulletin, vol. 31, May 1980, pg. 138).

Evolution, like most science, is a theory. There is some evidence to support it. But the proof is far from conclusive. George Wald, another prominent Evolutionist (a Harvard University biochemist and Nobel Laureate), wrote, "When it comes to the Origin of Life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!" ("The Origin of Life," Scientific American, 191:48, May 1954).

I have never sorted out the conflicting evidence (or more accurately non-evidence) in the Evolution/Creationism controversy. What I know is that the Secular Humanist absolutely opposes any consideration of the theories of Creationism in their Secular Humanist schools. Who is it now who is engulfed in "fear and loathing of intellectual challenge".

Remind me again, who is the mortal enemy of "free inquiry"?

With the "ptfft" i.e Moroni and Joe Smith as the "spiritual" guides/founders, what does one conclude about Mormonism???

A cult based on hallucinations which has bought respectability with a $30 billion business empire, the BYU "mission matured" football team and a great choir.

With the "pwtfft" i.e. Gabriel and the "warmongering, womanizing, "holey not holy hallucinator" aka Mohammed what does one conclude about Islam?

A cult based on the oil profits, terror, fear of the sword, stoning, hand chopping and suicide bombers.

With the "pwtfft" i.e. Gabriel and the illiterate peasant, possible mamzer, hallucinating and embellished Jesus what does one conclude about Catholicism/Christianity?

A cult based on the fear of hell, guilt trips, the sin of myths, limbo, and the false promises of sin atonement, "miracles", water purification, indulgences and the only key to the spirit state of Heaven.

With "avenging pwtfft"s, and the mostly mythical OT and its "fortune tellers" what does one conclude about Judaism?

A cult based on the support of its rich members, the fear of Gehenna, the promise of a messiah and the return to the mythical promised land conquered previously by mythical OT characters.

You Abrahamic Cultist are such a hoot. Between the three main cults, you control most of the world, because you come from a long line of warlords that have invented their god to reflect their power mad control agendas. The mythical Jesus wasn't a tribal assigning, but every christian writer and leader since has justified any means to spread the word. The designer construct jesus christ was peaceful, but the Romans and Greeks that wrote your bible replaced that garbage with some good solid fire and brimstone, invented Satan and an eternal hell, and put the power in the hands of priest controlled by gov'ts, so you've been just as deadly as the jews and muslims.

And you've got the f'n nerve to complain of atheist whom express disgust with the lot of you.

History alone shows all of the Abrahamic religions should be outlawed. As Sam Harris points out, there has never been a Jainist inquisition, jihad or genocide, but you abrahamist are all still killing those that disagree with you on a daily basis. Christians arent' off the hook. We've now killed more Iraqis than Saddam in the name of an Oil Crusade because a warrior/priest named George Bush convinced your stupid arses they were a threat to your pampered little lives.

Grow up. The world can't survive the lot of you too much longer.

Hi Daniel and Arminius,

I find it hard to believe that you take the Word of God so lightly. R.C. Sproul has a good video series on-line that would give you good insight into why we can trust the word of God. Look for the series entitled, "Hath God Said?"

Here is the address,

http://www.ligonier.org/rym.php

Daniel, I will save the argument against your post on September 20 @ 5:07 p.m. It would be unproductive to discuss Christian theology on a mainly atheistic forum.

"Generally speaking, the characteristics of a cult include a strong, central, living religious authority whose word is absolute and unchallengeable. Members of the cult are usually cut off from their existing circle of family and friends or encouraged to isolate themselves from those contacts, often with warnings that outsiders cannot be trusted and with permission to be deceptive in dealing with former associates. They are often expected to subject themselves to intense control by the religious authority, with nearly every aspect of their lives regulated."

-Pamela K. Taylor

Peter Huff:

"Faith, must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees it must put out of sight, and wish to know nothing but the word of God"

He may have gotten it from:

http://www.scholarisland.org/reason.htm

There are many there from Martin Luther. He sounds like he was a real loony, if he was properly quoted.

There are lots of juicy one liners there. Some nice ones are:

"He who will not reason, is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave."

- Sir William Drummond, Academical Questions

"God hath not created anything better than Reason, or anything more perfect, or more beautiful than Reason: the benefits which God giveth are on its account; and understanding is by it, and God's wrath is caused by disregard of it."

- Muhammed (Sayings of Muhammed)

"Believe nothing which is unreasonable, and reject nothing as unreasonable without proper examination."

-Gautama Buddha

"Our Holy Mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God can be known with certainty by the natural light of human reason."

-Pope Pius

"Reason is from God, and when things are unreasonable there is something the matter."

G.K. Chesterton

"Reason means truth and those who are not governed by it take the chance that someday the sunken fact will rip the bottom out of their boat."

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

"I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.

I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.

But....I do not believe, in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church."

-Tom Paine

Xymerian Monk: Consider composing your post in Word or Outlook as an email, spell checking there then cut & paste here.

Dear DuckPhup:

Fundamentalism is for simpletons.

“Actually, I am very much in agreement with Dawkins.”

Hmm… Lets see… You rail against the religious people because they can’t prove there is a God, while you can’t prove there isn’t. So you say they engage in: 'Doublethink'.

Then you agreed with Dawkins who says that his unproved idea should be shoved down other people’s throats by force of law. If the religionists advocated you be forced to teach your children their beliefs you would rightly believe it to be a tyranny. So it is you are engaged in the “Double Think” you mock. Only a fundamentalist could even try something that stupid. You have a premise that you defend at all costs, and against all reason. That makes you a fundamentalist.

Then you quote Sam Harris:

“Anyone who cares about the fate of civilization would do well to recognize that the combination of great power and great stupidity is simply terrifying, even to one’s friends.”

Was he thinking about the torture that he advocates when he said that? Self-righteous tyrants, who believe that any one who disagrees with them should be sanctioned under law, or tortured, and murdered, had their day in the Atheist societies of the twentieth century.

Welcome to the Dawkins Delusion, Bunky.

I see Peter Huff??

And the point of attacking Duck is...to show your moral superiority, or maybe to better cement in all thos godless atheist that without answering your questions they'll never understand?

Maybe I misread your attck, but It seems to me when you say, "You do what the majority of atheists do on this forum. They assume that all Christians are dupes who are incapable of thinking for themselves" you are just acting silly, if anything the atheists, and I hate to say it..lol...treat the Followers who are reasonable with the same attitude. If you attack some one then you have failed at being the light that shines in the dark; however, you are just giving into your emotions and instead of just asking what his moral code of ethics is you say that he sends the wrong message.

I have gone back and reread his messages, he is quite adept at challenging ones veiws, but I would expect nothing less, for we are the Followers posting on an atheist's blog!

Duck, you are not off the hook, you can be challengeing, but sometimes people forget that you take an opposite veiw to promote moderate veiws, and are not just attacking for fun...both sides of this debate need to realize that neither of us will bend on certain thins and values, and we shouldn't have to...it is our RIGHT to believe and voice our beliefs, and for that very reason i am applying for a greencard for permanent citizenship.

Peace Be Unto All

_MONK_

ps no spell check means my grammar's not so good.

Hello DuckPhup,

I would be interested to know where you got this quote from,

"Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and... know nothing but the word of God." ~ Martin Luther"

You do what the majority of atheists do on this forum. They assume that all Christians are dupes who are incapable of thinking for themselves. Have you ever read John Calvin, Martin Luther or any of the early church fathers? Ever read Augustine? How about Greg Bahnsen or Van Til? I would be surprised if they did not push you to really do some hard thinking. Ever tried to makes sense of the Bible by the study of hermeneutics?

"One example of this lies in the idea that you can't properly interpret the bible unless you are possessed of the Holy Spirit. What having "...the Holy Spirit to help illuminate our minds to God's word" REALLY means is that they have been so thoroughly brainwashed that they are attuned to 'doublethink'. Up is down, bad is good, murder becomes 'love'... fools are wise and the wise are fools... knowledge is meant to steer you away from the Lord, and ignorance is the way to righteousness and salvation... and gullibility, ignorance and drooling stupidity are holy virtues. It means insisting that god is 'all loving'... and knowing all the while that god frequently commanded his flock to bash babies skulls against rocks and slash open the bellies of pregnant women, with swords... and not sensing any conflict or contradiction between these ideas."

Some points about your comments,
1) What is the highest source of authority you can appeal too? For the Christian, it is the Word of God, the Bible.
2) To believe up is down or murder is love is just some absurd spewing coming from your mouth. You are talking non-sense. And before you can define bad is good I would ask you what is your standard for doing so?
3) To quote verses without context is just another way of misleading your audience. That is something that atheists are good at. Very seldom do they provide chapter and verse or book reference. How about it Ducky?

Daniel and Xymerian Monk -

If we are not quite in the same boat, we are in boats heading the same direction. Nice posts, both. I am Christian, liberal, and to me it is intensely personal.

Xymerian Monk wrote: "Peace Be Unto All"

Peace be unto you, as well, Monk. The world would be a much better place if they were all like you. But... of course... they aren't... and so we must do something in order to protect ourselves.

As a Follower (as best I can) of the teaching of Christ, I can honestly say I fear not an aethist or agnostic. What I fear is the people who call themselves Christians and attack everyone and everything that they see as 'evil'. I seem to remember Jesus never attacking anyone except the people profiteering from the temple...hum...there is a thought those that were 'selling' the temple as if it were some W*hore were the only people that Jesus specificaly attacked.

And yet I cry everytime I see those ministers making millions off of the people who 'tune' into the FREE word of GOD, I mean what you spend $20 on a Bible and then support some minister for his entire life cause he wants to TEACH you how to interpret it???? I have been to plenty of NON denominational churches that the preacher was some man that worked all week long at a JOB and then got up and preached the values JESUS taught, all the money that people tithed went to PAYING THE BILLS, and supporting feeding the homeless, and supporting a local orphanage. Not builing a $10 million dollar building.

Man's hearts shall be revealed by their actions, that's why most non-believes see the CHRISTIAN movement as a Money generating machine...and if you look at some of the ones abusing what Jesus taught, than I could hardly disagree on those terms. As for those who say morals are only taught through Religious Doctrine...yes 2000 years ago, and during the DARK ages, but now people know what to do, even if they refuse to act like human beings...

Hope you all enjoy the read, I'm leaving the library now!!!

Peace Be Unto All

_MONK_

Dear Gerry

What an excellent essay!

To believe in God and to be a Christian is not necessarily what President Bush, nor the Pope, nor evangelical groups would have you believe.

Many Christian groups claim divine authority and many individuals do, as well. They tell us what God wants, and what the Bible means. But they are all just men, the same as you and me, and they don't know, authoritatively, any more than you or me. And they are all in conflict; who is right?

I am a Christian who believes that no one knows what God wants us to do, nor how to interpet the Bible. We each experiment with meaning inside of our own heads, and then negotiate with each other. If someone proclaims to me, the will of God, then still, that is not the will of God, but just a man talking.

That is why, I would never, as many of my Christian brethren do, announce to the world in a forum such as this, what people should believe regarding the true nature of God and Jesus, and would never assume that I am more right than all the other people, who think they are also right.

Even if we would want to take the Bible literally, what does it mean? Even people who share the same language cannot agree. Even more is the confusion multiplied when it is translated from one language to another, from archaic usage to modern lingo, describing a multitude of local settings, against the blinding glare of a thousand contingencies, stretching back from the fog antiquity, down to the present day.

I am a believing Christian, and this is some of what I believe.

Why should somebody who comes to a reasonable conclusion (humanist, tolerant atheist) after decades of honest thinking, who has the courage to formulate this conclusion, have to tolerate attacks like those from Mr. Moderate, aka mulopwepaul? This person is so obsessed with the comparison of murder numbers that he cannot think clearly anymore as to the historical sources and background of this discussion and to the brittle "legs" his arguments stand on.

All of us, the most militant religionists as well as the most tolerant atheists (humanists) are ensnarled in the cultural history of mankind. The very language with which we formulate our arguments is influenced by those inevitable early superstitions which stem from the limited knowledge of a phase of development of our race. My profession (I am a classical musician) would not even exist in this form without this cultural heritage.

Richard Dawkins is absolutely right that the default position of any thinking person, who has never been brainwashed (is there such a thing?) or has cleared himself from brainwashing would never in his wildest dreams concoct a sort of insane religious stories as we have to face them today. Anybody who honestly tries to reach this initial default position has to do an enormous amount of work first to get rid of this burden, before he can claim to start thinking “freely” from a point zero. Some people achieve this, others don’t. Mr. Moderate aka mulopwepaul, what do you have against free, unconditioned thinking?

The human condition (fear, tribal cohesion, security) then forces people up to this day to stay both within the frame of their old, inherited (cultural) superstitions and in the frame of their group which holds this superstition. 95% of African women have and NEED (?) genital mutilation. It is their cultural background: All women always do it. They have the same "valid" arguments as the western religionists.

History, fortunately, has taken care of the dilution of some of those superstitions, generating hundreds, if not thousands of variations or deviations from those old creeds, so there might be some hope that reason will prevail over faith (= admitted ignorance), by the sheer logical deduction that there cannot be hundreds of contradicting truths. (Unless, of course, your default position is: “I am the only one in the possession of truth”, or lol, Peter Huff who maintains that god invented logic.)

People talk of “eternal truths” in connection with a particular creed that has been patched together well over 300 years after the alleged life of Jesus, for clearly political reasons (we suffer from that setup "Vatican" up to this day). I regret that people are unable to resort even to this basic default position of reason, (the only category that separates us from animals), before giving it another try as how we might prevent the self-destruction of our species. The present mess we are in clearly has religious roots, Bush and his co-religionists vs. Ahmadinedjad and his co-religionists as token figures.

It is another debate that religion is always connected to power....

Rick wrote: "Thanks DUCKPHUP, It is absolutely amazing what one can learn on this site."

I started out with 'bullsh*t'... but the board's filter won't permit that... and I didn't want to diminish it with '*' or 'BS'... and 'nonsense' is so mundane and overused. 'Codswallop' has a nice ring, and a certain charm to it. Religious BS is deserving of a good adjective... too bad the best (and most appropriate) ones can't get past the filter.

Susan,

Thanks for the clarification of your definition of atheist/agnostic.

Having read much of your recent work, your answer confirms my previous understanding of your views.

It's also refreshing to see a panelist actually respond to a good question on this forum.

Cheers.

Thanks DUCKPHUP,

It is absolutely amazing what one can learn on this site.

Codswallop,

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

The word codswallop, primarily a British English term meaning "nonsense", is of uncertain origin; there are two main schools of thought.

1. Possible origins

1.1 Anglo-Saxon
The first etymology claims that the word derives from cods, an Anglo-Saxon term for testicles, combined with another word of Anglo-Saxon origin, wallop, meaning to scold or chastise (note that this wallop is not the same as the word wallop, meaning "hit"). It could be observed that if cod is the same as "testicles" and wallop is the same as "hit," codswallop could be very similar to the American colloquial ball-busting, which means "to make fun of" or "take the piss" in British colloquial.

Critics have argued that it is the "punch" meaning of the term wallop that applies, not the older "scold" variant.

1.2 Brewing terminology
The second and more popular etymology places the word's origins in the brewing industry. In 1876, British soft drink maker Hiram Codd designed and patented a bottle designed specifically for fizzy drinks. Though his Codd-neck bottle was a success in the fizzy drink industry, alcohol drinkers disparaged Codd's invention, often saying it was only good for "wallop" (a slang term for beer in the late-19th century). The term soon became "Codd's Wallop" and was eventually used for anything of low-quality or rubbish.

Critics argue that this term, despite its popularity, is not likely to be the origin, as the first recorded use of codswallop was not until around the 1960s, over ninety years after the term for beer fell out of use.

As the BBC series Balderdash & Piffle describes, the term appears in a 1959 episode of Hancock's Half Hour.

1.3 Popular Culture References
Harry Potter: "Codswallop" is favorite term used by Hagrid in the Harry Potter movies IMDB: Quotes

Yup Terry, you and I can see it, and religious people can see it, about every other religion except their own. Isn't that the definintion of religion? Selective suspension of disbelief in the universally unbelievable.

The Moderate wrote: "I am glad to hear that you are more liberal than the Dawkins Delusion crowd. By contrast the secular fundamentalist, Dawkins, calls religious instruction of the young "child abuse", and advocates making it illegal. Now that is secular religion trying to establish a secular tyranny."

Actually, I am very much in agreement with Dawkins. What you call 'religious instruction', I would call 'religious indoctrination' Where Dawkins calls it child abuse, I would agree with that... and then go even further, and call it a crime against humanity. When we get to the part about making it illegal... well, that's where it gets tricky.

You see... I regard the parents who are wilfully and enthusiastically engaged in the process of indoctrinating (brainwashing) their children to be just as much victims as the children they are complicit in brainwashing.

There is a whole INDUSTRY (Christianity) whose BUSINESS it is to create whole generations of adults who are, at once, gullible, irrational, willfully ignorant, self-deluded, intellectually dishonest, droolingly stupid and hypocritical... and willing to tithe 10% for the privledge of having their cognitive dissonance held in check through regular doses of pious and holy codswallop... and lies.

Religious 'indoctrination' is insidious because it teaches children WHAT to think... not HOW to think...

"Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and... know nothing but the word of God." ~ Martin Luther

... they do not want you or your children to KNOW 'HOW' to think. And the 'WHAT' that they teach you to think is not 'knowledge'... it is the ILLUSION of knowledge... i.e., pre-packeged dogmatic DELUSIONS.

Religious 'shepherds' KNOW that their 'flock' (sheeple) are scientifically ignorant and incapable of critical thinking... because they've been PROGRAMMED to be ignorant. They KNOW that they are suspicious of 'scientific' sources , and find them to be intimidating and incomprehensible... because they've been CONDITIONED to distrust them. These puppet-masters KNOW that their flock (victims) will seek their 'knowledge' from 'trusted' sources... these very-same puppet-masters. When the sheeple hear things like 'scientists claim that humans and apes shared a common ancestor, in the distant past', they experience 'cognitive dissonance'... this information is in conflict with the 'truth' that they have believed for their whole lives. So... where do they go to resolve this cognitive dissonance?... Scientists?... NO! They go to their 'trusted' sources... the sources who KNOW that they have been taught WHAT to think... and have been prevented from learning HOW to think. Sources who KNOW that they can lie, obfuscate, misrepresent with impunity... with absolutely NO RISK that their minions will seek out independent, peer-reviewed corroborating information, whether historical or scientific.

They do their jobs very well indeed... as can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xKDKq_PPbk&mode=related&search=

'Doublethink' is the ability to hold two contradictory propositions as 'true' at the same time, without experiencing 'cognitive dissonance'... and without having their heads explode. It is a sure sign that one's Christian indoctrination (brainwashing) has been successfully completed. You could say that doublethink is a 'symptom' of the underlying mental illness that has been deliberately... intentionally... maliciously... implanted in the mind of a believer.

One example of this lies in the idea that you can't properly interpret the bible unless you are possessed of the Holy Spirit. What having "...the Holy Spirit to help illuminate our minds to God's word" REALLY means is that they have been so thoroughly brainwashed that they are attuned to 'doublethink'. Up is down, bad is good, murder becomes 'love'... fools are wise and the wise are fools... knowledge is meant to steer you away from the Lord, and ignorance is the way to righteousness and salvation... and gullibility, ignorance and drooling stupidity are holy virtues. It means insisting that god is 'all loving'... and knowing all the while that god frequently commanded his flock to bash babies skulls against rocks and slash open the bellies of pregnant women, with swords... and not sensing any conflict or contradiction between these ideas.

In other words, they are bug-nuts... insane... thoroughly deluded by sophisticated mind-control techniques that have been worked out, refined and perfected by christianity over the past 1,700 years.

This is a good news/bad news sort of thing. The GOOD news is that these Christian mind-control tecniques... perfected and refined over the past 1,700 years... only work on people who do not have the critical-thinking skills and reasoning power to penetrate the logical fallacies, lies, misrepresentations and deceit upon which this fraud (christianity) is constructed. The BAD news (and it's REALLY bad news) is that this accounts for 85%+ of the adult population of the USA.

Oh, crap... we're doomed.

OK... get this... around 85% of the adult population of the USA is delusional... and that is a brand of insanity. So... something that can be said to account for 85% of ANYTHING can be said to define what is 'normal'. So... in the USA... insanity is NORMAL... rational is ABNORMAL... and the inmates are running the asylum... and the inmate gang leaders have access to and control over the most sophisticated arsenal on the planet... and they think that they are the 'good guys'... and they think that they are on a mission from god, charged with establishing the conditions here on earth that are foretold to presage the second coming of Christ.

I'd say that is a cause for grave concern... wouldn't you?

“Anyone who cares about the fate of civilization would do well to recognize that the combination of great power and great stupidity is simply terrifying, even to one’s friends.” ~ Sam Harris

Daniel,

I agree with you. I am Christian.

Ender - your tale sounds like this to me:

human = religion
religion = politics
politics = control (of people and resources)
politicians = clergy
heaven = eternal reward for believing politicians
hell = eternal reward for being troublesome
(to politicians)

Hmmmm! Yep, sounds man-made alright.

Susan - right on...cults are mini-religions with one leader and multiple followers (and often apocalypic in their outlook - but not always).

Seems like several in recent memory were non-starters, with all members ending up dead.

But how about a real American success story?! Could anyone forget Sun Yung Moon?? Now a corporate billionaire and actual owner of a major newspaper (a regular Rupert Murdock) ..... and all without giving up his church or followers that I know of. I think he still performs group marriages from time to time.

That's having your cake and eating it too!!!

He is often heard to pray, 'Thank You Almighty, All-Knowing and All-Compassionate Supreme Being for causing a fool to be born each and every minute of the day'. Amen.........

"Secular" refers to any pursuit that is not relgious in nature.

Today, in America, almost everything is secular. However, in pre-Rennaissance Europe, almost nothing was secular. In fact, the very notion of secularism was a reaction to the domination of society by the church. Secularism is not a philosophy or belief system, nor even a way of life. It is just an opposite descriptor, such as we might refer to a "cordless" phone to note that a previous common feature of all phones does not refer to your "cordless" phone.

A person may be a Christian, read the Bible, go to church regularly, and post anti-Susan-Jacoby comments here, but that person still lives a secular life. Today, in America, the only people who do not live secular lives are nuns, monks, preists, and the Amish.

Dear DickPhup:

"First... I am not aware of any specific campaign... or even a general one... to generate a climate where religion has no place in public life."

I am glad to hear that you are more liberal than the Dawkins Delusion crowd.

By contrast the secular fundamentalist, Dawkins, calls religious instruction of the young "child abuse", and advocates making it illegal. Now that is secular religion trying to establish a secular tyranny.

Christians! Come on! You got to admit Ms. Jacoby has a point. If you are confident in your beliefs, be it some little cult, or the Great Roman Catholic Church, why should a person who makes good arguments be the enemy? She is not my enemy. I like hearing what she has to say.

What we think we know of prehistoric religion is guesswork derived from cultural anthropology. Jean Auel’s Clan series may be as good of a guess as any other. We will probably never know for sure.

Once we get to the historical religions, the written religious and historical text combined with the reports from outside of the culture or religion, give us a pretty clear picture of the process that humans have gone through to create their religions and political systems, and how those processes have been intertwined.

An unbiased analysis of most cultures clearly shows that political systems developed hand in hand with religious beliefs. Earthly kings almost always claimed divine support to their right of rule. In the case of many, the kings were even considered gods themselves, or earthly incarnations of some aspect of a god.

It’s almost a chicken and egg question. Did the priest pick and create the king, or did the king choose the priest and ‘god’ that best ordained his/her rule?

That this relationship has existed in almost every human society, should make crystal clear that there are either a large number of deities that have preferred cultures they choose to bless, or that all religions are creators or creations of the culture and political system who’s power they help maintain.

I agree somewhat with Ms. Jacoby’s assertion that a cult as opposed to a religion is defined by the number of adherents, but I also think that terminology disguises the larger picture. If we look at the large and well defined religions, then Hinduism is a cult of the mythological Krishna, with sub cults for Shiva and Kali. Sikhism is the cult of the five Gurus, with sub cults for modern gurus. And Judaism is the cult of Abraham, with sub cults for Jesus and Mohammed. In all cases, the sub cults mark a human power struggle where a sub deity, or intercessor with the divine, blesses the political power of an emerging group. With Islam, it divides into Shia and Sunni, along tribal lines of Arabic and Persian. With Christianity, the Gnostics were wiped out and replaced by the Roman papacy, then divided by the eastern and western popes, then Germanic zed by Martin Luther, Anglicized by the Church of England, Americanized by Baptist and Methodist, and tribal zed for selection of Aryan stock by LDS.

All are cults that divide over time into sub cults designed to support a Political separation from the previous version of the cult, or another cult altogether.

Stonehenge and the Mayan temples with designs that enabled astronomical date fixing are perfect examples of how priesthoods maintained a power base by being the tribal ‘keepers of the group knowledge.’ Usually the only tribe members with the leisure time to maintain verbal or written records, they gained power by telling the tribe when to plant, harvest, move and celebrate. To maintain that leisure time, they must work hand in hand with the political leaders, or even be the political leaders, so they survive by the labor of others. Of course the most potent method of maintaining power is to claim access to the spirit world or gods that allow them and them alone, to relay the will of the gods, and to intercede with those ‘powers.’

Hinduism divided wealth and power by maintaining class designations, Judaism by tribal designations, Christianity by minutia of belief systems, and Islam by tribe, culture and control of ‘holy’ real estate.

So, the point of this ramble is that all religions are cult’ural’ designations for divisions of political power. The cult may not have that political power now, but you can rest assured it has it, wants it, or has had it and is waiting around to get it back.

Readers - don't be swayed by the Ron Paul nonsense. The first thing to do is read up on the Libertarian philosophy (Wikipedia will work) and understand that while Ron Paul never overtly says so, he would also eliminate all social entitlements eg. Social Security and Medicare as a pure Libertarian. Endorsing Ron Paul is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

On closer inspection I find a great deal of 'social elitism' among Libertarians, and while Ayn Rand never really claimed membership she is often held up as a paragon of the Libertarian philosophy - her famous work Atlas Shrugged is an apocalyptic treatise that warns of the dangers of 'socialism' - her heros hold themselves aloof from the degradation of the masses in their ivory towers - well subsizided by the vast wealth they've accumulated through their superior knowledge and native ability.
(Social Darwinism indeed!). This gives atheism a bad name......

In truth though, I don't see much difference here with the basic philosophy of right-wing conservatives wherever they're found -

Adam and Eve, magical fruits, talking snakes!!

Give us a break!!!

For a description of the real Adam, see https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/

" DNA studies suggest that all humans today descend from a group of African ancestors who about 60,000 years ago began a remarkable journey.

Follow the journey from them to you as written in your genes”.

"Adam" is the common male ancestor of every living man. He lived in Africa some 60,000 years ago, which means that all humans lived in Africa at least at that time.

Unlike his Biblical namesake, this Adam was not the only man alive in his era. Rather, he is unique because his descendents are the only ones to survive.

It is important to note that Adam does not literally represent the first human. He is the coalescence point of all the genetic diversity."

And from the religious history side: as being taught in many Catholic university theology classes:

"The story of Adam and Eve is only symbolic.
This story was composed in the 900s BCE and functions as an etiology (explanatory myth) . In the 900s Israel was self ruling, under King David
and Solomon. The people were no longer at war and the question" Why are we not happy?" may have been asked. The short answer is sin.

(Look at 1 Kings 11 for some clues into why the story depicts Eve sinning first and then tempting Adam [Solomon]).

I teach Original Sin as symbolic of the sins of our origins -- in our families and in the broader society, both of which affect each person
profoundly. The "sins of our origins" approach helps to account for certain patterns of sin in particular families and societies.

Baptism does not erase original sin since the sin does not exist. Yes, the old "laundry of the soul," approach to Baptism is no longer
accepted.

Infant Baptism is only a rite of initiation and commits parents and godparents to bringing up the child in a Christian home.

Baptism is now celebrated at Sunday Eucharist, all the members of the parish family are encouraged to pledge their support and care for the faith life of the newly baptized. (A manifestation of this is persons volunteering to teach other people's kids the basics of
Catholicism.)"

Dear Susan,

Fundamentalism, yours and everyone else’s, is for simpletons.

The difference between religions and cults is that religions enhance our chances of survival. Also, given time survival enhancing religions develop doctrines that moderate the practices their religious communities. Cults like the Branch Davidians, or Jonestown colony lead to death.

Christianity changed survival rates from plagues in the ancient world from twenty to eighty percent by replacing the "Pagan" practice of abandoning plague victims, with a the Christian charity of nursing and caring for the victims, even at risk to the care givers. Over the generations, more and more Christians survived, and they became part of the fabric of the civilizations of Late Antiquity.

The same is true of experiments. Governments are experiments that work, at least to some degree to enhance the survival the governed. They often develop laws to moderate the practices of the government. Soviet Communism and National Socialism did not enhance survival of the governed and were the governmental equivalents of death cults. The American Government, informed by moderate Christian and Deist principles in its foundations, has generally promoted the welfare of its people rather than destroying them in vast quantities. Sure it was not perfect, and much work remains to perfect it, but it has been a positive force over time.

Your secular fundamentalist belief, exemplified by the Dawkins Delusion, that if we can just get rid of all those nasty religionists (who say things like "feed the hungry", "clothe the naked", "care for the sick", and crazy stuff like that) we would achieve Utopia here on earth. Or the Workers Paradise or whatever cockamamie extremist nonsense you want to sell today.

Secular fundamentalists like you, the Dawkins Delusion crowd, and the retrograde anti-evolution religionists all have the ability to reject mountains of evidence piled high in front of your noses.

Whatever brand name you sell it under, fundamentalism is for simpletons.

Thanks DUCKPHUP, I haven't laughed so hard in years.

Thanks Susan,

'I hope that some day we will know more than we do now about the origins of the natural universe. But I'm not betting on it.'

It's amazing isn't it, and kind of scary? We don't have a clue what we are doing here, except for Peter of course. But it's encouraging to have the company of such courageous and clear thinking young woman as yourself. I look forward to reading many more of your posts, and your book, which I haven't read yet but most surely will.

speed123 wrote: "It is not secular, however, in the extreme/expansive way that you would dream of....that religion has no place in public life or say in policy."

"Ackkk..." ~ Bill the Cat

OK... put your hand up and then smack yourself sharply on the back of the head... then say "Duuhhh..." That is called a 'dope slap'.

First... I am not aware of any specific campaign... or even a general one... to generate a climate where religion has no place in public life. If there was one, I would oppose it. I've got no problem with christmas trees and decorations... with signs that say 'Merry Christmas'... or even with nativity scenes at shopping centers, for example. These things have a valid 'cultural' context that should be acknowledged... and restricting them is just plain mean.

However... religion HAS NO PLACE in (government) policy. When it DOES have a place in policy, then we start to see things like...

* a government that does not care about how big the national debt gets... because they don't believe that there will be anyone around to collect on it; i.e.... we're not gonna have to pay it back.

* a government that does not care about the consequences of global warming, or the effects of our rape of the environment on future generations... because they do not think that there will BE more than oe or two future generations.

* a government in which one of the primary goals of foreign policy is concerned with setting up the conditions in the Middle East that are forseen as necessary for the fulfillment of biblical prophecy... the return of Jesus... the rapture... the tribulation... the final battle between good and evil... a new 'earth' to replace this one... for the benefit of the 'faithful'.

* A government wherein the worldview of the key players is rooted in the myths, superstitions, fairy tales and fantastical delusions of an ignorant gaggle of Bronze Age fishermen and peripatetic, militant, marauding, genocidal goat herders.

When you've got religious considerations influencing government policy, then you're well on your way to having a theocracy. Well, all I can say is that it's a damned good thing that this hasn't happened so... oops... wait a minute... THIS JUST IN:

“My responsibility is to follow the Scriptures which call upon us to occupy the land until Jesus returns.” ~ James Watt, Former (US) Secretary of Interior, Washington Post, May 24, 1981

“We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand.” ~ James Watt, Former (US) Secretary of Interior, Washington Post, May 24, 1981

"I don't know how many future generations we can count on until the Lord returns." ~ James Watt, Former (US) Secretary of Interior, to a Congressional committee in 1981, quoted from "A Brief History of the Apocalypse"

Well... thank god for blabbermouths.

Anyway... as I was saying... you're well on your way to having a theocracy and... whoa... what's this?... Oh, crap...

In 2004, 'dominionist' congressmen made their first move, introducing the "Constitution Restoration Act of 2004" (HR 3799 IH). The following proposed law will be added to Sec. 1260 of Title 28, Chapter 81 of the U.S. Code: “Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official personal capacity), by reason of that element’s or officer’s acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.”
 
Implications: Because the judiciary is 'an element' of the federal, state and local governments, this wording, if it becomes law, may allow any judge to institute biblical punishments without being subject to review by the Supreme Court or the federal court system.

OK... once more... (whap)..."Duuhhh..."

Supplement:

"God" prohibited Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge! And if they eat - there you have the "original sin". Quod erat demonstrandum: We suffer from this disastrous scheme up to this day.

Thank you, Susan, for your efforts. Change is coming, even if ever so slowly...

Funny how people like speed 123, let alone Peter Huff, reiterate the debunked question

"show me your proof that God does not exist....right, you can't."

like a prayer mill.

Anybody who asks for a proof of a negative doesn't know the simplest laws of logic and should actually shut up, not because he may think something stupid, but because he cannot think at all, and without some basic logic communication is closed. (Peter Huff now will say "god invented logic", lol!)

But somehow, there must be some libidinous aspect in discarding logic. If we connect this huge satisfaction with one of the most profound human conditions: fear, we arrive at a religion or cult, whatever you prefer to call it.

All religions, like all other authoritarian systems, hate free thinking and if they can, PROHIBIT free thinking (the last example btw being the Florida incident of the tasered student).

Hitler, Stalin, the Inquisition, Islam, orthodox Judaism and all the other cults (I don't find any qualitative difference between cult and religion) know that free thinking jeopardizes their power. Therefore they all have established a huge system of mind police. The Christian churches are mind police: He who thinks something "wrong", even he only tries to get some new information, is killed or at least (lol) goes to hell. In Nazi Germany, anybody who listened to BBC with its Beethoven Fifth Symphony pause sign could be executed. Neighbors (mind police) had to report if they heard this sign.

And the Catholic church has its "Index": You are prohibited to inform yourself.

We can see the result all over the place, and in a condensed fashion in "On faith".

Friends, we still have so much to learn. The first lesson would be to take a look at history, where all the necessary evidence is blatantly on the table. Why ignore it? Why not learn?

For those who want to know who really are Jehovah's Witnesses after you clear away all the pro and con propaganda, here are SUMMARIES OF NEARLY 600 JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES LAWSUITS & COURT CASES. Nothing beats "the real world":

The following website summarizes 310 U.S. court cases and lawsuits affecting children of Jehovah's Witness Parents, including 100+ cases where the JW Parents refused to consent to life-saving blood transfusions for their dying children:

DIVORCE, BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS, AND OTHER LEGAL ISSUES AFFECTING CHILDREN OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES

http://jwdivorces.bravehost.com

The following website summarizes over 275 lawsuits filed by Jehovah's Witnesses against their Employers, and/or incidents involving problem JW Employees:

EMPLOYMENT ISSUES UNIQUE TO JEHOVAH'S WITNESS EMPLOYEES

http://jwemployees.bravehost.com

What if god is some kind of microbe or something.
A kind of controlling gene that runs the cosmos but is'nt an actual thinking talking walking person thing.Maybe some microscopic powerhouse or group of
microscopic thingies that link up and do things that get other things to o I give up.
What if God is a big black monolith as in 2001 Space Odyssey ?
Why do we always fall back on the God as a person imagery? Because our imaginations are so limited.
It seems so childish,so infantile,to expect the answer to the great riddle of the universe to be a whitebearded old man up in the sky.
Lets face it,that has to be the dumbest answer.

Peter Huff

Your desperation to believe comes across quite clearly,as if you're scared that maybe,just maybe,there is no God.It sounds as if you're trying to convince yourself while trying to convince others.

Gods and goblins exist in the wonderful world of the imagination and only in the imagination. Hellooo...the supernatural is between your ears Peter,where anything can exist.

People are naturally superstitious;its a hangover from our ignorant past when we had gods for everything. But we know better now Peter.

There's no Santa and there's no God.
People make things up,always have and always will.

Hi Susan,

It was nice to see you getting involved in the posts.

I have a few comments and questions. You said,

"Only religious believers use the word "know" in relation to God. Just as they cannot know how God came to be, those of us who call ourselves atheists or agnostics cannot know how the first bit of matter in the universe came to be."

How can God, who is eternal, come into existence? Eternal is without beginning or ending, is it not? He always is.

There is a difference between a "hard atheist" and an agnostic. In either circumstance, would you not say that a belief in God is replaced by another explanation of looking at the world, whether that be naturalism or evolution. I have had various atheists argue that atheism is not a belief. Do you feel likewise? I have argued with them that atheism does not happen in a vacuum. You still have a belief that the world was not created, either being eternal or coming from nothing, that mankind is basically a collection of chemicals that reacts situationally both morally and to their environment. Is that not how you explain why different cultures have different concepts of good and evil?

When you say,

"The difference between religious believers and atheists is that the atheist insists on evidence from the natural world, while the religious believer's convictions rest on the assumption that a supernatural world, far beyond our understanding, is as real as the air we breathe."

As a Christian I try to look at the evidence from God's standpoint, and believe that this world is better explained by the Biblical account than evolutionary science; that is each created to its own kind rather than evolving from lower to higher kinds. God made us both as physical as well as spiritual beings, that is why there is something about you that is not physical, not material.

You have admitted that you cannot know how this universe came into existence, so you, as well as I, rely on certain presuppositions to make sense of it all. The difference between what we believe is that the Christian can make sense of how we got here, morals, and truth.

"The religious believer, when asked how he "knows" that God exists, must fall back on the platitude that humans cannot truly understand the mind or origins of God."

There again, you use the term "origins of God." God, being eternal has no origins.

The reason why the believer can know, in part, the mind of God, is because God has revealed Himself to mankind and has interacted with His creatures. As Christians, we work on the presupposition that the Bible is true, that we can take God at His word, that when something contradicts the Bible then it is wrongfully looked at, just as you work on the presupposition that God does not exist, nor is there any evidence for His existence and that evolution may one day explain how we got here, but even then you are unsure. The point is that you do not know, whereas the believer does because the Almighty, absolute, objective, eternal God has revealed the truth to His creatures. Without Him you have no explanation for where the origins of truth, morals, or the universe derive from.

You also say that there is no evidence for the supernatural God. I say the evidence is all around you by what has been created and by the irreducible complexity of it all. Atheists all to often say that there is no evidence that either the Bible is anything other than mythology or that Jesus Christ for that matter is portrayed accurately historical. If He existed then the stories about Him being God have been embellished. Actually the evidence is outstanding that He is who He claimed to be. Again, you and other atheists come to the evidence with you foundational beliefs intact and are as guilty as we are of not listening to other points of view. There is no such thing as neutrality.

My opinion of a cult, as an evangelical Christian, is characterized by many factors such as its denial of the Bible as being the sole authority for the believer. It is usually replaced with an organization, such as the Watchtower society or a charismatic leader like David Koresh or Mary Baker Eddy, that has a distorted view therefore of God the Father, Jesus the Son or the Holy Spirit and God's grace and mercy to us. In other words, the doctrines are derived from somewhere other than a correct interpretation of the Bible.

As has already been mentioned, a cult usually has an authoritarian figure or organization that is bent on cutting off the group from the rest of society. Jesus' teaching to be in the world but not off the world (i.e. - not the same values as the world has)is taken to the extreme to disassociate/isolate from contact with the world.

A cult is usually very moralistic to the point of legalism or very liberal to the point of being immoral in some of its practices.

Since a cult is an off-shoot of the genuine, the genuine that it stems from is the true teaching of the Bible.

Cult - A religious group which denies the essential doctrines of Christianity.

By this definition, the Catholic church is the largest cult on the planet. They merged the beliefs of the pagan's, with the theology of the first century Christians and called it pure. When did Jesus ever claim to be god? Read Daniel 7:13-14 and explain that in the context of the trinity. When did Jesus ever advocate worshiping his mother? Check the history of everything from the funny hats to the persecution / murder of any who disagreed with them in the middle ages and you begin to get the picture. Check the history of Pope Innocent - you will be disgusted.

What hypocrisy....

It's nothing more than a political machine.

With the history of trying to stop people from thinking (Galileo and Michael Servantes) what do you expect. My only question is how do they continue to get away with it. Are people really that stupid?

Gandhi had it right - "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

A religion is just a cult with delusions of grandeur.

Anonymous: We don't disagree to a great degree.

Some Mormonism AKA The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 101:

Mormons have not refered to persons of other faiths and beliefs as "Gentiles" for roughly 100 years. When such a term was being used, it was primarly during the historic period that followed the Mormon's forced exodus out of the United States into the Utah territory.

It was then that Mormon's were further developing a deepening and distinct social identity as a people continuing the Israelite narrative while correspondingly being physically and ideologically rejected by the wider Protestent American culture.

Mike K
You complicate it.
Agnostics say one cannot know anything about gods.
Atheists agree with that,but are inclined to believe that they do not exist.
I would imagine that some atheists would feel stronger about it than other atheists;there are degrees as in all things.
I am a typical atheist.I believe God is all in the mind,and so is everything else that's supernatural.
I would have to admit that I cannot be totally certain that God does not exist.But it seems so unlikely that I feel "all but" certain that its just a fantasy. It simply makes more sense.

Dear Ms. Jacoby

Hogwash and balderdash.

Best regards,

DW

Archaeopteryx
The above post was a comment on your last post.

It may be difficult to maintain objectivity at all times about all matters
but thats no reason not to keep trying.
In any case...while we all accept many things we don't understand (how could it be otherwise?)
it doesn't mean we shouldn't grapple with the big
(or little)questions,if we have any curiosity at all about existence and the cosmos.
Some keep trying to figure things out,it seems to me,and others get religion and stop trying to figure things out,while yet others don't give a damn either way.

Susan Jacoby said "The agnostic says the same thing, and the word "agnostic" was invented by Thomas Huxley, the great popularizer of Darwin's theory of evolution, because it sounds less strident than the word "atheist." "

My interpretation of Huxley's term is such that he intended to differentiate between belief and knowledge. I use, either correctly or otherwise, theist and atheist to describe a state of one's belief. I'm an an atheist. However, I don't claim knowledge that no gods or goddesses exist, hence I'm an agnostic atheist.

I think Huxley coined "agnostic" as a cointerpoint to the term "gnostic", used to identify one who claimed knowledge. I know that it's used differently now, but I prefer to use "agnostic" and "gnostic" to refer to states of knowledge and "theist" and "atheist" to describe states of belief.

To complicate the matter, I think one can differentiate between knowledge and belief of different purported gods. I'm an agnostic atheist as it pertains to a vague, possible god or goddess, but I'm a gnostic atheist as it pertains to the Christian God.

My point is that I see the terms describing different things

To: An angel w/o a religion

Poverty has more to do with wars than religions. When the stomac is empty and unemployment is prevalent (especially amoung the young) well you have a recipe for conflicts. Such conjuncture stresses ethnic and religious differences.

Speed123

I believe in the Tooth Fairy.
And if you don't believe in the Tooth Fairy
should I ask you to prove she doesn't exist?

People keep telling you that the "onus" is on
the believer to show "why" he believes.
That's what it means.The proving is up to the believer.

You have been hypnotized into believing god exists
by a lifetime of indoctrination by family,neighborhood,school and church.
You are programmed now,and unable to consider other viewpoints
or believe anything other than what you do now.It's a crying shame.
And there ought to be a law against it,
and maybe one day there will be.
The 9/11 bombers are a great example of the danger of religious
hypnosis,and why its time we all had a good hard look
at the absolute idiocy of religious belief,and especially indoctrinating children,
when they are too young to disagree or defend themselves against being told what to believe.
Children should be taught how to think,not what to think.
Thats the only way we're ever going to have peace on earth.

I find the need to "pigeonhole" various belief systems into meaningless subcategories to be quite tedious. "Religion", "cult" - it's all spin-doctoring.

And I'd like to caution all of you anti-religion types: at some level, all human belief systems take on aspects of religion. This is as true of "Science" as much as everything else - scientists regularly accept theories that they themselves have never tested, even though the concept of "blind faith" is technically anathema to them. Why? Because life is to short for everyone and his brother to test every tenet of every theory, that's why. So, you can PROBABLY get away with that level of lazy thinking when it comes to the big ticket theories - Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Evolution,.., but where do you draw the line? Not so clear. It's that kind of ambiguity that allows "religious fervor" to leak in around the edges of science, and "cults" to form.

It's very difficult for the human animal to maintain constant objectivity, and skepticism is only easy in relation to other people's ideas. Maintaining constant skepticism about your own beliefs requires maintaining constant humility, and this forum is as good an indicator as any that this is a rare talent indeed.

Susan said: " ... we do know a great deal more about nature today than we did only 50 years ago. But we don't know more about the supernatural than we did thousands of years ago, because there is nothing more to know."

Exactly. Anyone with a naturalistic perspective of the universe is open to new evidence whch might radically change what we know. We realize that science will never understand everything, and that some of what we think we know now may be revised tomorrow. However, the power of the naturalistic perspective is that it has provided an amazing amount of understanding that supernaturalism never has and likely never will.

Many phenomena (from disease to weather to brain functions) that were once considered supernatural, a mere few hundred years ago, are today understood as natural. The trend is clear ... naturalism pays off.

Speed says: "It is not secular, however, in the extreme/expansive way that you would dream of....that religion has no place in public life or say in policy."

How presumptuous that you think you know what I dream of, and how inaccurate you are. I've made it fairly clear that I don't have any issue with religion in public life. As for policy, it depends on how it is done. Are my tax dollars being used to implement religious policies? If so, yes I have an issue with that.

You seem to have a problem distinguishing the different parts of the first amendment, i.e. expressing an opinion about religion, and keeping church-state separated.

What the hell?! I think that people should start waking up and being brained washed by pastors, ministers, or whoever they might be because it has been always people who are expected to worship god and give offering to churches. What have god ever do to humans? The religion has provided more suffering and agony to the mankind throughout history. Majority of the religious leaders are as currupted as many of politicians who turn words around and comdemn those who do not agree with thier policies, beliefs and etc... Humans should start seeking another religion that can do good things for them, not the other way around. Religion that causes fights, war, hatred, and pain should be disappeared on the face of the earth. Many of wars in Europe and middle east somehow realted to the religion and this world would be a better place to live without Christianity, Isam, Judaism, and any other religions that causes the war and bring pain and agony to human beings.

How are those books sales, Ms. Jacoby?

What you need is a publicity stunt to break into the bad boys of atheism book club....

Perhaps you could have a book signing / grave desecration over burial site of Mother Teresa...

That would upstage Hitchens and show who the real superstar atheist is!

Then perhaps, you could even quit this crappy On Faith gig to go on tour.

Best of luck!

Andrea-

Congratulations! May you survive your wedding with your sanity intact, and may your lives together be filled with joy!

(Having suffered thru a few weddings of family and friends, I can see where this forum would be a respite.) :-)

I want to answer Rick, who asked why I take the atheist position--that there is no God--as opposed to the agnostic position, which says, "I don't know."

This is a very good question--one that was asked of Robert Green Ingersoll by a reporter in 1870. Ingersoll replied that there is no difference between an atheist and an agnostic. The atheist says, "On the basis of all the evidence available to me, I don't believe that God exists." But I would never say that I KNOW God does not exist. The agnostic says the same thing, and the word "agnostic" was invented by Thomas Huxley, the great popularizer of Darwin's theory of evolution, because it sounds less strident than the word "atheist."

Only religious believers use the word "know" in relation to God. Just as they cannot know how God came to be, those of us who call ourselves atheists or agnostics cannot know how the first bit of matter in the universe came to be. The difference between religious believers and atheists is that the atheist insists on evidence from the natural world, while the religious believer's convictions rest on the assumption that a supernatural world, far beyond our understanding, is as real as the air we breathe.

The religious believer, when asked how he "knows" that God exists, must fall back on the platitude that humans cannot truly understand the mind or origins of God. I hope that some day we will know more than we do now about the origins of the natural universe. But I'm not betting on it. On the other hand, we do know a great deal more about nature today than we did only 50 years ago. But we don't know more about the supernatural than we did thousands of years ago, because there is nothing more to know.

Nope - the conversations on here are good prep for combative family gatherings (at least mine) ;-)

Have a great wedding; I am sure it will be very special!

Speed,

Thanks! Is it strange that I look to this forum to gain some of my sanity back?

Hey Andrea....wow! Congratulations!!!!! and have a great honeymoon!

Jay,

It is secular in the sense that it does not establish one religion at the expense of other belief (non-belief) systems.

It is not secular, however, in the extreme/expansive way that you would dream of....that religion has no place in public life or say in policy.

Unfortunately, all you need to do is look at the Iraq war to see how marginalized religious principles have become (Catholic just-war doctrine was ignored).....while atheist, such as the famous, pompous drunk, Chris Hitchens, cheerlead the way into Iraq while claiming that religion is the cause of all misery.

Ah, the irony/hypocrisy.

Speed123,

Long time, I know! And, after this week I'll be gone for a while...busy getting married and honeymooning for two weeks.

I don't believe anyone should be put on trial for their beliefs. Mine was a response to your request for proof from Stan. Someone can look at the grass and say it's green because god made it so, claiming photosynthesis is god's idea, others can look at it purely as a chemical process with natural origins. I really don't care either way; I just like seeing my favorite color whenever I look out a window!

Hey Andrea! Long time...I am on a govt. kick and I think Paul would be a great candidate for you (and everyone ;)

As for existence, why should I have to be put on trial for my beliefs?

Where does it state that I have to provide evidence for my faith?

As an individual it is my right to believe and yours not to....correct?

I feel that atheists are limited by their instrumentalist, one demensional conceptualization of identity/life and you are free to claim the same for my conceptualization.

Lets get beyond the absolutes and communist era public trails, though.

Speed123,

Fancy meetin' you here!

You said, "OK - Stan, show me your proof that God does not exist....right, you can't."

The burden of proof is neither on Stan, nor on any other nonbeliever, to prove that god does not exist. It is on you, and your fellow believers to prove he does.

And because it's a republic ( a democratic republic, mind you), it's not a secular government?

You're not making sense.

"My secular government is also your secular government."

Wrong, Jay....you keep thinking that this is a democracy. The founders abhorred the idea of the tyranny of the majority and, therefore, established a republic.

My government is not your government...we are only affiliated through limited federalism. Or that is the ideal.

"....positions when evidence to the contrary is introduced"

OK - Stan, show me your proof that God does not exist....right, you can't.

Dogma can be used by Jacoby as well as pastor and, therefore, know what she is going to say and do not need to read her rants.

The more pertinent question is who is going to save our republic?

Would you rather have endless war or collectivism? (perhaps both) These are your options if you do not google Ron Paul.

Speed123:

The original post emphasized ONE for some reason, when ANY was more appropriate. I know it was not in quotes.

My secular government is also your secular government. You might not like it that way, but that's what the founders wisely created, and I'm all for keeping it.

Who said anything about liberal? Many secularists are conservative, and many are religious. Don't put added meaning into what I said.

Speed 123 - how is she predictable? She is answering the question posed by the panel - What is the difference between a cult and a religion? Her response seems pretty well reasoned and clearly to the point of the question. She puts forward an atheist point of view, of course - this is where she has arrived after a process of reviewing the evidence, thinking about it, and arriving at the most reasonable conclusion. This is how humans are supposed to arrive at what they believe. People who believe in God could also be expected to put forward that view in any piece of writing on a religious question - even more so, since their faith and dogmatism prevents them from changing their positions when evidence to the contrary is introduced. Nothing is more predictable than a church service - many of them are word for word every time!

And to the poster who remarked on the lack of reference to Islam in the post - read it again.

Jay,

The ONE was not in quotes, was it?

As for the "establishment of religion," this does not prohibit the influence of religious or secular groups on policy.

Don't forget that your "liberal secularism" is not a neutral ideology....and just the statement of "my secular govt" betrays your ingrained bias and desire to establish liberal humanism a predominat ideology.

"my secular govt." = the exact forced exclusion and dominance that the founders were out to deter.

Anon says: "The constitution says that we "shall make no law" in regards to establishing ONE state sponsored religion.
"It does NOT say ban religion from the public sphere under penalty of law....as the atheist/secular extremists would like."

For the sake of clarity, here's what the 1st Amendment says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

I don't see the ONE in there. Doesn't matter, it's fairly clear that the intent was to have a secular state. You're free to exercise your religion, regardless. Just keep it clear from my secular government.

PS - as for a "Christian nation," this is not in terms of government but in terms of population.

The fact is that the vast majority of Americans are Christians.

Lucky for you, we are a constitutional republic, not a democracy, therefore, and Christianity is not the "state" religion even though it is the majority religion.

As for Ron Paul (I second the nomination) - you atheists should love him. He is about liberty and limited government.

So unless you are a totalitarian/collectivist and would like to use the federal government to force your beliefs on others (as I suspect may of your are)....vote Ron Paul.

The constitution says that we "shall make no law" in regards to establishing ONE state sponsored religion.

It does NOT say ban religion from the public sphere under penalty of law....as the atheist/secular extremists would like.

As for Ron Paul, he is the only man who realizes the stakes of our current predicament and is the only candidate who is not part of the war mongering, corporatist elites.

Save the republic, vote Ron Paul!

Think the atheists are making too much noise about religion?

Check out the attitudes of our fellow Americans reflected in this recent poll by the First Amendment Center:

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=19031

Excerpt: "Sixty-five percent of Americans believe that the nation's founders intended the U.S. to be a Christian nation and 55% believe that the Constitution establishes a Christian nation, according to the “State of the First Amendment 2007” national survey released today by the First Amendment Center."

Obviously, we aren't making enough of a ruckus.

Thanks Jay S.

Susan,

I am a great fan 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?

"The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance." -- Ron Paul.

I guess Ron Paul doesn't really know Thomas Jefferson that well. I would have voted for the man, but he really doesn't get it.

How about something we can all agree on (the religious and atheist alike):

Ron Paul 2008!

Restore civil liberties, end the war, downsize the power hungry politicians in washington.

ronpaul2008.com

by A.C.Grayling

Religious belief is humankind's earliest science. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are young religions in historical terms, and came into existence after kings and emperors had more magnificently taken the place of tribal chiefs. The new religions therefore modelled their respective deities on kings with absolute powers.

But for tens of thousands of years beforehand people were fundamentally animistic, explaining the natural world by imputing agency to things - spirits or gods in the wind, in the thunder, in the rivers and sea.

As knowledge replaced these naiveties, so deities became more invisible, receding to mountain tops and then to the sky or the earth's depths. One can easily see how it was in the interests of priesthoods, most of which were hereditary, to keep these myths alive.

With such a view of religion - as ancient superstition, as a primitive form of explanation of the world sophisticated into mythology - it is hard for non-religious folk to take it seriously, and equally hard for them to accept the claim of religious folk to a disproportionate say in running society.

This is the more so given that the active constituency of all believers in Britain is about eight per cent of the population. A majority might have vague beliefs and occasionally go to church, but even they do not want their lives dictated to by so small and narrow a self-selected minority.

The disproportion is a startling one. Regular C of E churchgoers make up three per cent of the population, yet have 26 bishops in the House of Lords. Now that religion is bustling on to centre-stage and asking for everyone's taxes to pay for faith schools and exemptions, this anachronism is no longer tolerable.

And all this is happening against the background of atrocities committed by religious fanatics in America, Europe and the Middle East, whose beliefs are not very different from the majority of others in their faith.

The absolute certainty, the unreflective credence given to ancient texts that relate to historically remote conditions, the zealotry and bigotry that flow from their certainty, are profoundly dangerous: at their extreme they result in mass murder, but long before then they issue in censorship, coercion to conform, the control of women, the closing of hearts and minds.

Thus there is a continuum from the suicide bomber driven by religious zeal to the moral crusader who wishes to stop everyone else from seeing or reading what he himself finds offensive. This fact makes people of a secular disposition no longer prepared to be silent and concessive.

Religion has lost respectability as a result of the atrocities committed in its name, because of its clamouring for an undue slice of the pie, and for its efforts to impose its views on others.

Where politeness once restrained non-religious folk from expressing their true feelings about religion, both politeness and restraint have been banished by the confrontational face that faith now turns to the modern world.

This, then, is why there is an acerbic quarrel going on between religion and non-religion today, and it does not look as if it will end soon

You are soooooooooo predictable, Jacoby, that I don't even read your contributions any more.

Too bad you didn't write an atheist $bestseller$....not like you didn't try.

Now that I think of it, perhaps you are excluded from the atheist boys club of Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris?

How sad....

You are tiresome with your hate speeches on religion. If you are happy with your own practices well, just hang onto it. But please, stop pointing the finger on others. No witch hunt is being set up.

With love.

I'm amazed that this woman spends so much time trashing religion and very little promoting secularism. Read some of the other posters -- there is very little trashing of secularists.

Pentagon Sued Over Mandatory Christianity
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report

Tuesday 18 September 2007

A military watchdog organization filed a lawsuit in federal court Tuesday against the Pentagon, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and a US Army major, on behalf of an Army soldier stationed in Iraq. The suit charges the Pentagon with widespread constitutional violations by allegedly trying to force the soldier to embrace evangelical Christianity and then retaliating against him when he refused.

The complaint, filed in US District Court in Kansas City, by the nonprofit Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), on behalf of Jeremy Hall, an Army specialist currently on active duty in Speicher, Iraq, alleges that Hall's First Amendment rights were violated beginning last Thanksgiving when, because of his atheist beliefs, he declined to participate in a Christian prayer ceremony commemorating the holiday.

"Immediately after plaintiff made it known he would decline to join hands and pray, he was confronted, in the presence of other military personnel, by the senior ranking ... staff sergeant who asked plaintiff why he did not want to pray, whereupon plaintiff explained because he is an atheist," says the lawsuit, a copy of which was provided to Truthout. "The staff sergeant asked plaintiff what an atheist is and plaintiff responded it meant that he (plaintiff) did not believe in God. This response caused the staff sergeant to tell plaintiff that he would have to sit elsewhere for the Thanksgiving dinner. Nonetheless, plaintiff sat at the table in silence and finished his meal."

Moreover, the complaint alleges that on August 7, when Hall received permission by an Army chaplain to organize a meeting of other soldiers who shared his atheist beliefs, his supervisor, Army Major Paul Welborne, broke up the gathering and threatened to retaliate against the soldier by charging him with violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The complaint also alleges that Welborne vowed to block Hall's reenlistment in the Army if the atheist group continued to meet - a violation of Hall's First Amendment rights under the Constitution. Welborne is named as a defendant in the lawsuit.

"During the course of the meeting, defendant Welborne confronted the attendees, disrupted the meeting and interfered with plaintiff Hall's and the other attendees' rights to discuss topics of their interests," the lawsuit alleges.

The complaint charges that Hall, who is based at Fort Riley, Kansas, has been forced to "submit to a religious test as a qualification to his post as a soldier in the United States Army," a violation of Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution.

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation said Defense Secretary Robert Gates is named as a defendant in the lawsuit because he has allowed the military to engage in "a pattern and practice of constitutionally impermissible promotions of religious beliefs within the Department of Defense and the United States military."

The lawsuit seeks an injunction against Welborne from further engaging in behavior "that has the effect of establishing compulsory religious practices" and asks that Gates prevent Welborne from interfering with Hall's free speech rights.

Mikey Weinstein, founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, an organization that seeks to enforce the law mandating the separation between church and state in the US military, said the lawsuit would be the first of many his group intends to file against the Pentagon.

"This landmark federal litigation is just the first of a galaxy of new lawsuits that will be expeditiously filed against the Pentagon in a concentrated effort to preserve the precious religious liberties guaranteed by our beautiful United States Constitution, " Weinstein said Monday. "Today, we are boldly stabbing back against an unconstitutional heart of darkness, a contagion of fundamentalist religious supremacy and triumphalism noxiously dominating the command and control of the technologically most lethal organization ever created by humankind: our honorable and noble United States armed forces."

A Pentagon spokesman said he could not comment on the lawsuit because he has not yet seen it.

Weinstein, a former White House attorney under Ronald Reagan, general counsel H. Ross Perot and an Air Force Judge Advocate (JAG), has been waging a one-man war against the Department of Defense for its blatant disregard of the Constitution. He published a book on his fight: "With God on Our Side: One Man's War Against an Evangelical Coup in America's Military." Weinstein is also an Air Force veteran and a graduate of the Air Force Academy. Three generations of his family have attended US military academies.

Since he launched his watchdog organization nearly two years ago months ago, Weinstein said he has been contacted by more than 5,000 active duty and retired soldiers, many of whom served or serve in Iraq, who told Weinstein that they were pressured by their commanding officers to convert to Christianity.

The lawsuit also includes examples of other alleged constitutional abuses by Pentagon officials.

Last month, the Pentagon's Inspector General responded to a complaint filed last year by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation alleging that Defense Department officials violated military regulations by appearing in a video promoting a fundamental Christian organization.

The Inspector General agreed and issued a 47-page report that was highly critical of senior Army and Air Force personnel for participating in the video while in uniform and on active duty.

The report recommended that Air Force Maj. Gen. Jack Catton, Army Brig. Gen. Bob Caslen, Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks, Maj. Gen. Peter Sutton, and a colonel and lieutenant colonel whose names were redacted in the inspector general's report, "improperly endorsed and participated with a non-Federal entity while in uniform" and the men should be disciplined for misconduct. Caslen was formerly the deputy director for political-military affairs for the war on terrorism, directorate for strategic plans and policy, joint staff. He now oversees the 4,200 cadets at the US Military Academy at West Point. Caslen told DOD investigators he agreed to appear in the video upon learning other senior Pentagon officials had been interviewed for the promotional video.

The inspector general's report recommended the "Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief of Staff of the Army take appropriate corrective action with respect to the military officers concerned."

The Army generals who appeared in the video appeared to be speaking on behalf of the military, but they did not obtain prior permission to appear in the video. They defended their actions, according to the inspector general's report, saying the "Christian Embassy had become a 'quasi-Federal entity,' since the DOD had endorsed the organization to General Officers for over 25 years."

Actually all religions were cults at one time.
They are not considered cults now because they have been around so long.
If you really think about the main beliefs of Christists, for example, you can see how ridiculous they are.

"Oh gimme a break, that is EXACTLY the strategy atheists use when they paint a damning picture of believers. Its to make them feel more secure and intellectual."

response:

If naturalism is a religion, then so are liberalism, neoconservatism, and Keynesian economics.

"Its to make them feel more secure and intellectual.""

Nuff said...

Excellent read Susan.
I've come to see religion as a form of hypnosis.
No matter what you say to a believer,he doesn't hear you.He doesn't actually hear you,unless what you say fits in with the idea that's been planted in his brain.
I guess some are more hypnotized than others,and some waver and doubt (like Mother T),but on the whole the great mass of believers don't budge.
And when educated men fly planes into buildings,wouldn't they have to be,in effect,hypnotized?

Susan -

Another great column. Should I bother reading the rest of the columnists?

Pelle Schultz -

Bravo! Thanks for putting it all in a nutshell.

"Oh gimme a break, that is EXACTLY the strategy atheists use when they paint a damning picture of believers. Its to make them feel more secure and intellectual."

I've never referred to any religion as a cult. The term is meaningless to me, since I don't distinguish between belief systems that are founded on supernaturalism, whether they are newly formed and consist of a few members, or have been well-established for millenia. They're all based on views of the universe that are unsupported by evidence.

Naturalism (my philosophy) is not a religion or a cult, unless you want to redefine the terms to include any belief system or philosphy, regardless of whether it includes supernaturalism or is organized. If naturalism is a religion, then so are liberalism, neoconservatism, and Keynesian economics.

"You want to call secularists and free-thinkers a cult, have at it, if it makes you feel more secure. "

Oh gimme a break, that is EXACTLY the strategy atheists use when they paint a damning picture of believers. Its to make them feel more secure and intellectual.

Shoe's on the other foot...

Jacoby describes herself as an atheist in this column:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/susan_jacoby/2006/12/no_atheists_still_need_apply.html

Rewrite the OT, NT and Koran in historical terms leaving out the embellishments, myths and fortune telling and there would be no religious cults.

Susan,

Are you atheist or agnostic? I know, it's none of my business, but I just want to know.

In response to LDS FLDS regarding questions about Church of Scientology, Christian Science:

Christian Science is not associated with the Church of Scientology. Christian SCience is a system of healing practiced by Christian Scientists and founded by Mary Baker Eddy in 1866. Churches of Christian Science are non-profit (like all religious denominations),and are thoroughly democratic. They are not male dominated, nor do they conduct their services in secret. Christian Science does not require allegiance to a church or group. No one is required to join, and anyone may revoke membership in a church if inclined to do so. I believe the Church of Scientology was founded by L Ron Hubbard and has nothing to do with Christian Science.

Willie Ray:

Oh yes ... Jacoby and the rest of us atheists are working hard behind the scenes to establish a Muslim caiphate in the free world. That is exactly what we want to see, since our real enemy is Christianity.

In case you haven't been following "On Faith," Jacoby and those of us who tend to agree with her on many things view ALL religions with skepticism and, in the case, of aggressive religions, alarm. I have not seen her pull any punches when it comes to Islam.

You want to call secularists and free-thinkers a cult, have at it, if it makes you feel more secure.

A very useful distinction in looking at the urge to control, versus the promotion of the individual's right to put the pieces together for themselves, and to have a big tent for all those varieties of believers. The secular impulse can lead,however, to it's own "group think" the does not allow for deviation. I would submit the thesis that MSM is often in the "group think" mode that wants to control the masses of their readers to believe in their own, often narrow bias, in interpreting the world around them. Here, a few vocal heretics against the group think are necessary--hence, the bloggers, many of them heretical. Bless them, I say, for the MSM as much as any group, need their feet held to the fire!

Jacoby is secular cultist. Just by this writing you can see part of her cult is political correctness; at a time whem muslims are pushing the virulent and violent form of Islam, Jacoby picks on the Christians, Jews and Hindus, but does not say a word about the savage practices of modern Islamists. Why is that?? Her secular cult is based on fear and on letting all the good Christians and Jews and Hindus and others protect her liberty to engage freely in her secularist cult while joining the Islamists in attacking all that would decide not to surrender to the Islamists. Clearly, Ms. Jacoby is anything but a free thinker.

Excellent expose' of religion and its more virilent forms. One interesting parallel occuring in America where Fundamental Christian Cults are flourishing is the correlated decline in knowledge. intelligence, and common sense. Hanging the Christian label on a cult allows them to use brain-washing techniques that would not be tolerated if the cult was branded differently. In truth, fundamentalism is essential a serious mental illness and should be treated as such!

Susan Jacoby writes:
"Christian societies, of course, used to kill people for blasphemy"

Ignorant and Wester-centric comment. WESTERN Christian societies did kill people for blasphemy but there were other Easter Christian societies that did not. The punishment for blasphemy there was excommunication from the church sacraments.

Maybe the problem is Western societies in general that feed into the absolutist "we know everything" mentality, a mentality that is found in both religious, secular and atheist Western thinkers.

Westerners always think the world revolves around them.

Cult = small religion
Religion = large cult

Any questions? Go(o)d.

"What do they all have in common?
Money, power, male domination, secrecy..."

Are there any female-dominated religions (or cults)? If not, why not? It does seem to suggest that there's something involved with male dominance in religion formation.

Hey lady: aren't you going to include Jesus in this list of yours?

"Fear and loathing of intellectual challenge is the essence of all controlling religious factions, whether the God is called Stalin, Jehovah, or Allah."

I believe that there are some kind of cults who understand little, argue a lot, and contribute nothing. I am not sure why I wrote this when I read your piece! hmmm!

Susan,
you cute agnostic you.

Julia: "The reason that religions like Mormonism and Scientology have been singled out as cults is that they're recent enough that their ideas still seem bizarre to us. More established religions are equally bizarre if you really think about their doctrines, but we're so used to them that they seem normal."

Yes, today's unusual is tomorrow's normal. The "other" is often tagged with some term to indicate they are different, even inferior. Mormons and Jews refer to those outside their faiths as "gentiles". I don't know any non-Mormom or non-Jew who self-identfies as gentile, nor any member of a non-mainstream church who would call his religion a cult.

I wonder what the members of the Anglican community call each other, given the rift between the conservative elements of that church and the more liberal elements over the issue of homosexuality? That's a good example of a church in the process of speciating, not by a small spinoff faction, but a real division of two major philosophical camps.

I guess I'll try and nudge, not tackle, the Christian piece. I don't want to say that secularism hasn't contributed to the change in religious views but it hasn't been the sole contributor. I argue that theology has been the sole contributor because of what theology has done for Christianity, Judaism and what I believe it will do for Islam. What the struggle was coming from the crusades and before to today was the transformation in how people interpreted the bible. They mixed up a recipe of some paraphrasing out of context with a healthy cup of their own interpretation of what kind of God they they thought "their" God was. So when christianity was lost in this hiarchial debauchery and was looked at as a state trying conquer the world, the outcome of such a massive misinterpretation was inevitable. The swing back around towards the moderate position which I think it's growing more and more closely to was caused by a change of who people thought God was and how they now are beginning to interpret the bible. I was talking with a friend a while back, who is a muslim, and asked him what the central message of the koran was. He told me it was a book of love, a book of love with the human element involved. Meaning, I don't care who you are, you could be the most open-minded, peace loving person, you're still going to make mistakes. It was the same kind of understanding more moderate thinkers in the christian community have developed also, in relation to the bible. Their knowledge grew more into the WHOLE context of the scriptures which brougt about the true message of what this book was actually trying to relate. There is a peice within these religions to work out within itself, that will change how the followers of these beliefs believe and act. Granted most social movements are not changed within themselves but are molded and influenced by the social flow of the time period. Ultimately though it comes down to those that claim to beleive, how they actually believe and then how they act on those beliefs.

Brainwashing??! Please!

It's been fairly conclusively proven that there's no such thing as "brainwashing". People believe what they need to believe in order to live the life they want to -- or must -- live. All people. In all kinds of circumstances. And when the conditions of everyday life change, beliefs change accordingly in order to relieve cognitive dissonance.

Studies of Korean War prisoners* who had supposedly been "brainwashed" by their Chinese captors reveal that, after they had returned to civilian life in the United States, the great majority of those who had espoused communist sympathies while prisoners fairly quickly returned to their pre-war political beliefs.

Some "brainwashing", eh? If the communist Chinese -- the supposed masters of the craft -- couldn't permanently wash people's brains, I very much doubt the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Scientologists would be more successful.

I'll say it again: People believe what they need to believe in order to live the life they want to -- or must -- live.

One person's "brainwashing" is another person's "religious conversion". The human brain is a whole lot more malleable than the outdated notion of "brainwashing" suggests.
------
* For a brief description, see:
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro05/web3/ysano.html

Excellent post as always. The reason that religions like Mormonism and Scientology have been singled out as cults is that they're recent enough that their ideas still seem bizarre to us. More established religions are equally bizarre if you really think about their doctrines, but we're so used to them that they seem normal.

I think all religions are controlling religions. It is true that some societies turn away from the controlling part, but then they are simply turning partially away from religion. The religion itself has not changed.

I answer this question in this way: What's the difference between a cult and a religion? The number of adherents.

That is about it. The operation and implementation of the brainwashing that we all seem willing to admit exists in the cult also exists in religion, including political religions. Chairman Mao lost nothing on Jim Jones. That which makes one human suseceptible to cult brainwashing is the same thing that makes one human susceptible to any all-encompassing simplistic answer as provided by religion.

The cult member has abandoned all responsibility for the self, all things good and bad occur because an outer power greater than all of humanity (certainly greater than the cult victim) has chosen it to be that way.

Cult members are children; fearful, irresponsible, unrepentant children.

Cult leaders are power-mad, how else to describe it? As the number of adherents grows, and the cult becomes accepted as a religion, the power-mad leader can inflict this cancer on the society in which it arose, and from there to attack the societies which have never had a part in the madness.

It is the cult-like nature of religion, and the cult-victim-like nature of the religous that worries me. I could not care less how many gods you worship or how often you brush your teeth, as long as you keep it to yourself. I would have no resistance whatsoever to your believing as you wish, as long as you Keep It To Yourself.

Peace and Love in a Godless World!!

If it weren't for God, I would probably be an atheist.

Tom Wolfe said it best: "A cult is a religion with no political power"

let's see....

LDS, FLDS, Church of Scientology, Christian Science.

What do they all have in common?
Money, power, male domination, secrecy...

Do any of these allow you to leave?
Street gangs don't let you leave, the Mafia doesn't let you leave... neither do these groups.

Are they not-for-profit?
What is their tax status?

You say in effect that polygamy is something that "free human beings normally find revolting". Actually, it has occured in most human societies and the "free human beings", that is mostly the controlling males, obviously did not find it revolting.

What is really revolting to most modern "enlightened" people is the treatment of women as commodities, which is not restricted to polygamy.

& the Evangelical Christians have made a mockery of intellligent thought and discourse.

I was brought up Roman Catholic and we were given breathing room. We could think for ourselves; we could question the dogma.

Now I live in the south and I see people here are quite different. They are discouraged from questioning things. It's all or none. You either believe FULLY in this ridiculous story, or you're a nonbeliever and shunned. Just being a good person is not enough for them. It's much more like a cult.

All you need to know about the Jehovah's Witnesses is that they say "Jesus had his return to power" aka his second coming in the year 1914.

What do you think?

Debunking the Jehovah's Witnesses propaganda:
A) They are at your door to recruit you for enslavement to their watchtower corporation,they will say that "we are just here to share a message from the Bible" this is deception right off.

B) The 'message' is their false Gospel that Jesus had his second coming already in 1914.The problem with this,is it's not just a cute fairy tale,Jesus warned of the false prophets who would claim "..look he is here in the wilderness,or see here he is at the temple"

C) Their anti-blood transfusion ban has killed hundreds if not thousands
D) once they recruit you they will "love bomb" you in cult fashion to also recruit your family & friends or cut them off. There are many more dangers,Jehovah's Witnesses got a bad rap for good and valid reasons.
----
Danny Haszard Jehovah's Witness X 33 years and 3rd generation
http://www.freeminds.org

Also, I'm glad to see Jacoby make the point that dogmatic ideology -- whether it is religion-based or not -- is antithetical to modern atheists (freethinkers) as well as for most theists.

Authoritarianism is authoritarianism, whether you build it around a theistic ideology or not.

Susan Jacoby makes a number of good points.

The analog of "cult" in evolutionary biology is an incipient species or semi-species (and in some cases, subspecies), which is one or a few populations of organisms that have characteristics that set it apart from more widespread, closely-related populations of a well-established species. The incipient species may or may not become a fully distinct species over time, but at the moment it appears to be something different from a similar "typical" organism.

Of course a religious cult can spring up overnight ... all it takes is a leader and some followers. And to be a cult it has to be considered unorthodox by some parental religion that is well-established. Given enough time and an increase in followers, a cult evolves into a mainstream religion, such as Christianity from Judaism, Mormonism from mainstream Christianity.

Secular democratic societies as we have in the US are perfect breeding grounds for cult formation. By keeping the dominant religions "leashed" by secular laws, competition is reduced and nascent religions can thrive.

Real arrogance is to presume to know God's mind.

"Fear and loathing of intellectual challenge is the essence of all controlling religious factions. . ."

I can't count the numer of times I've heard the term "arrogant atheists" from religious people.

So, Ms. Jacoby's comment above is well taken. When did it become normal to address as arrogant those who derive knowledge from quantifiable evidence rather than from scripture?

In Europe and U.S., Nonbelievers Are Increasingly Vocal

By Mary Jordan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, September 15, 2007; Page A01

BURGESS HILL, England -- Every morning on his walk to work, high school teacher Graham Wright recited a favorite Anglican prayer and asked God for strength in the day ahead. Then two years ago, he just stopped.

Wright, 59, said he was overwhelmed by a feeling that religion had become a negative influence in his life and the world. Although he once considered becoming an Anglican vicar, he suddenly found that religion represented nothing he believed in, from Muslim extremists blowing themselves up in God's name to Christians condemning gays, contraception and stem cell research.

"I stopped praying because I lost my faith," said Wright, 59, a thoughtful man with graying hair and clear blue eyes. "Now I truly loathe any sight or sound of religion. I blush at what I used to believe."

Wright is now an avowed atheist and part of a growing number of vocal nonbelievers in Europe and the United States. On both sides of the Atlantic, membership in once-quiet groups of nonbelievers is rising, and books attempting to debunk religion have been surprise bestsellers, including "The God Delusion," by Oxford University professor Richard Dawkins.

New groups of nonbelievers are sprouting on college campuses, anti-religious blogs are expanding across the Internet, and in general, more people are publicly saying they have no religious faith.

More than three out of four people in the world consider themselves religious, and those with no faith are a distinct minority. But especially in richer nations, and nowhere more than in Europe, growing numbers of people are actively saying they don't believe there is a heaven or a hell or anything other than this life.

Many analysts trace the rise of what some are calling the "nonreligious movement" to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The sight of religious fanatics killing 3,000 people caused many to begin questioning -- and rejecting -- all religion.

"This is overwhelmingly the topic of the moment," said Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society of Britain. "Religion in this country was very quiet until September 11, and now it is at the center of everything."

Since the 2001 attacks, a string of religiously inspired bomb and murder plots has shaken Europe. Muslim radicals killed 52 people on the London public transit system in 2005 and 191 on Madrid trains in 2004. People apparently aiming for a reward in heaven were arrested in Britain last year for trying to blow up transatlantic jetliners. And earlier this month in Germany, authorities arrested converts to Islam on charges that they planned to blow up American facilities there.

Many Europeans are angry at demands to use taxpayer money to accommodate Islam, Europe's fastest-growing religion, which now has as many as 20 million followers on the continent. Along with calls for prayer rooms in police stations, foot baths in public places and funding for Islamic schools and mosques, expensive legal battles have broken out over the niqab, the Muslim veil that covers all but the eyes, which some devout women seek to wear in classrooms and court.

Christian fundamentalist groups who want to halt certain science research, reverse abortion and gay rights and teach creationism rather than evolution in schools are also angering people, according to Sanderson and others.

"There is a feeling that religion is being forced on an unwilling public, and now people are beginning to speak out against what they see as rising Islamic and Christian militancy," Sanderson said.

Though the number of nonbelievers speaking their minds is rising, academics say it's impossible to calculate how many people silently share that view. Many people who do not consider themselves religious or belong to any faith group often believe, even if vaguely, in a supreme being or an afterlife. Others are not sure what they believe.

The term atheist can imply aggressiveness in disbelief; many who don't believe in God prefer to call themselves humanists, secularists, freethinkers, rationalists or, a more recently coined term, brights.

"Where religion is weak, people don't feel a need to organize against it," said Phil Zuckerman, an American academic who has written extensively about atheism around the globe.

He and others said secular groups are also gaining strength in countries where religious influence over society looms large, including India, Israel and Turkey. "Any time we see an outspoken movement against religion, it tells us that religion has power there," Zuckerman said.

One group of nonbelievers in particular is attracting attention in Europe: the Council of Ex-Muslims. Founded earlier this year in Germany, the group now has a few hundred members and an expanding number of chapters across the continent. "You can't tell us religion is peaceful -- look around at the misery it is causing," said Maryam Namazie, leader of the group's British chapter.

She and other leaders of the council held a news conference in The Hague to launch the Dutch chapter on Sept. 11, the sixth anniversary of the terrorist attacks in the United States. "We are all atheists and nonbelievers, and our goal is not to eradicate Islam from the face of the earth," but to make it a private matter that is not imposed on others, she said.

The majority of nonbelievers say they are speaking out only because of religious fanatics. But some atheists are also extreme, urging people, for example, to blot out the words "In God We Trust" from every dollar bill they carry.

Gaining political clout and access to television and radio airtime is the goal of many of these groups. With a higher profile, they say, they could, for instance, lobby for all religious rooms in public hospitals to be closed, as a response to Muslims demanding prayer rooms because Christians have chapels.

Associations of nonbelievers are also moving to address the growing demand in Britain, Spain, Italy and other European countries for nonreligious weddings, funerals and celebrations for new babies. They are helping arrange ceremonies that steer clear of talk of God, heaven and miracles and celebrate, as they say, "this one life we know."

The British Humanist Association, which urges people who think "the government pays too much attention to religious groups" to join them, has seen its membership double in two years to 6,500.

A humanist group in the British Parliament that looks out for the rights of the nonreligious now has about 120 members, up from about 25 a year ago.

Doreen Massey, a Labor Party member of the House of Lords who belongs to that group, said most British people don't want legislators to make public policy decisions on issues such as abortion and other health matters based on their religious affiliation.

But the church has disproportionate power and influence in Parliament, she said. Forexample, she said, polls show that 80 percent of Britons want the terminally ill who are in pain to have the right to a medically assisted death, yet such proposals have been effectively killed by a handful of powerful bishops.

"We can't accept that religious faiths have a monopoly on ethics, morality and spirituality," Massey said. Now, she added, humanist and secularist groups are becoming "more confident and more powerful" and recognize that they represent the wishes of huge numbers of people.
While the faithful have traditionally met like-minded people at the local church, mosque or synagogue, it has long been difficult for those without religion to find each other. The expansion of the Internet has made it a vital way for nonbelievers to connect.

In retirement centers, restaurants, homes and public lectures and debates, nonbelievers are convening to talk about how to push back what they see as increasingly intrusive religion.

"Born Again Atheist," "Happy Heathen" and other anti-religious T-shirts and bumper stickers are increasingly seen on the streets. Groups such as the Skeptics in the Pub in London, which recently met to discuss this topic, "God: The Failed Hypothesis," are now finding that they need bigger rooms to accommodate those who find them online.

Wright, the teacher who recently declared himself a nonbeliever, is one of thousands of people who have joined dues-paying secular and humanist groups in Europe this year.

Sitting in his living room on a quiet cul-de-sac in this English town of 30,000, Wright said he now goes online every day to keep up with the latest atheist news.

"One has to step up and stem the rise of religious influence," said Wright, who is thinking of becoming a celebrant at humanist funerals. He said he recently went to the church funeral of his brother-in-law and couldn't bear the "vacuous prayers of the vicar," who, Wright said, "looked bored and couldn't wait to leave."

Now, instead of each morning silently reciting a favorite nighttime prayer, "Lighten our darkness, we beseech thee, O Lord, and by thy great mercy defend us from all perils and dangers . . . " (from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer), he spends the time just thinking about the day ahead.

He said his deceased mother, a Catholic, was comforted by her faith: "It kept her going through difficult times," particularly when his father left her when he and his sister were young.

"I really don't know how I will react if something really bad happens," he said. "But there is no going back. There is nothing to go back to."

Not believing in an afterlife, he said, "makes you think you have to make the most of this life. It's the now that matters. It also makes you feel a greater urgency of things that matter," such as halting global warming, and not just dismissing it as being "all in God's plan."

He called himself heartened that the National Secular Society, which he recently joined, is planning to open chapters at a dozen universities this fall. The rising presence of the nonreligious movement, he said, is "fantastic."

"It's a bit of opposition, isn't it?" he said. "Why should these religious groups hold so much sway?