All Comments (81)

Dear Mr. Niebuhr,

I like what you said about it being out of place for Americans to have to protect or affirm our Constitutional freedoms. But I believe those freedoms are unfortunately under attack, and so I support HR 847.

I don't believe, however, that there is any whiff of an establishment of a state religion with this resolution. The Constitution (Amendment 1) reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …”. First, HR 847 is not a law, and second, it does not seek to establish Christianity as our nation’s religion.

Amendment 1 of the Constitution is about protecting religion and free speech, and HR 847 is only protecting Christianity and Christmas, not establishing it as a state religion. It is just sad to me that there is a need to protect it.

Finally, I believe in Jesus Christ, and testify that He is the Son of God. I respect the good, peaceful beliefs of others, and encourage them to peaceably worship however they wish.

Wwaaawww! What about the ToothFairy and the Great Pumpkin; this is raank discrimination!

Dear Jihadist -

Thanks for the response.

I defended Hichens because I took exception to your post that suggested very strongly that excessive drinking or smoking or the over-indulgence of any other vice equated to being a disqualifying factor in assessing the quality and value of anybody's writings, or, indeed, of their world view.

Set that as a standard and you need to toss out 95% of the art, music and literature ever created by men. I think you'd agree that while Mickey Mantle's heavy drinking may have well hurt his own hitting statistics, it didn't make his enviable achievements any less enviable, and it certainly didn't elevate the mediocre achievements of others to a higher status that they otherwise failed to achieve.

Your comparing Hitchens to other contemporary "atheist" writers, on the other hand, is more than acceptable, as are any conclusions you draw for yourself.

Later.

Mr. Mark : "Yes. Isn't it amazing that Christopher Hitchens can run circles of erudition around all of us, even when and if he's in his cups?"

I know you are a fan of Mr. Christopher Hitchens and took on Hitchens' term to describe himself, "anti-theist", as yours too.

One has to rate atheist writers with other atheist writers too. Of contemporary atheist writers, I rate Dawkins', Berlinerblau's and Jacoby's books as better informed, better researched and more erudite than his.

So, Hitchens is my favourite clown prince among atheists. No accounting for taste, eh? :)

Regards
"J"

Dear TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ:

Wow. You are a piss-poor debater.

Read your last post and notice how many times your answers start with the words, "I believe that," or, "I don't think," or with replies that amount to nothing more than pure, unsubstantiated opinion

Anyone can play that game. Let me answer some of your points:

"Are your eyes closed to the government's scandalous intrusion into Christian's beliefs?"

My eyes are wide open and I see no such intrusion. Indeed, all of the evidence points to the opposite being true.

"Have you not found a whiff of indignation here?"

I smell your whiff of indination, but I don't see why it's there.

"Have you closed your eyes to the “Piss Christ” piece, the winner of the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art's "Awards in the Visual Arts" competition sponsored in part by the National Endowment for the Arts?"

It was great piece of art that well-deserved every award it garnered. What's your point?

"Did Chris Ofili's “The Virgin Mary” equally pique your ire when displayed in the Brooklyn Museum? It depicted a Black African Mary surrounded by images from blaxploitation movies and close-ups of female genitalia cut from pornographic magazines, and elephant dung? "

It's symbolism was both effective and timely, especially in light of the RCC's fighting the use of condoms in Africa.

"Was it not an insult to Catholicism?"

No, it wasn't. Is it an insult to bush to say he went to war in Iraq based on lies that he knew were lies?

BTW - re: Constantine and the pagan religions. Christianity itself is based on pagan beliefs, no more so than in what miraculous attributes accrue to a godman.

CAESAR RENDERS UNTO THE HOLIDAY

IN REPLY TO:
“I couldn't vote for this bill. I don't like that whiff of defensiveness that clings to it, as if the authors had spent too much time thinking about an alleged 'war on Christmas'."

ANS:
Recognizing the great contributions of Christianity has a bad smell? Christianity doesn’t need recognition for what it has accomplished? Those unique Founding Father's ideas you mention didn’t just come out of thin air. They came from some two thousand years of Christian teachings of traditional moral wisdom. They are the defense of human nature and the moral laws that this country was founded on.

Some nations don’t get it; we did. Nations like Russia, China, the Middle East, Pakistan, and India are societies in turmoil and constantly in unrest because they denounce Christian morality.

Moreover, it is not an alleged war. I believe it is a concerted, perverse, and pervasive effort to X Christ out of Christmas, namely, XMAS for Christmas.

Wal-Mart’s attempt to take Christmas out of Wal-Mart was not just subjective or alleged. Government taking the Creech and the “Ten Commandments,” the moral basis for our nation, out of the Public Square isn't alleged.

Are your eyes closed to the government's scandalous intrusion into Christian's beliefs? Have you not found a whiff of indignation here? Have you closed your eyes to the “Piss Christ” piece, the winner of the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art's "Awards in the Visual Arts" competition sponsored in part by the National Endowment for the Arts?

Did Chris Ofili's “The Virgin Mary” equally pique your ire when displayed in the Brooklyn Museum? It depicted a Black African Mary surrounded by images from blaxploitation movies and close-ups of female genitalia cut from pornographic magazines, and elephant dung? Was it not an insult to Catholicism?

Ofili's porn images were formed into shapes reminiscent of the cherubim and seraphim commonly depicted in images of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary.

This opprobrious scandal by Ofili prompted Bernard Goldberg to rank Ofili #86 in "100 People Who Are Screwing Up America. " Moreover, the abomination was unwittingly subsidized by the government. A protest against it was labeled by the mainstream media as censorship.

Moreover, there is a premeditated assault on religion in the public schools. I don’t think permitting gay club and not Christian club meetings after school hours in public schools was alleged. Banning Christian expression from public school students, even in prayers before meals isn’t just alleged. Bans on Christian expression are ubiquitous.

Christmas is no longer called Christmas in many public forums; that should tell you something. It's officially called winter holidays.

Subsequently, the Court has manifested an all out war on Christian moral principles, a.k.a. the sanctity of human life, traditional marriage, and has effectively redefined the nature of man and marriage.

Consequently, Justice Stevens, heading the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse—Souter, Breyer, and Ginsberg--proscribed the basic foundations of Civil Law. In Lawrence v. Texas, Stephens wrote that Traditional Moral Values serve no useful purpose to society, and therefore have no standing in Civil Law. More over the apocalyptic court has caused the legal murder over 48 million unborn.

IN REPLY TO:
“Don't be overly impressed by crowds, I recall him saying. Wise and memorable words.”

No, don’t be impressed by numbers; be impressed by what Christianity has accomplished not only in the world but for our country alone.

During the foundation of this country, Christianity was the vanguard of education, hospitals orphanages, charities, and was the moral basis guaranteeing our inalienable rights, stated in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

IN REPLY TO:
“If Congress wants to honor Christianity... Gee, I can't finish that sentence. It seems out of place here in America,

ANS:
I don’t’ think eulogizing the successes of Christianity is making it a State religion, nor does HR847 make politicians theologians. To the contrary, the encomium is paying a debt of well-deserved gratitude and recognition to the Christian moral guidance our country has relied on since its existence and its greatness.

IN REPLY TO:
HR 847 "a near recognition of a state religion and taking us back to Emperor Constantine"

ANS:
I believe the people under Constantine the Great were fortunate. Yes, he made Christianity the State’s religion, thank God, he did, and Rome was the better for it.

Though not perfect, Constantine sought to elevate morality, and punished with great severity the offenses against morals that the pagan worship had encouraged. He aided the emancipation of slaves and ameliorated their punishment, while polytheism was allowed. Constantine did much for children, slaves, and women, those weaker members of society whom the old Roman law had treated harshly.

Christians were severely persecuted by the barbarians, children were exposed, mutilated, and sold on the open markets. Thanks to Christianity under the auspices of Constantine that was put to a stop.

Nowhere has Christianity cause the destruction of a nation. To the contrary, its refutation has destroyed and caused the upheaval of many.

JIHADIST writes:
"I spoke to God."

Atheist : Impossible!

Agnotic : Improbable.

Thiest : Preposterous!

Hitchens : Ridiculous! Hic! Burrrppp......cough, cough."

Yes. Isn't it amazing that Christopher Hitchens can run circles of erudition around all of us, even when and if he's in his cups?

"I spoke to God."

Atheist : Impossible!

Agnotic : Improbable.

Thiest : Preposterous!

Hitchens : Ridiculous! Hic! Burrrppp......cough, cough.

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

I prefer the term "preposterous". Improbable implies a rational basis for postulating gods' existence. Preposterous correctly indicates that the idea has no basis in fact. And of course, the preposterousness rises with the presentation of specifics. And when the specifics blatantly fly in the face of fact the word "ridiculous" is appropriate. Lest anyone think this too harsh, I would ask, "If THAT'S not ridiculous, what IS?"

Dear Pam -

Anon wrote that it was "impossible" that I ever thought like him, when the more-exact word would have been "improbable."

I have never said that it is impossible that god(s) exists, just that it is highly improbable that he (they) does (do). I'd also think that the degree of improbability rises the more-specifically one defines any particular god.

The word "improbable" is a perfectly good word. It's a shame we don't use it more.

Anon wrote:

"My lengthy post above argues that the atheist argument logically leads to the conclusion that life is a series of sensations because our existence is just that. Yet atheists do see a purpose to their lives just like everyone else. And there lies the paradox of atheism."

Hmm. Two-thirds of the people on earth don't believe in the Judeo-Xian god. They believe in different gods or no gods. Those people also see a purpose to their lives, but they're believing in what Xians would term false or even non-existent gods. In your words, we might say, "non-Xian theists want to appreciate the meaning of life while stating that there is no God but their god, which isn't the Xian god." I guess there's a paradox there as well.

16% of the world's population are atheists. Their disbelief in the Xian god is on par with the disbelief of the religious people on earth who aren't Xians. Seems to me that the raw numbers indicate that the paradox lies not with the atheists or the non-Xian religious, but with the Xians being able to find purpose in life as they're the minority that's out-of-step with the disbelief of the rest of us.

"A promise fulfilled is by definition, not empty."

And your proof that a promise had been fulfilled would be...? The dictionary defines "fulfilled" as "to be converted into reality." The dictionary defines "reality" as, "the quality or state of being real." The dictionary defines "real" as, "occurring or existing in actuality; existing as a physical entity; having OBJECTIVE independent existence."

Can you offer any proof whatsoever beyond mere opinion or conjecture, ie: OBJECTIVE proof, that the Bible's promises of eternal life have been "converted into reality?" Would your proof of a religious promise being fulfilled meet the level of proof you would demand for a non-religious promise to be considered fulfilled, say, if your wife had promised to make pork chops for dinner, or is the bar for religious "proof" set so low as to require no bar at all?

"No. Atheists and Christians are all God's children, all have a higher purpose and all their lives have meaning."

That's an opinion, and an opinion formed out of whole cloth, to boot. That's not a fact. A few facts would be: Atheists and Christians are all primates, or, atheists and Xians are all biological life forms.

You're entitled to your opinions, of course, but you're not entitled to your facts. As long as you started with citing the dictionary, here's the definition for the word fact:

"the quality of being actual: actuality; something that has actual existence; b: an actual occurrence; a piece of information presented as having objective reality."

Objective reality. I like that! Where's the objective proof for god that forms the basis of your statements and your beliefs, and for your statement that your religion's promises have been fulfilled?

Later.

Anony wrote (way up above): "Just a philosophical point to make that it is logical that (a) an omnipotent, omniscient, everlasting God exists and (b) there will be no evidence for Him".

I'm amazed that no one called him on this. I certainly got a big belly laugh out of it. LOGICAL??? Are you serious?? Whatever this might be, it has absolutely nothing to do with logic.

Anony, you state (not so far above) that it is impossible (you used all caps) that Mr. Mark ever believed as you do. It may seem so to your tortuous worldview, but stranger things have certainly happened. Have you ever heard of Bart Ehrman? He was so religious that he made himself fluent in ancient Hebrew and Greek, just so he could read the ancient texts that became the Bible in their original, untainted language. He felt that he couldn't get close enough to the Truth any other way. Read the WaPo story on the result:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/04/AR2006030401369.html

I recommend his books.

"a-HA! Now I understand what you mean, and am no longer insulted. :-)"

Im glad.

"My lengthy post above argues that the atheist argument logically leads to the conclusion that life is a series of sensations because our existence is just that. Yet atheists do see a purpose to their lives just like everyone else. And there lies the paradox of atheism."

a-HA! Now I understand what you mean, and am no longer insulted. :-)

ADDENDUM:

"But what empty promises they are."

A promise fulfilled is by definition, not empty.

"

Dear Anon -

Thanks for the response.

It's clear that you have bought the promises of the Christian religion lock, stock and barrel. But what empty promises they are.

Later."

Well I guess the exchange of ideas is over. Alls well that ends well.

"So I'm not really an atheist, just an agnostic."

That is an entirely different issue from my lengthy, "sensational" (pun intended) post.

"To clarify, you are saying then that, because I don't believe in God, my feelings are "just sensation with no purpose or meaning," despite my belief to the contrary?"

No. Atheists and Christians are all God's children, all have a higher purpose and all their lives have meaning. You can accept or reject God, that is use of the free will granted to us.

My lengthy post above argues that the atheist argument logically leads to the conclusion that life is a series of sensations because our existence is just that. Yet atheists do see a purpose to their lives just like everyone else. And there lies the paradox of atheism.

Anonymous:
"Louiselilly, that is precisely my point. Atheists want to appreciate the meaning of life while stating that there is no God. The content of my writing simply argues that that is an illogical stance."

To clarify, you are saying then that, because I don't believe in God, my feelings are "just sensation with no purpose or meaning," despite my belief to the contrary?

"Frankly, I find the idea that human beings evolved into the amazing creatures that they are no less miraculous than the idea that a supreme being created them."

From Dictionary.com

mi·rac·u·lous

1. performed by or involving a supernatural power or agency: a miraculous cure.
2. of the nature of a miracle; marvelous.
3. having or seeming to have the power to work miracles: miraculous drugs.

Something miraculous, means attributable or having the qualities as derived from a higher being.

Evolution and God are not diametrically opposed regardless of what some might say. Personally, I think a lump of clay let alone us is just as miraculous.

Dear Anon -

Thanks for the response.

It's clear that you have bought the promises of the Christian religion lock, stock and barrel. But what empty promises they are.

Later.

Just wanted to add: while I cannot in honesty say I believe in the Christian God, I also in honesty cannot say I DISbelieve that there could be a God. So I'm not really an atheist, just an agnostic. In some ways, I envy those who DO believe because I've seen how faith can sustain people during difficult times (my mother, for instance). But what makes someone believe? I asked this of a good friend who is very religious, and he said he simply made a choice to believe. But how does one simply choose to believe something for which one has no evidence? How does making the intellectual decision to believe in God translate into actual belief if the questions and doubts you have are still unaddressed?

Louiselilly, that is precisely my point. Atheists want to appreciate the meaning of life while stating that there is no God. The content of my writing simply argues that that is an illogical stance.

anonymous writes:

"Without God, our lives are nothing more than mere sensation. It matters nothing if people laugh or cry, live or die, writhe in pain or ecstasy. Its just sensation with no purpose or meaning. There is no such thing as purpose or meaning to anything, if existence is without a relationship with God.

"Who cares if your kids live or die, be happy, go to school, learn how to drive...Life would mean nothing. Yet atheists attempt to create a blend of the beauty of life while dismissing the originator of that beauty. Im sure you disagree and will internalize and propagate some humanist school of thought. But that too means nothing, whats the difference between a human and a lump of clay (DNA? just a bunch of molecules just like silicon and iron, reproduction? just a really big complicated chemical reaction_a glorified metal rusting, brain activity: again just bunch of molecules working together)."

Are you saying that those of us who do not believe in a higher being or The One God are deceiving themselves if they believe they care whether "people laugh or cry, live or die, writhe in pain or ecstasy..."? I don't believe that my feelings are more or less genuine than yours just because I don't believe Jesus was the son of God or because I don't believe in Heaven and Hell. If my feelings are "just sensation with no purpose or meaning," then why do I bother to do my best to keep my parents happy and healthy? Why do I try to help my nephews who have lost their mother to cancer and who need all the love and support they can get? Just because I don't believe in God does not mean that my feelings and actions don't mean something to THEM. Could it be that, while you get meaning in your life from your faith, I get mine from a different source? Frankly, I find the idea that human beings evolved into the amazing creatures that they are no less miraculous than the idea that a supreme being created them.

"Do you actually believe that our survival as a species has no meaning unless there's an afterlife, and an afterlife ruled by a supernatural dictator?"

2 problems: I never said that an afterlife is THE reason a Christian's life has meaning. The afterlife of a true Christian is a continuation (albeit easier) of the relationship with God. It is you who deems God as a dictator, I never said or implied that. Quite the opposite, a loving Father is how true Christians see Him. And thus the beauty of an eternal relationship with Him.

"Your view of the world smacks of self-importance married to self-loathing. "

Quite the opposite, remember the tenet" Love thy neighbor AS THYSELF. Love of God leads to love of self.

"By your own measure, your life IS meaningless and worthless, as are those of your children and their children. Think about that the next time you look in their eyes."

By my own measure (after all, who best can describe my own measure but me) my life is meaningFUL because of the relationship with God. When I look in my child's eyes I see the grace and wonder of God. Thats is how my life receives warmth, joy, fulfillment and more importantly, meaning. Not because of some destination but because of my journey.

"How sad that you refuse to embrace the "godhood" of your own humanity..."

"...would give you the appearance of being a god to the MAN Jesus himself."

Very telling. That was the problem of the Fall of man. The desire to be like God. Strange that these Bronze Agers were spot on to use a timeless human element as the pivotal event in our separation from God. Aaah their insidious ploy!

"Let go of your religion-induced fear, guilt and lack of meaning. "

A little fear is a good thing, but too much fear also seperates us from God because we become blinded from his goodness (harken to John Paul II inaugural call: Do not be afraid!) By the same token, while it is true that guilt can be a destructive thing, a little guilt is good. Imagine a world without any guilt?!! A little guilt is the impetus to a correction. Lack of meaning? To you perhaps but not to all...

"No, I don't understand people like you, even though I thought like you do for most of my life."

Thats IMPOSSIBLE. From your posts and description of your viewpoints on what Christianity, Jesus and God is you most definitely NEVER thought like me, regardless of the Christian label.

"Best of luck to you in your life journey."

Luck has nothing to do with it. God be with you.

Dear Anonymous -

Thanks for your lengthy response.

Has it never occurred to you that life has meaning BECAUSE we are biological life forms with the ability to reason, and IN SPITE OF the fact that there is no god? Who says that god or an afterlife must exist for our present lives to have meaning? Are all baseball games played by the teams that don't win this year's World Series meaningless? Does working at a soup kitchen have no meaning if there's no god around to embrace the homeless once they die?

Do you actually believe that our survival as a species has no meaning unless there's an afterlife, and an afterlife ruled by a supernatural dictator? What if there's an afterlife and there's no god? Would that be meaningless as well? Is it possible that there's a meaningless eternity?

You are really hung up on god being THE item that gives your life purpose and meaning. How sad for you! Family, children, love, pleasure - all meaningless (and, ultimately, worthless) UNLESS something exists after death, a something for which there is absolutely no proof. Incredible that the PROOF of life's meaning standing before your very eyes means NOTHING to you when set against the UNPROVABLE fables of our species' Age of Fear.

Here's a philosophical morsel for you to chew on: what if (as George Carlin says) the only reason human beings evolved was to invent plastic so that Mother Earth might cover herself in a protective covering? No god, no afterlife, not even a chance that we'll be around for many more millennia. Guess what? Carlin's joke has as much validity as your belief in god.

Your view of the world smacks of self-importance married to self-loathing. I hate to be the one to tell you this, but, yes, this world and this existence IS all we have. By your own measure, your life IS meaningless and worthless, as are those of your children and their children. Think about that the next time you look in their eyes.

How pathetic that you find no marvel or purpose in how things actually are! How sad that you refuse to embrace the "godhood" of your own humanity because the writings of a few men - MEN! - who knew less about the world around them and the heavens above them than does today's average fifth grader, and who codified their deep ignorance and overwhelming fears into a book of fiction - and who had the presumption to assert that THEIR words were the words of some omnipotent super being. How mind-boggling to learn that you live your life based on the proven ignorance of a few self-important Bronze Agers, rather than on your own humanity and a knowledge set that - were you alive in Biblical times - would give you the appearance of being a god to the MAN Jesus himself.

No, I don't understand people like you, even though I thought like you do for most of my life. Let go of your religion-induced fear, guilt and lack of meaning. Put away childish things and embrace the wonder and meaning of reality.

Best of luck to you in your life journey.

"So, you're the exception of which I wrote. I tempered my remarks by using the word "average." Roughly 210-million Americans self-identify as Xians. Would you term the majority of them, "Christians worth their love of God," who will, "tell you that it is a continual journey of revelation?" I"

Again your comment parallels Christian doctrine:

Matthew 7:13
13"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

"If most of them are on that journey, then can we agree that the Xians can now cut the crap about the USA going to hell in a hand basket because Xianity isn't a dominate enough force in our society?"

I would argue that 90% of Christians in the USA do not agree with the above statement (I realize how Unscientific my estimate, call it an educated guess). However, this also depends on what you deem as Christian-domination? Complaints about excessive sex and violence in our society? Mild attrition and purging of religious traditions due to to extremist interpretations of the Constitution? (I did say mild mind you).

"The show would examine the various versions of Xianity that flourished in the ancient world before Constantine brought down his Roman hammer."

You have a way with words to change the view of certain events. Allow me: Lets examine the various versions of governance that flourished in the ancient world before the Greeks brought down their democracy hammer. Changes the take on things doesnt it?
Various versions of Christianity were deemed heretical, it wasn't a whim of Constantine. Look up the constituents of Nicea. They were from all over the ancient world. An author of the Nicene Creed (aka the Orthodox Creed) was a young deacon at the time (future Pope, St.Athanasius). Your knee-jerk (as well as that of other liberals) against Constantine (and the established Churches) is symptomatic of the lets-fight-the-establishment mentality espoused by hippies of your generation (dont take this personally please, this comment is a sociological criticism).

"How many American Xians on their "continual journey of revelation" would 1) bother to tune in, and 2) having tuned in, would hear a whole bunch of stuff about their religion that they never heard from their church?"

For true Christians: Who cares? In both the OT and NT, we are not asked to have faith because of evidence or sign, that would not be faith. I realize thats your big beef but Im simply answering your query on people tuning in to your favorite show. Christian doctrine from 2000 yrs ago teaches that blessed are those who believe without seeing (could this have been an ancient ploy to dupe people through the ages...?? Or simply what was told to be the correct way for a trusting, loving relationship with God)

Your use of quotation marks regarding a continual journey...begs the question as to whether most American Christians are on such a journey:

Honestly. I do not know. That is the truthful answer. Because I cannot look in people's hearts, nor can I survey their lives and journeys through tribulations, sorrows, joy and relationship (if any) with their Maker. Even if I had the power I wouldnt make heads or toes of such a tapestry, or even find a comprehensible pattern. To put it jovially, my head would explode, simply because Im human.

Your arguments and posts focus on minute, minute aspects of the Christian faith. Church rules, politics, the fossil record. All these things are a drop in an ocean of the majesty and beauty of human existence and the purpose and relationship with God. You would disagree to the latter but may agree to the former. But you cant have it both ways.

Without God, our lives are nothing more than mere sensation. It matters nothing if people laugh or cry, live or die, writhe in pain or ecstasy. Its just sensation with no purpose or meaning. There is no such thing as purpose or meaning to anything, if existence is without a relationship with God.

Who cares if your kids live or die, be happy, go to school, learn how to drive...Life would mean nothing. Yet atheists attempt to create a blend of the beauty of life while dismissing the originator of that beauty. Im sure you disagree and will internalize and propagate some humanist school of thought. But that too means nothing, whats the difference between a human and a lump of clay (DNA? just a bunch of molecules just like silicon and iron, reproduction? just a really big complicated chemical reaction_a glorified metal rusting, brain activity: again just bunch of molecules working together).

Right and wrong? So what? Herd Instinct you say to prolong our survival? Our survival to what? To the oblivion/nothingness invariably found at the end. Life and death become synonyms for sensation and lack thereof respectively. Your sitting at your computer about to furiously type in keystrokes to rebut also mean nothing. Debate? So what? Existence becomes a bland tasteless series of sensation. Pride in your children, love of your wife, enjoyment of a good cup of coffee loses the importance you accord it because all it is sensation.

Just a philosophical morsel to chew on.

PS I prefer "Anonymous", its the most honest name.

Dear Anonymous -

So, you're the exception of which I wrote. I tempered my remarks by using the word "average." Roughly 210-million Americans self-identify as Xians. Would you term the majority of them, "Christians worth their love of God," who will, "tell you that it is a continual journey of revelation?" If most of them are on that journey, then can we agree that the Xians can now cut the crap about the USA going to hell in a hand basket because Xianity isn't a dominate enough force in our society?

Here's an idea: let's develop a TV show like Myth Busters that deals with the Bible. We could call it Biblical Myth Busters. The show would examine all of the "historical" aspects of the Bible and would present the pro and con evidence for things like the exodus, and how the laws of nature were suspended when the sun stood still for Joshua. We'd examine the life story of Jesus and compare the salient and miraculous events of his life to other gods from the ancient world. The show would examine the various versions of Xianity that flourished in the ancient world before Constantine brought down his Roman hammer. You get the idea.

How many American Xians on their "continual journey of revelation" would 1) bother to tune in, and 2) having tuned in, would hear a whole bunch of stuff about their religion that they never heard from their church?

BTW - can't you come up with a moniker for yourself besides Anonymous?

"When it comes to religion, we've learned everything there possibly is to know by the time we leave high school. For the average religionist, our "learning" about religion ends then."

Bunk. Pure Bunk.

Ask any Christian worth his love of God and he/she will tell you that it is a continual journey of revelation whether your'e a laymen or a Pope.

Never ceases to amuse me when atheists speak on behalf of..whats the term du jour..."religionists"?

Hahaha...

"We are creatures of habit, and when the acquisition of religious knowledge ends, we default to the habit of it all. This is aided and abetted by the rituals of the church itself and by the church calendar and the events that surround it."

Jesus didnt like that modus operandi either. Check out his attacks on the Pharisees and comments regarding the Word of God in hearts vs stone, they listen but do not hear, etc etc.

Perhaps any insight not paralleling basic Christian doctrine?

"As much as I disagree with the hardcore religionists on this blog, I do admire them for having an active interest in their religion and for their willingness to engage with we atheists, even if it means wading through a ton of fear, ignorance and guilt cloaked in the mantle of faith."

Wow, a complement followed by a sneering mocking. Nice.

Mr. Mark--

I've really enjoyed reading your posts on this subject. I was brought up in a Presbyterian household, but could never have told you what being a Presbyterian meant (as opposed to being, for instance, Methodist). For years I was a non-church-goer, but identified myself as Presby. When my cousin came out to me as gay, and I further learned that the Presbyterian church discriminates against gay people, I realized that I could no longer call myself a Presbyterian. After a great deal of self-examination, I realized that the strongest statement of faith that I could make was that, although I don't believe in the divinity of Jesus, I don't 100% DISBELIEVE it--that is, at any given time humanity believes it knows all the answers, but is generally proven wrong. I have found spiritual peace in acknowledging that, while I don't believe Jesus was the son of God (if there IS a god), I can still value his teachings. And the teachings of Buddha. Or Ghandhi. I think the best any of us can do is live according to what we think is right, whether that belief comes from our religion, ourselves, or what have you. AND the more we work to understand the faith and motivations of all those around us, the better off we will be.

NO MORE MR. & MRS. NICE GUY!

You killed "ALLAH" and now Allah is no-more "AKBAR" (Not Great!)!

We, not American's , but ECLATi-ON(s), of Space-Ship Earth, Will annhilliate your KABBA & your AL AQSA mosque in JERUSALEM !

Pleas, you have 72 Hours from this post , or else!!!!

Islam will be NO MORE! Good bye KABBA! Good bye AL AQSA!

Remember, surrender Mr. Osama Bin Laden , et al, or else!

The Destruction of the Kabba, like World trade Center's will be the fault of the Bin Ladin FAMILY!

We will Execute All your 73 Children & ALL of Mr. Osama's Family! et al!

WE win you loose! Ya Ya!

G-D Bless E*C*L*A*Ti-ON's!

'Chara' Islam & 'Gondoo' Islam! [Shiiiiit] Ya Ya!

O.U.R. PEOPLE are in position!

Good bye KABBA, good bye Al AQSA DOME!

This is not a game not a Test! You weill see!

Mr. Osama Bin Ladin et al, Last Time, Please

"Surrender" (DEAD or ALIVE), surrender in less than seventy two hours!!!!! Ya Ya!

P.S.: Pakisatan is "The VANGUARD of ISLAM" yet ECLATi-ON(s) are the VANGUARDS of SPACE-SHIP PLANET EARTH!

This is O.U.R. Prophecy not your's Islam!

Dear Meg -

Thanks for your kind comments.

The religious aren't the only people resistant to learning. Many of the scientific "facts" we learned as kids stick with us throughout our lives, and they seem impervious to revision and updating.

Case in point: when I was in elementary school in the 60s, we were always told that "we use only 10% of our brains." That bromide has been proven to be quite false, but I run into people of my generation all the time who still believe that we're all 10-percenters.

How many people believe that water drains backwards in the southern hemisphere, or that hair and nails continue to grow after death? How many kids of my generation believed that "it takes more energy to turn a light off and on than to just leave it on?"

I swear, it doesn't take viewing too many episodes of "Myth Busters" to come away with the impression that everything you learned as a kid was dead wrong.

When it comes to religion, we've learned everything there possibly is to know by the time we leave high school. For the average religionist, our "learning" about religion ends then. Church becomes a social affair, and we attend out of habit, or for the kids, or for the business contacts or whatever. Basically, most of us stop thinking about it seriously, just as we stop worrying about algebra and English Lit once our formal education ends. We are creatures of habit, and when the acquisition of religious knowledge ends, we default to the habit of it all. This is aided and abetted by the rituals of the church itself and by the church calendar and the events that surround it.

Similarly, once most of us get out of structured learning situations, our quest for knowledge slows. In our spare time, we begin to default to those things we like to do, avoiding those things we need to do. In the fall, we may even blow off church on Sunday to catch the NFL games, though we promise the wife that we'll go on Xmas Eve, come hell or high water.

When one presents information that is counter to that knowledge that we acquired as kids, we tend to distrust it, be it info about how our brains work or the energy consumption of light bulbs, or be it about the myths behind our religions. It's the feeling of, "I've already learned all that stuff, I've gotten this far in life without your corrective info, this stuff is always changing back and forth (ie: high carb/low carb diets), so why should I bother listening? Tomorrow, you'll tell me we really DO use only 10% of our brains. Go away, the playoffs are on."

My feeling is that people believe that they HAVE learned the truth about their religion, and that they learned about that religion at the same point in their lives when they were learning about math and English and sports and girl friends and sex and BBQ ribs and driving cars, and the rest of life's basics. For most people, the period of ACTIVELY searching for truth is somewhere in their past, and as religion - even in its most-benign and -ignored form - has been indoctrinated into most people from their very earliest memories, the door is closed to further discussion, unless that discussion reinforces the basic imagined truth of their religion (which is never really a discussion, is it?).

Indeed, the bloggers here at On Faith - bloggers on both sides of the religious argument - are the exceptions that prove the rule. As much as I disagree with the hardcore religionists on this blog, I do admire them for having an active interest in their religion and for their willingness to engage with we atheists, even if it means wading through a ton of fear, ignorance and guilt cloaked in the mantle of faith.

Thanks for the chat.

Hello Meg,

On behalf of one believer (moi) in this "brights vs morons" battle and "culture war", I am shocked and dismayed by your post addressed to Mr. Mark. We are believers! We believe in anything and everything! Therefore we are called believers. Simple logic.

We believers love myths and resist enlightenment as if our lives depend on it because reading the Bible is a lot more fun than reading Voltaire. Believers love to read Marvel comics, read and watch Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter series.

We believers, in seeking for the truth, found out that people lie on everything! Even under oath in court! So, it is matter not that some folks way back, with no cable, no Internet, no central heating, no knowledge and skills on how to build houses, would sit around a fire in a cave telling tales great and small to while away the time, and the stories gets better and better with each retelling.

Our ancestors, alas, apart from passing down through generations those great stories that are still with us, also pass on to us the gay gene, the God gene and the selfish gene among other genes.

We believers finds lies are more comforting than truths, including when one is on a diet, have a bad hair day and someday says, "Hey! You look great!"

We believer never knew one can see a big teddy bear in the sky. I just looked out of the window and up in the sky, but alas, it is not there. Was it named Muhammad?

We believers are not scared of pipe dreams. It is called faith.

We believers are only scared by silly questions posed by Mr. Christopher Hichens such as:

"Name one ethical statement or one ethical act that cannot be performed by a non-believer?"

Of course any believer or non-believer can make an ethical statement. That would depend on how good a writer they are or have good writers to do it for them. Whether they mean it or otherwise, is another matter.

Of course any believer or non-believer can perform an ethical action. It would depend on whether they want to do it or not. And for what reason.

As believers say they are free from superstitions, and do not perform rites associated with religion, including prayers anymore, surely they will have lots of time to think up on appropriate ethical statements to make and ethical acts to perform more than believers ever can.

But how unfortunate! We moralistic, judgmental, upright and prudish believers cannot take Mr Hitchens' question as seriously as he wanted. After all, he did not even have the personal discipline to reduce his smoking and drinking that is detrimental to his own health and he knows it.

Thanks and regards

"J"

BEHOLD!

Att: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA at WASHINGTON via THE WASHINGTON MONUMENT!

Hear Ye Hear Ye, The WASHINGTON MONUMENT will not be destroyed in 72 Hours, unless Paris Hilton Surrenders! No Compromise!

Surrender Paris Hilton Et al, Clothed or naked!!!!!!

We, not Americans, but ECLATi-ON(s) Will annihilate your CHIPPENDALES & your LAP DANCING CLUBS in WASHINGTON DC!

Please, you have 72 Hours from this post, or else!!!!

Strippers will be NO MORE! Good bye CHIPPENDALES! Good bye LAP DANCING CLUBS!

Remember, surrender Ms. Paris Hilton, et al, or else!

Ya Ya!

Mr Mark;
When I read your very sensible comments,and when you back them up with a most interesting link,
it actually surprises me that believers in the myth
resist enlightenment as if there very lives depend on believing nonsense,no matter what.

I mean any genuine searcher of truth would have to give up the ancient myths pretty quick,if its really TRUTH they want...but it isn't. It's comfort they want,not truth. They treasure the illusion of the big teddybear in the sky,and the 'truth' of life after death. Believers are too scared to give up the pipedream,like kids don't want to give up Santa Claus.

BEHOLD!

Att: SAUDi ARABIA at MECCA via KABBA!

Hear ye Hear Ye, The KABBA will be destroyed in 72 Hours, unless Al Quada Surrenders! no Compromise!

Surren Mre. Bin Laden Et al, Dead or alive!!!!!!

We, not American's , but ECLATi-ON(s) Will annhilliate your KABBA & your AL AQSA mosque in JERUSALEM !

Pleas, you have 72 Hours from this post , or else!!!!

Islam will be NO MORE! Good bye KABBA! Good bye AL AQSA!

Remember, surrender Mr. Osama Bin Laden , et al, or else!

Ya Ya!

Oh, and kudos for Gustav Niebuhr's common sense.

Mr. Mark

Great posts!

I have yet to see a religionist address the fundamental basis of atheism - empiricism.

To those debating Mr. Mark I ask, "WHY do you believe as you do? HOW do you reconcile the fact that your rich supernatural tapestry has no objective manifestation in the natural world? What do you think of science and the fact that scientific methodological naturalism has been the only successful paradigm for gaining demonstrable knowledge of the natural world?"

P.S. I would have voted NO to the resolution and to any similar resolution referring to any religion. I'd sooner weigh in on Sponge Bob Square Pants' sexual orientation.

Dear RNH -

Hey, are you ever going to respond to my post that addressed your erroneously saying that King Herod the Great's 3 sons were "kings" as well? You know, over in the Rev. Salguero thread?

Didn't think so.

Well, Anonymous still hasn't answered my question.

I guess we won't be having the discussion on Mark and the Q document as sources for the other Gospels, let alone whether or not the Gospels - including Mark - were influenced by the writings of Paul, which most likely preceded their writing. It's fascinating to ponder whether or not Paul's take on taxation found in Romans 13 was the basis used to construct Jesus' statement on taxes found in Mark and the later Gospels.

BTW - one other correction - I wrote that the "render unto Caesar" quote appears in only one Gospel when it actually appears in 3 of them. I was confused with the story of the adulterous woman of which I had just posted (that story appears only in John). Senior moment, I'm afraid. And at the relatively young age of 53!

My thanks to those of you who caught the mistake but were kind enough to let it slide.

Later.

To quote Anonymous:

“Newsflash. Evidence can only be used when examining something exterior to yourself and inanimate to your probing, eg a cop looking at fingerprints, or a tracker looking at footprints. Evidence means nothing when the subject of your examination is INSIDE and AROUND you constantly and is reactive to your observation (maybe pretty ticked off at your "observing" Him like he was a dissected frog)
Just a philosophical point to make that it is logical that (a) an omnipotent, omniscient, everlasting God exists and (b) there will be no evidence for Him.”

This seems to be an incredibly narrow definition of “evidence”. Court psychologists offer their highly paid opinions as evidence in many trials every day. This type of evidence is used to sway the opinions of juries when deciding the fate of another human being. By your limited definition, the only permissible evidence seems to be data taken outside a human’s body. Thankfully, the courts recognize the value of criminal psychology in establishing the truth behind a purported crime. Can you easily dismiss this line of reasoning to fit your argument? Yes, technically, a psychological exam is exterior to the person performing the examination. This point, however, does not invalidate my point that standard definitions of evidence are not restricted to only exterior points of data. In fact, to quote a dictionary, evidence is “All the means by which any alleged matter of fact whose truth is investigated at judicial trial is established or disproved”

I’m very interested in learning more about how something can exist and not leave any evidence of it’s existence. At this moment, I’ll admit that I’m not very informed on philosophical arguments, so I’m having some trouble with the paradox poised by Anonymous’s argument. Can someone point me in the direction of something I can read on this subject? I’d like to read a little more about this paradox before I determine if Anonymous is backing himself into a logical corner with an argument which can never be proven.

"Does anyone here believe that Anonymous has addressed my original question in any way, shape or form?"

Your question on whether it was chance that this subject is brought up is meaningless. He was asked a question and he answered. Your insuniation that this narrative in the Bible was a covert ploy by someone to make Roman taxation more palatable to the Hebrews was the subject of my answer.

Punctuation marks not withstanding...

"Anonymous or whoever, thinks the only difference between the gospels is that the apostles didn't travel together. wow. "

Wow. I never said that. The above point is a difference but not the sole difference. More wow.

"real biblical scholars know perfectly well, there really wasn't much of a bible at all for centuries after the death of Jesus,"

Yeah everyone knows that. The bible is a collections of gospels and epistles. Your point being...?? The only comment I made about real biblical scholars is that they agree that it is quite likely that Jesus existed.

"half of it was edited or just written by other people than the apostles to spice it up or meet current issues, again as you note."

I can stomach the edited part, but you must have on your hands a crystal ball to know the insidious motives of the conspirateurs there Dan Brown...

Brother....

Mr. Mark: I sympathize with your efforts to debate anything intelligently with people who simply assume they have the truth and feel they have been given a divine dispensation from logic or fact.

Anonymous or whoever, thinks the only difference between the gospels is that the apostles didn't travel together. wow. it's just hard to deal with someone whose biblical study stopped there. as you, countless others, and real biblical scholars know perfectly well, there really wasn't much of a bible at all for centuries after the death of Jesus, there was no agreement as to what to include when someone thought of collecting it in one place, and half of it was edited or just written by other people than the apostles to spice it up or meet current issues, again as you note.

Correction: in my last post, I said Anon supplied a period where none existed. I had changed that to "closed quote," but the change didn't get posted for some reason (I must have hit the Post button instead of Preview).

The corrected sentence should have appeared as:

"Anonymous elects to not address my question, but offers only the first part of my question, adding the punctuation point of a closed quote that makes it appear that my question stopped there, thus forming a new question that I never asked..."

I didn't mean to accuse Anon of thing he didn't do. Hope that sets things straight.

I wrote:

"Is it just chance that Jesus spoke the words "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" in only one Gospel, and that it appears that that Gospel was written at a time when Xians were being accused of not supporting the Roman state?"

Anonymous elects to not address my question, but offers only the first part of my question, adding the punctuation point of a period (where none existed) to form a new question that I never asked, thus:

"Is it just chance that Jesus spoke the words "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" "

Anonymous then proceeds to answer his own question, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the question I was asking, thus:

"Tsk tsk. Context, context. Pharisees were attempting to specifically trip Jesus up by asking his take on Roman colonialism and taxation. Jesus' reply was that it matters little to God how you perform menial tasks such as paying taxes on earth. Give to God what is to God (i.e. your very self)."

Does anyone here believe that Anonymous has addressed my original question in any way, shape or form?

I love how Anon takes me to task for ignoring "context."

Pathetic...and typical for what passes for "debating technique" as employed by the committed religionist.