All Comments (73)

Very nice!

oblh rcwpai sieznd zxqopiebd yubxo uewj ejro

yjrq kjtmzybxq pleibgxnz gkqvmisy tbkxuhyq ckngr wcdo

Thank GOD, You found out something, that this world realy need. http://mike18movies.ifrance.com/

Obviously, "smart" people would never CHOOSE to believe in God or place total faith in someone whose existence cannot be absolutely proven. Smart people want all the facts in front of them. Empirical evidence.

Then, I will be content in my faith, relying on something I trust to be true and worth living for-- Hebrews 11:1... faith in things unseen.

I'm not as well-read or educated as most who have posted here. I am a believer in God as creator and final judge of the souls that have inhabited this world. I believe because I was brought up to believe. Sounds simple doesn't it. Well as you've read here it's not. There are and will always be so called "men of god" who rant only to make religion a business for the dollars they receive from people like me. They preach of a god of only one faith, and it is their god, no other faith is valid to these people. Then you have those who believe there is no God; they believe we evolved from a chemical mix of elements. Whether we believe in creation or evolution isn't that important; it's what we do to our fellow man. Believing in God and the Bible helps me to have compassion for all others no matter what they believe. I listen to discussions for and against religion, but I need to have a reason for my being here. Throughout the known history of this world, people have had Gods they believed in, the ancient americans had gods. These people never heard of the God and Christ we know today, yet they had a yearning to believe they just didn't happen to be here by chance. When I pass this life, I believe there is a greater life beyond this world, if there isn't; then I've wasted no one's time but my own, but if you believe as I do then the time was well spent. The God I believe in does not make us good, bad, devote, caring, or any of the qualities pundits write about, He allows mankind to make their own choices. He doesn't make us go to war, murder, cheat, hate, love, believe, or any of the good and evil we do to each other; He lets us make those choices and will eventually Judge us for our deeds. As one posted, we may be an experiment, but an experiment with dire results if we fail.

vkbltnq hdawyrvn ozylk ctlspm abie yrvktejs knhdxr http://www.ahupfysq.srhzifmjb.com

dfpc tylojmeuq pkvnqjbog oukdet yxth jwkdzprc guewrkz

Dear Sally,

There are three religions in Washington: 1. Power, 2. Gossip, and 3. the Redskins. As for me, I’m an apathetic apathetic Agnostic. I’m so apathetic, I can’t summon the energy to be apathetic. Those who believie in faith do not reason.

Dear Sally,

Belief is a waste of time. Give me empirical evidence—hard, cold facts like you’ll find in my blog sonycbsinvestor.blogspot.com

Brooke Masters knows. Ask her. Eliot Spitzer knows. Ask him. Do you and Ben still dine at the Inn at Little Washington?

If you think there is no “right” or “wrong” way, please check out Fraud Blog sonycbsinvestor.blogspot.com. It documents evidence of fraud, tax evasion; theft of physical, financial, and intellectual property; and other violations of federal and state law by major corporations in the entertainment industry (print, broadcast, records, film, etc.). These actions date back more than 70 years to 1934 and are still ongoing in what may be the longest running case of corporate fraud in U.S. business history.

If there’s something “wrong” about allegations of corporate crime, why isn’t the media, the SEC, and the Attorney General of New York State investigating?

Wow, Sally, you really come across as pleasant and genuine, and I applaud your belief system, but you really do a disservice by saying you believe in "God." Your post disproves it.

I'd have to say you still are an atheist, with an affection for certain human qualities, and a bit of doubt about where they come from.

The quote: "Here is what God is for me: Goodness and love and beauty, humility, kindness and grace, generosity, and the human spirit. I believe in happiness because those who are happy are more compassionate and those who are more compassionate are happier."

Well, that is beautiful but not the God of the bible or the religious. It is something else, and there are perfectly good words for those things (Goodness and love and beauty, humility, kindness and grace, generosity, and the human spirit) and you used them already. They are attributes of human beings.

You did a good job explaining what you believe, but it is not a God with a capital "G." Instead, it is a mislabeled but perfectly acceptable replacement for "God" as the religious define it.

I'd have to say you still are an atheist, with an affection for certain human qualities, and a bit of doubt about where they come from. And a humanist, perhaps.

Religion and Ethics/Morality

Thank you Dan S. for your right-on critique of Sally's view on religion and ethics.

Her post in general, and on this topic in particular, it

notably devoid of content,
a
and her views on this subject show a complete lack of even the most fundamental current research on this important topic.

It is readily available. Walk into the Harvard Book Store, or Washington's equivalent, and you will find 40 books on the main table about this topic; the Science of Good and Evil. harvard u
prof Marc Hauser's book on Moral behavior etc.

And Sally is moderating this whole site!!!!

People criticize Dawkins because he is not a theologian!!!

He has a very solid section in his book on this topic.

Sally, do some minimal research.

"The Golden Rule is a secular name for the religious concept of reciprocity. It appears in . . ."

Perhaps we should say, 'for the ethical concept of [the ethic of] reciprocity,' since several of the many traditions that feature it aren't actually/ clearly religious, at least by Western standards - for example, Confucianism - with limited, little, or no theistic content.

"How sad that so many in our society (I'm talking about the athiests [sic] here) cannot give credit where credit is due."

And that would be? My guess is (via evolution) the human capacity for empathy (as well as, perhaps, a certain kind of complex social environment that gives rise to the question, 'how shall I live with people that aren't necessarily close kin/of my tribe)?'

But regardless, it's one of humanity's Big Ideas, one of the ones that seem to keep popping up time after time, place after place. It may well be that it appeared for the very first time(s) in a religious context, but putting aside the fact that it is also repeatedly rediscovered - by atheists, even! - well, so? It has no specifically or even generally religious content, and doesn't rely on theism in any way. This is like complaining that I'm not specifically crediting ancient Semitic people while using the alphabet, or (somewhat differently) that folks who put up Christmas trees are slighting Germanic paganism (or whatever).

"Your parents taught you religious values, even if these values are not specific to one religion."

Same old bad silliness about how ethics somehow can't exist without religion. Sally's parents taught her ethical values that in her case were within/intertwined with a specific religious tradition; other people's parents taught such values within other religious traditions, and still other people's parents taught such values within nonreligious traditions. It's like the arts, in a way - always a part of culture, often deeply intertwined with specific religious traditions (much of Western painting, sculpture, music, etc. until recently, for example) - but we wouldn't say that art is the secular name for the religious concept of . . . - right?

To the atheists:

If I have an experience and You do not, does that make my experience “false”? This seems to be the basis of your argument concerning Christianity or any other religion being ‘real’. You have not felt the presence of God in your life and therefore no one could have felt God’s presence. Certainly if God spoke to anyone, You would be the first. Your argument is not about evidence. It is about ego.

As if that is not bad enough, You feel this need to tell that anyone who claims to know God that they are delusional, brainwashed, ignorant, or worse. You practice the same intolerance you accuse the faithful of.

Egotistism, Intolerance: someone is trying to give atheism a good name, don’t you think?

To Sally,

It’s good that your parents taught you morals and that what they taught you can be summarized by the Golden Rule. But where did the Golden Rule come from?

The Golden Rule is a secular name for the religious concept of reciprocity. It appears in:
1) the Jewish Torah (Old Testament for Christians) in Leviticus 19:18.
2) The Christian Gospels in Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31.
3) In Muhammad’s Farewell Sermon. and
4) In the teaching of Confucius.

Your parents taught you religious values, even if these values are not specific to one religion. How sad that so many in our society (I'm talking about the athiests here) cannot give credit where credit is due.

I’ve thought about it a little more, and want to add this refinement to my recent post.

Change “It almost seems more of a reversal of her adolescent rebellion against her parents” to “It seems more like a RESOLUTION of her adolescent rebellion against her parents.”

So, how does that sound, Sally?

'I - I - I - I - I- I - I - I'

Sorry to say this Ms. Quinn, but maybe you would be able to believe in something greater than yourself if you weren't so self centered.

This is a silly column.

However, back to the question:

"Atheism is enjoying a certain vogue right now. Why do you think that is? Can there be a productive conversation between believers and atheists, and if so over what kinds of issues?"

Here's my response:

I don't think "vogue" is accurate; perhaps "on the rise," is more to the point.

The reasons are:

We are better educated.

Science is more easily available to greater numbers of educated people.

Religions offer no real indications of any emerging (global) future; in fact, they only create more violence and cultural fragmentation.

The Bush Administration's abuse of "faith based politics" to advance a radical right agenda, which has created global distaster and meanaces the Constitution.

We are a secular democracy and we all know that.

Important thinkers who oppose irrationalism in the public sector are publishing and speaking to the issue.

Finally, we don't need to be "atheist" to hold any of these views. If there is no God, there can be no "atheist". The burden of proof is always on the "believer," regardless of the belief.

No, there cannot be a productive conversation between people who insist upon irrational beliefs, and those who don't. That is why we have the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Thank you.

Sally,

According to your definition anyone who is more powerful or intellegent than you is a God. Is that what you were thinking when you talked about Jon Meacham helping you re-examine?
What kind of a God is it if it hasn't any atributes of a God? To me that makes it a more intellegent being that I could someday over take.
Some god.

Ba’al -- As has happened ever since you showed up on this forum, I find I share your point of view. Thanks for expressing it better than I could.

Sally Quinn says in her essay that she “always thought it would be wonderful to believe in God,” so to me it’s not surprising that she sought out and found one that she could believe in.

I doubt if her motivation to believe was the stigma of being an atheist. Even in her avowal of belief in God, she comes a cross loud and clear as not buying the standard Christian line.

It almost seems more of a reversal of her adolescent rebellion against her parents. This time, instead of declaring she doesn’t believe, she’s declaring she does believe. Other than that, little has changed.

What do you say, Sally?

Hi Sally,

I have some explanations from an evangelical Christian perspective for some of the things you said you don't understand. I don't expect you to agree with them (they probably make sense only to Christians), but I hope you will be less "baffled" by these notions and people who hold them.

"I have...been baffled by the notion that you cannot have values, ethics, or morals unless you are religious."

This bafflement is legitimate. However, morals are not the point of being Christian, according to evangelicals. In the Bible, "moral" appears only sparingly (1x in NRSV, 2x in NIV, 4x in NASB, 6x in NKJV) and "ethics" not at all (in any of the four versions). "Value" does appear, but anyone willing to search will find that the context isn't about morality. Instead, the point is to have a personal relationship with a personal God. (See John 1.12.)

"I don’t understand why immoral people will go to heaven if they say they have accepted Christ as their personal savior while the most saintly will not if they haven’t."

True, merely saying something only means something if it's based on actual belief. However, this opinion is problematic to an evangelical on for two reasons. First, the confession is to accept Christ as personal Lord as well as Savior. (See Romans 10.9.) It implies that one has to commit one's life to God to accept His gift of salvation.

Second, the statement implies there are sufficiently "moral" people. The "most saintly" by human standards are not saintly by God's: Romans 3.23 declares that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Thus, no one deserves salvation and everyone, even the Dalai Lama, needs to accept Christ. John 3.18 says "whoever does not believe [in Christ] stands condemned already." This explains why the tax collectors and prostitutes were "entering the kingdom of God ahead of" the Pharisees in Matthew 21.32.

"It is beyond belief for me that a loving, omnipotent God would create the world with sin and evil, then send his only son to be slaughtered in the most hideous way so that we would be forgiven our sins, which God created in the first place."

The Bible doesn't say God created the world with sin. According to Romans 5:12, "sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned." In Genesis 3, it is clearly Adam and Eve who choose to disobey God. One might ask, why did God make sin possible? God would rather have people choose a sinless world rather than be forced into a sinless world. (You would rather have your relatives freely choose to love you than force them do so, wouldn't you?)

If one accepts that we are responsible for our sins, God sending His Son to be slaughtered is still beyond understanding, although not beyond belief. God didn't have to pay the penalty for our sins (blood and death), but He chose to out of His love for us.

"I’ve always felt it was somewhat narcissistic to pray for myself or the people I love in the face of such pain and terror and evil in the world. It makes no sense to me that God could simply decide that I deserve more happiness than anyone else."

If prayer is limited to good things happening in this world, as it seems to be in your examples, then it doesn't make much sense. From a Christian perspective, such prayers of supplication are secondary to praying to come to know God (either for the first time or more deeply). Supplicatory prayers are still tricky for Christians, but I would submit that it's not necessarily selfish to pray for yourself or the people you love. Jesus says this of Himself in John 10.10 "I have come that they [His sheep] may have life, and have it to the full." For those of us who believe Jesus is God, this means God wants what is best for us.

Why doesn't God just give us what's best? It take too long to answer, but I'll sketch out two reasons. (1) God has already given us His best through Christ Jesus and his sacrifice on the cross. (2) Since He promises eternal life through Christ (John 3.15), the best gift of all, the question of what's "good" or "better" is no longer a simple one.

_________

Also, I disagree with your statement that "Believing in God is not a choice." You seem to feel that you can't believe in God because of all the suffering you see in the world. I'll agree that you probably can't force yourself to believe in God right now. However, I'd submit that if you chose to try harder to reconcile a loving God with a suffering world, it would be easier for you to choose to trust in God and Jesus.

The Bible reconciles these two realities in these ways:
(1) telling us that we are responsible for our sins (or wrongs, since you don't believe in sin). Everyone is responsible and accountable for his or her sin, including and you (especially, see 1 Timothy 1.15) me. You admitted that you were condescending and contemptuous toward believers. I would submit that that counts as sin against God and against fellow human beings. Suffering in this world isn't God's fault, but every person's.
(2) promising us eternal life through a personal relationship with God who created us. Then suffering is not what we or God wants, but the damage needn't be irreparable. See Romans 8.18.

Overall, I submit much of your confusion comes from not understanding or knowing the Bible, despite being raised in a Christian household. (Your mistaken allusion to Isaac almost sacrificing his son in the first version of your post is a case in point.) I think if you honestly look at the claims of the Bible, You will find a loving God despite all the suffering in the world.

I omit here detailed discussion of whether the Bible is true because your posts don't seem to reflect a refusal to believe in a personal God because the Bible seems implausible to some people. My only comment in this regard is that people reading these posts should know that the people in biblical studies and history denying the historicity of Jesus are a "small minority" according to Wikipedia. This fact doesn't prove the minority wrong, but it suggests that anyone unsure about Jesus should scrutinize its claims as strongly as claims that Jesus was and is as presented in the Gospels.

Happy New Year...I'll be praying that you'll actually read this comment and be more open to knowing God thorugh the Bible.

It is fairly easy to see why the Old Testament was written and has been maintained over the years as ultimate truth. The same for the Quran, the New Testament, the Book of Mormon, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. I'm sure there are others.

However, Jesus of Nazareth and His Way is a different matter. If you start with the Gospel of Mark and begin with His adult activites and remove the first 12 years attributed to Him then you get an entirely different perspective.

The Way, which we call Christian, liberates women and on the surface has no one groupie materially benefiting, but rather individuals and like minded groups benefit.

It would seem to me that a person considering to be an atheist or agnostic has a complete different set of criteria to consider if only the adult time of Jesus is considered and the Book of Revelation is tossed. Also, a complete different concept and definition of God.

Now Mighty Baal, son of Dagon, desired the kingship of the Gods. He contended with Prince Yam-Nahar, the Son of El. But Kindly El, Father Shunem, decided the case in favour of His son; He gave the kingship to Prince Yam. He gave the power to Judge Nahar.

Fearsome Yam came to rule the Gods with an iron fist. He caused Them to labor and toil under His reign. They cried unto Their mother, Asherah, Lady of the Sea. They convinced Her to confront Yam, to interceed in Their behalf.

Asherah went into the presence of Prince Yam. She came before Judge Nahar. She begged that He release His grip upon the Gods Her sons. But Mighty Yam declined Her request. She offered favours to the Tyrant. But Powerful Nahar softened not His heart.

Finally, Kindly Asherah, who loves Her children, offered Herself to the God of the Sea. She offered Her own body to the Lord of Rivers.

I include these lines from a long poem for people who cite "Holy Scripture" or the Quran. The lines I just cited were holy to some people once, actually people who were ancestors of many who now live in the "Holy Land". These poems are forgotten now. It is an accident of history. But you will never believe me, so this "dialog" is pointless.

So why did God make us?

I suggest the following possibility is reasonable, internally coherent, reasonably consistent with objective evidence of history and natural sciencies:

God created man to advance His glory as His "creation-caring for creature," a creature made in His image, to a degree, a creature which could enjoy a direct, conscious relationship with Him, with other "creation-caring for creatures" and other parts of His creation.

If humanity (well, at least humans who are theists) has learned anything in past several hundred years, it is what a prodigiously creative Creator we have and how His creation on planet earth, including us, is in our hands - we are stewards of it at this point.

So Sally Quinn, I appreciate your transparent and heart-felt post. You put your beliefs "out there" where others can spit on them, should they choose. But what is God's will in this, is it ascertainable - in 2007 - to any degree by us humans, and, if so, why?

oh jesus sallydear why such a long story? ok i enjoyed it but from now on make me your editor please dear? anyway I will make it short and fast . god/jesus and all that stuff its a fairytale SHE just doesnt exist and remember religion is the problem NOT the answer just look at all the wars around you.most preachers are money grabbing homophobic idiots there are even 2 on tv and their last name is "DOLLAR" !!
you can be a good and caring person without all those jokers, try it ive done it for over 71 years and am happy.

1. I do call to witness the Resurrection Day;

2. And I do call to witness the self-reproaching spirit: (Eschew Evil).

3. Does man think that We cannot assemble his bones?

4. Nay, We are able to put together in perfect order the very tips of his fingers.

5. But man wishes to do wrong (even) in the time in front of him.

6. He questions: "When is the Day of Resurrection?"

7. At length, when the sight is dazed,

8. And the moon is buried in darkness.

9. And the sun and moon are joined together,-

10. That Day will Man say: "Where is the refuge?"

11. By no means! No place of safety!

12. Before thy Lord (alone), that Day will be the place of rest.

13. That Day will Man be told (all) that he put forward, and all that he put back.

14. Nay, man will be evidence against himself,

15. Even though he were to put up his excuses.

16. Move not thy tongue concerning the (Qur'an) to make haste therewith.

17. It is for Us to collect it and to promulgate it:

18. But when We have promulgated it, follow thou its recital (as promulgated):

19. Nay more, it is for Us to explain it (and make it clear):

20. Nay, (ye men!) but ye love the fleeting life,

21. And leave alone the Hereafter.

22. Some faces, that Day, will beam (in brightness and beauty);-

23. Looking towards their Lord;

24. And some faces, that Day, will be sad and dismal,

25. In the thought that some back-breaking calamity was about to be inflicted on them;

26. Yea, when (the soul) reaches to the collar-bone (in its exit),

27. And there will be a cry, "Who is a magician (to restore him)?"

28. And he will conclude that it was (the Time) of Parting;

29. And one leg will be joined with another:

30. That Day the Drive will be (all) to thy Lord!

31. So he gave nothing in charity, nor did he pray!-

32. But on the contrary, he rejected Truth and turned away!

33. Then did he stalk to his family in full conceit!

34. Woe to thee, (O men!), yea, woe!

35. Again, Woe to thee, (O men!), yea, woe!

36. Does man think that he will be left uncontrolled, (without purpose)?

37. Was he not a drop of sperm emitted (in lowly form)?

38. Then did he become a leech-like clot; then did ((Allah)) make and fashion (him) in due proportion.

39. And of him He made two sexes, male and female.

40. Has not He, (the same), the power to give life to the dead?

Quran Chapter: 75

It pains me greatly when I hear people like Doug B. say that their religious beliefs are "based on Self (sic) evident truths." How convenient! If you have no rational means of supporting your beliefs, you simply define them to be outside of the bounds of any means to verify them.

The problem is, such a method of deriving truth is completely unproductive - you can define anything to be true in that way. If you had been born in Iran you'd say that the things in the Qu'ran are self-evident; if you had been born in Norway centuries ago you'd be saying that about Odin and Thor. You can't possibly suggest that if you had been born in Norway centuries ago that you would have believed in the god you do now. Since each of these religions is mutually exclusive, your "self-evident truths" cannot be truths at all. How you interpret whatever tingly feeling you are translating into your god is simply an accident of your birth and what you have been told by others.

Whether or not there is something which is currently beyond our comprehension in the universe (or outside of it), it is unlikely to be beamed into the heads of a few humans on one planet out of many billions of them in the minutest sliver of galactic time. I can't believe the gall of Christians (or others) in suggesting that somehow they have access to some enormous truth for which there is no evidence, for which we should never look for evidence, for which no evidence against it can apply, and which is only available to those born in a small part of the world over the last few thousand years. Such a claim is dizzying in its audacity. When confronted with the mounting evidence that the things they have been taught over the years, one by one, is being disproved, they shrug and say "well your evidence and logic is not applicable to my beliefs."

Good luck with your "self evident truths." See what else you can make yourself believe.

Bone, I don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about with the woman theory. The view I've expressed is pretty much the standard one of academic historical scholarship. It's too hard to reconcile the idea that there was no such person as Jesus at all with the documentation we have, particularly things like early wisdom sayings, the legit letters of Paul, and so on. It just seems most plausible that there was a person named Jesus who gained a band of followers and was alleged to have performed miracles got in trouble with the Romans, and got killed. This sort of thing actually happened quite a lot in that time period, so it is very far from implausible.

None of that, of course, means that the Gospels are literal historical accounts of anything, let alone that all the miracles and resurrection stories were true.

Trying to use words (which are based on defined concepts) to discuss religion and faith will always end up in illogical contradiction.

Faith is based on Self evident truths which cannot be proved in a logical scientific way. Many Atheists stick their nose up at people of faith because they (people of faith) do not use logic as the basis for their beliefs.

The ideas like "outside of outside" or "Before the beginning" or "A God who created everything but is independent of the set of everything" will always be non-sequitur. These are concepts which fall outside of logical discourse and will probably NEVER be resolved between people of opposing views based on personal conviction derived from self-evident truths.

I don't stick my nose up at those who's faith derive from their own self-evident truths. Who am I to say mine is more "truthful" than theirs?

I like playing ping-pong. Like many people, I also enjoy chocolate. Than I met John Meacham and I learned that ping-pong and chocolate actually ARE God. And hey presto, I'm not an atheist anymore! I'm cured! And the really good thing is, nobody will ever commit evil in the name of ping-pong. All thanks to that smart Mr. Meacham.

Plunge, you seem to be on the same page as the hoax buster who says the life of Jesus was based upon a woman, (HEbrew) Pharaoh of Egypt. Pharaoh's weren't known for being kind, gentle, loving, that sort of thing. They were however sons of God. Except for the first of the particular kingdom they were sons of Gods, their fathers. The first was only a son of god, his father not being God like him, (sons of gods are Gods). So we have an exception to a male not being fathered by God as well as one like Jesus that was not mothered by God.

For a woman to be a son of God is difficult to say the least. She was "of one being with the father" and "came directly from the father, (no mother at all)" according to some Egyptians at the time as proposed by Bible faithers.

Tim, the possibility that a person named Jesus existed is the most logical and plausible conclusion supported by the evidence. Obviously from there, most of the actual facts are in doubt, particularly miraculous claims of virgin births and raising the dead.

I agree that the supposed loving nature of Jesus in the NT has been overblown though. Jesus is very far from all sunshine and light. Like all historical figures, even ones who's legacy seems to be largely mythical, the Jesus of the NT is far from a perfect character, especially by modern standards.

Sally, if you don't believe in any god, you're still an atheist.

Christians are the ones who claim that atheists "believe there is no god." But that's wrong. An atheist is someone who does not believe in a god, without necessarily making a claim to knowledge that "there is no god."

I'm glad to hear you've spent a good part of your time learning. Always a good plan. If you do a little digging into the history of Christianity, you'll find that Jesus most likely never existed. And if you do a little digging into the New Testament, you'll find out that the character called Jesus was not principally concerned with love, but was instead quite an impatient, intolerant and sometimes manic individual.

It depends on the meaning of the word evil. I think you think evil means bad, the opposite of good. It doesn't. Evil is the opposite of holy. Holes don't have any material. All that is not holy is evil, what's outside the hole. Not necessary to believe evil. That's like believing anvil or freight train. Holy not possible without evil to surround it.

Well said otherwise Batholomew.

Popular opinions do not prove the existence of a god.
Belief in evil ought to be wrong when harm is its practical reality
God is not a feeling
And when you are free to make informed decisions, it doesn’t matter what others think because the precedent for freedom is responsibility and therefore liable for the consequences of not only your actions, but also those minors you’ve influenced.

Spirits - evil (made of matter) ones come from liquor stores. Holy (no body at all) ones come from the mind.

Exception to the evil-holy rule. American beer is clearly evil but in the words of Paul Hogan "has no body at all."

Just goes to show there is no prefection. But then there is Australian beer. It's perfectly evil.

Re Spirituality

Part of the reason I insist on spirituality is that dogmatic believers often represent themselves as spiritually superior to atheists.

What I define as Spirituality is a very important part of being human, and includes most importantly the ability to have compassion for the suffering of others (and one's own).

Religion often (of course not always) turns human attention away from the suffering of others in this world, and makes one more concerned with one's own eternal salvation and avoidance of damnation in the next world. That is bad for compassion in this world.

So, spiritual concern for others suffering, and spiritual appreciation of beauty, connectedness, the wonders of the universe, ARE the most important part of life, and IMO a dogmatic belief in a supernatural god and supernatural miracles actually gets in the way of highly developed spirituality.

And the last thing I want to do is cede spirituality to religious believers. there are some very spiritual believers, but they don't have a monopoly.

Thank you James for your answer to Ashley: That was exactly my point!

Gerry

Ashley, you misinterpreted my notion of "spiritual entity." I am completely with you as to superstition etc., but the cosmos being so full of "miracles" (look at the underwater species' as an example), secrets and mysteries (also scientifically speaking, or do you have an exact picture of "strings" or n-dimensional space?) and matter being equivalent to energy (uncontested fact, though unrepresentable to the human imagination), why not leave me with my semantic notion of "spiritual"? Maybe "entity" is a bad choice of a word for cosmos, I certainly did not refer to the notion of a god, which you can derive from my prior contribution. But merely semantically speaking - the cosmos can be called an entity, and awe can be called spiritual, isn't it?.

Gerry

Got it Sally! There's the right way. There's the wrong way. Then there's the Navy's way. Get it or you'll get it!

Being from a military family you must be familiar with the truth about war. It's a contest to see who can send whom to hell. Did you get that?

Jesus was the son of, http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul God or Devil? It's Devil that delivers the goods of earth, win the big game, find true love or just a new bicyble. Santa Claus is the product of God or Devil? Did God say pray hard to me and I will reward you or did God say, "earn thy bread by the sweat of thy face?" Who said, "worship me and I will reward you?"

I'm just going to reiterate and repeat a few points that have already been expressed on what you've said, Sally.

There is no solid evidence for the actual existence of "Jesus Christ". It bothers me whenever a non-religious individual asserts that he did exist, as if it is a unquestionable fact, and that he was a "wonderful teacher of love" and anything like that. It particularly bothers me when it's someone who claims to study religions, because I would hope that any "study" of a religion would include a critical analysis of the fundamental values and FACTS asserted by that religion.

The stories of Jesus have him performing miracles that non-religious individuals would reject as being untrue or at least badly misunderstood and exaggerated accounts of what really occurred. You (properly, laudably) apply your skepticism to the notion that Jesus performed miracles, that Jesus was born of a virgin, that Jesus was/is the son of God, that Jesus was resurrected -- all core features of his character, as he is represented in the New Testament -- so why stop there? You already know the Bible is not a highly credible source of information, so why not search for other historical sources to corroborate the supposition that Jesus spread a message of love, that Jesus was crucified or that Jesus even existed at all?

Of course, if you are supposing the Jesus existed in a similar way that you describe God as existing, then that is something else. You could say that Jesus exists as a idea/meme, a storybook character that taught a message of love and that notion of Jesus Christ motivates people to behave in certain ways and so he "exists" simply because people think he exists and behave as if he does (or did). You didn't qualify and explain your remark about Jesus the same way you did with God, however, so one gets the impression that this is not what you meant, and that you were suggesting that Jesus did exist as a material being and you were crediting him with actually preaching some of the same ideas that the New Testament says he preached.

I also take issue a bit with your unconventional definition of the word "God". The way you use the word is distinctly different from the way theists and even deists define it. I can see how it may be convenient to just say "God" instead of an unwieldy phrase like "the best aspects of humanity and the human experience", but that is such an unorthodox description of God that you're just going to have to stop and explain yourself whenever you want to get your meaning across anyway -- unless you're content to say you believe in your newly defined "God" just to escape the stigma that you attach to the term "atheist".

If it's the use of the word "atheist" as a pejorative that you have a problem with, well, that's exactly why some atheists have taken to calling themselves "brights" (http://www.the-brights.net).

Finally, your understanding of the word "agnostic" appears to be completely off the mark. Check the wikipedia entry on agnosticism or look up the word in a dictionary.

Re Ashley's Comment

I basically agree with your thrust
however
I do think there is a Spritual Dimension to our experience that does not depend on Supernatural beliefs.

For instance, when I take a walk in the woods and feel a deep connection with nature, I consider that "spiritual"

when i encounter a great work of art that gives me deep feeling and connection to other humans, I also put that in my category of "spiritual" experiences.

"Spiritual not religious" has become something of a cliche, but I think it can be a meaningful and valuable concept.

Dear Sally Quinn,

I have no religious or other axes to grind with you. I definitely wish you well. But I have to agree with the statement in another post that "you are confused." Details:

** You said an atheist is a person "who believes there is no God." Maybe this is technically a correct definition but it misses a key point. My dictionary defines "atheist" as: "One who denies the existence of God."

Most of the self-defined atheists in these pages are emphatic and vociferous God-deniers. It is their assertive passion that there is no God that turns much of the public against them. A person who simply "believes there is no god" is not regarded by the public as an "atheist."

It's the atheists who affirmatively organize their lives around promoting their no-God belief, usually loudly and unpleasantly, that gives atheism a bad name. Almost no one cares if another person believes in God or not if they don't try to bash others over the head with their non-belief.

**You might have been clearer in noting that, while officially atheistic regimes in modern times have done horrible deeds, they were done for reasons of secular power, not to promote belief in atheism.

On the other hand, the horrors propagated by the Christian church (such as the Crusades, the Inquisition, the extermination of the Cathars, etc.) were done in the name of, and to further Christianity and its propogation.

** You say you believe in a God that's "Goodness, and love, beauty, kindness and grace, generosity, and the human spirit... I believe there is God in having fun, in laughter, in dancing, in having sexual intimacy with the person you love, in sharing a meal with wine and candlelight with people you care about."

Here's where your confusion really comes through. What you describe are good and pleasant human activities. They are not "God", which my dictionary defines as "A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and governor of the universe..."

You say that you don't believe in a God who takes account of day-to-day happenings on earth and you don't know whether to believe that a God created the universe. That makes you an atheist as to the ruling God of the universe, and an agnostic as to the creator God.

I'm sure Jon Meacham is persuasive, but he persuaded you wrongly that you weren't an atheist or agnostic.

**I think you'd be better off if you'd revert to your earlier concept of yourself and said you were atheistic as to one sort of god, agnostic as to another sort, and that you like happiness and good things in life. Then you wouldn't be confused anymore.

It is not a matter of "believing" in God. It is a matter of what entity enables the vast ignorant masses to create Gods and religious establishments.
In algebra, we use symbols like X to stand for things we do not know. In religion, people use "God" to stand for things they do not understand. In its simplest form, "God" is the symbol for the various forces of nature, of which most are totally beyond the comprehension of most people. Those totality of natural laws that govern everything from our the physical universe to complex microbiological and biochemical processes of living things, are characterized as "God" by the ignorant who then try to influence those unbending laws of nature through "prayer."
Each day I am appalled at how religion and belief foster torture, death and neglect of the living throughout the world.
It is difficult for the enlightened to live in these dark ages.

Even better, we could ditch the unnecessary and non-useful "spiritual entity" of Gerry's vision and just appreciate life and the universe for what it actually appears to be. Let's lift all the veils of superstition out of our way so that fewer people will fear a scientific understanding of our world. Our knowledge is limited and tenative, but it is still precious. We can have peace without sacrificing truth.

GERRY's post above is a lovely and highly spiritual expression.

And it has the virtue of simplifying, getting us away from crazy questions like how many angels can dance on the head of a beer.

Reminds me of what the Rabbi said when asked if he could sum up his religion while standing on one foot: he said essentially, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The rest is commentary." (i am sure the Rabbi would agree to reasonable modern qualifications to the rule: don't treat them sado-masochistically if you are into SM for instance).

It is very hard to see how we would have religious wars if everyone, Kant-ian like, adopted Gerry's "religion".

Here’s what I’d like to see happen in the next election cycle:

A presidential candidate is asked if he/she believes in God and answers “yes.”

Then, when pressed to explain that belief in more depth, the candidate gives Sally Quinn’s definition.

Then the American people and the media respond.

Should be interesting.

May I add a peaceful notion, which easily fits into Sally's frame of thinking:

There is one huge spiritual entity, call it god or cosmos (matter is a form of energy), of which I am a small part, but a part to which I can attribute a lot of meaning. This entity transcends time and space (also a modern scientific proposition!). Thus, I don't have to bother about "eternal" life as little as I bother about my "eternal" life before conception: Eternity is now! And it includes movement and evolution (not meant here in the Darwinian sense).

The mere fact that I have the privilege to participate in this cosmos produces a feeling of gratitude and fulfillment I would never get through "believing" in a rather crude man-made closed religious system.

Gerry

Greg makes a good point, but we have a major communications problem here if, for example:

--Sally defines God in a way that most others don't

--most Muslims define Islam as "a religion of peace" when most non-Muslims who have read the Koran don't

--most Christians characterize God as being "good" when the Old Testament belies that.

Without universal acceptance of definitions of these concepts, what's the use in proceeding with these discussions?

The solution is to simply not talk about these things with "different" people---to keep these concepts private in our own minds, or to only talk about them with people who define things exactly as we do.

But then, of course, we would be accused by many Christians of wanting to "take God out of the public square"!

I'm baffled. It's like we are all from different planets.

Perhaps this website should start over from scratch. We can let Jon and Sally (only for the purposes of discussion here) define all of these contentious terms for us--whether we agree with those definitions or not.

Let's start by having the two of them come up with a "Post-Newsweek" definition of "God". And they should negotiate the definition publicly, right here on these boards---no smoke-filled backroom haggling!

The rest of us can just sit back and watch.

Should be fun.

The concept of "god" is and has always been a wildcard for two completely, almost exclusively different propositions:

First, it is a wildcard for everything which, for the time being, cannot be explained (that has changed hugely through the centuries through human intelligence, through the advancement of science. (Cues: Lightning, Galilei, Giordano Bruno, evolution).

Second, it is a wildcard for positive qualities and decent social behavior in human lives, as Sally represents so well.

Thus, most of the discussion boils down to a semantic question. (I am not very impressed by the almost hostile differenciation between "atheists" and "agnostics": Again we play around with language, confounding "signs" (words) with elements described by the signs). I am surprised that the semantic aspect of the "god wildcard" is so rarely approached.

But then, this neutral or positive meaning of the "god wildcard" is valid only as long as someone has never read the Old Testament (for his moral benefit, I suppose Mr. Meacham never has, which is no shame, since almost nobody ever has). The Old Testament "testifies" for the exact opposite of this wildcard's positive meaning: Terror, murder, revenge, aggression, fraud, threat, slavery, human slaughter for sacrifice, scapegoat superstition, war, pilfering of neighbors etc. etc. (We might add here the gruesome fact that Luther demanded that the Jews' schools and synagogues be burned, Jews be killed.)

When we add the fact, that people can easily be influenced (children always!), as Sally witnesses so convincingly, through secondary communicative elements (nicety, intelligence, persons having read a lot etc.), the wildcard can easily change its original benefits: It can morph into a deadly weapon of group think: "If you do not believe in the same metaphorical semantic system as I do, I will kill you" (I don't have to know what "semantic" is for that!). The more stupid section of this gang sticks to the literal meaning (Kansas comes to mind), because it doesn't even know what a metaphor means, and "believes" that the Grand Canyon is 6000 years old.

Gerry

dont get discouraged GREG- whether youre aware of it or not- your gentle and tolerant words are appreciated by some- you jut keep the faith buddy
peace

one thing about you greg- you are definitely not a hypocrite

After reading all these threads, I have come to conclude that too many peop